National Review Joins the Ron Paul Revolution; Iraq? Big Deal!

National Review (and I'll admit I'm surprised) runs an enthusiastic and hopeful "Ron Paul is going to surprise you" piece from frequent reason contributor David Kopel. Kopel witnessed the Ron Paul machine first hand at the Second Amendment Foundation Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) last week and is mightily impressed. Some excerpts:

In 1988, [Ron Paul] was perfectly competent. This time he was electrifying. In 1988, his campaign could do little more than leave some literature on a table. This time, he had volunteers to hand out literature, including (for the recipient audience) devastating material on Romney and Thompson....

Most impressive, however, was the large crowd of young people who showed up to hear Paul’s speech. They were enthused and energized....

I did a lot of work in the Gary Hart campaign in 1983-84, while I was at the University of Michigan’s Law School. In terms of support from young volunteers, Paul is miles ahead of where Hart was before the Iowa caucus. After Hart finished second in Iowa, and then won New Hampshire, his campaign attracted a huge number of students, but not before. Paul, on the other hand, has what appears to be a staunch contingent of young supporters already.

The volunteers loved Paul’s speech, of course, and so did the large majority of the rest of the GRPC crowd. The GRPC activists are very wary of politicians whose pro-gun positions are a matter of convenience or calculation, rather than sincere dedication to the Constitution. The top tier of the Republican field obviously has a problem with candidates whose 2007 positions on guns or other issues are inconsistent with some of their past actions.

....With five million dollars raised in 3Q 2007, it appears that Paul’s message is catching on.

In the handful of campaigns that raised more money in the third quarter, some of the donors were engaging in “pay to play”—raising money from their business contacts in order to buy “access” and influence in case the candidate wins. One can be assured, however, that nobody is giving money to Ron Paul in order to buy 2009 “access” to the Executive Branch. They’re giving money because they want to eliminate about 90-percent of the federal government’s cash and regulatory boodle for rent-seekers......deep down there’s still a hunger among much of the Republican base for someone who will shrink the Leviathan, rather than merely attempt to use it for conservative ends.

Like the Ronald Reagan message (and unlike the Pat Buchanan message), the Ron Paul message is fundamentally positive. There may be some anger about the depredations of huge and aggressive government, but the campaign’s theme is “Hope for America” and its premise is that the American people are good people who can achieve the best for themselves, their families, their community, and their nation when the federal government gets out of the way and stops behaving like a helicopter mother.

.......Is Paul still a longshot? Yes, but so were George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Gary Hart. It is true that Republicans have, for over half a century, nominated whoever was leading in the first Gallup poll after Labor Day. But the past doesn’t control the future. Until 2000, for instance, no-one who had lost the New Hampshire primary had ever won the general election.

Very interestingly, Kopel does not agree with Ron Paul on getting out of Iraq--but he doesn't make a big deal out of it in this almost entirely supportive piece.

If Paul can capture this much regard and affection from other mostly small-government conservative Republicans who aren't with him on the war (though I suspect Kopel is a weird outlier on this) things can get very interesting come primary time.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I too am surprised that the semi-official magazine for the Republican Nationalist-Evangelical Party would be so enthusiastic about Paul.

  • Guy Montag||

    including (for the recipient audience) devastating material on Romney and Thompson....

    Would that have something to do with secret societies and stuff that is heald so close that nobody could reveal it, until NOW . . .

  • ||

    A cynic would say that this is an effort by an Iraq War supporter to make Paul's impressive showing look like a groundswell of support for conservative positions like gun rights and low taxes, rather than as an expression of dissatisfation with the Iraq War and the other candidates' continued embrace of it.

    Sort of like the people who tried to explain November 2006 as an expression of conservatives' unhappiness with the immigration bill and Mark Foley.

  • ||

    Dave Kopel was registered Democrat who cares deeply about gun rights.

    The man's so odd, he makes Glenn Reynolds look typical.

    DK's cool but this be no cause for hope.

  • ||

    A cynic would say...

    But what would joe say?

  • ||

    That he can garner support from people who "disagree" with him on the war, or from "pro-choice" women, or from advocates for gun control, for example, speaks volumes about the current hunger in America for a politician(s) that will speak plainly, and with firm convictions to us. I have prayed for this time to come for almost 25 years now. The rEVOLution is on, and (hopefully) will only continue to build. I truly hope that America does not miss out on such a wonderful opportunity that we have been given to let Ron Paul lead us in the charge.

  • ||

    WWjS?

  • ||

    including (for the recipient audience) devastating material on Romney and Thompson....

    GM said:

    Would that have something to do with secret societies and stuff that is heald so close that nobody could reveal it, until NOW . . .

    No, Koppel reports that it was stuff on how Romney was anti-gun and Thompson was a big supporter of McCain-Feingold. Ron Paul may have a lot of kooky supporters, but he runs his campaign in mainstream, non-conspiracy-theory ways.

  • Fluffy||

    Since the event in question was a gun rights event, Guy, maybe the information had something to do with Romney's support for bans of entire categories of firearms, and Thompson's enthusiastic support of legislative attempts to silence the political activity of gun rights groups.

    From a gun rights perspective, ALL of the frontrunners are douchebags. And I say this as a non-gun-owner, non-member of the NRA, non-single-issue-gun-rights voter.

  • ||

    WWWS?

  • VM||

    There is probably an element of truth in what you're saying, joe - it is not hard to imagine people who were so passionate about the war, became disillusioned, but have an ego defense mechanism that doesn't allow them to (self-) admit fault, so RP might give them an out...

    might RP represent some sort of test: some of his positions default to socially-conservative ones; he is against the war... which effect trumps the other?

  • ||

    Throughout the entire debate season I've been wondering what conservative Repubs would ever see in Rudy (pro-choice, anti-gun, third marriage, estranged kids) and how he has managed to be their leading candidate so far. With the exception of the WoT Paul would, on the issues, seem to be the most desirable Republican for a party that claims to embrace conservatism.

    Apparently, they aren't really conservative.

  • Edward||

    I'll say this about Reason's Ron Paul cheerleaders: they're experts at grasping at straws.

  • Episiarch||

    See, stuff like this causes me to doubt my cynical and realistic gut feeling that there is no way in hell Ron can go all the way or even close.

    One must take care not to believe things just because one wants them to be true.

    It's hard, though...

  • Episiarch||

    And seconds before me, EDWAAAAAAAARDDDDOOOOOO

  • ||

    I'll say this about Edward: he's an expert at grasping his own dick.

  • Edward||

    Reason's Ron Paul cheerleaders are also experts at grasping their own pricks whenever Ron Paul's name is mentioned. This is my last post here. Seriously.

  • ||

    I keep getting the feeling Rudy is a moth headed for the flame.

  • ||

    which, if the hooker who serviced both him and Dondero isn't lying, is rather straw-like.

  • ed||

    One must take care not to believe things just because one wants them to be true.

    Later on this afternoon Paul will be addressing the Chicago Cubs World Series Committee.

  • Minion of URKOBOLD||

    Randolph Carter | October 10, 2007, 11:33am | #
    I'll say this about Edward: he's an expert at grasping his own dick.



    AHHH!

    THAT EXPLAINS IT. EDWARD(ild)OOOOOOOOOOO IS A CARNIE. SMALL HANDS.

  • ||

    might RP represent some sort of test: some of his positions default to socially-conservative ones; he is against the war... which effect trumps the other

    Unfortunately most people who are against the war are democrats, and they will be unlikely to convert to being republican just so they can vote for Paul in the primary. It may be a different story if he makes it to the general election, though I'd put my money on people not letting the opportunity to have nationalized health care slip away.

    Paul needs to trumpet his socially conservative personal views before the primary, and then if he wins the primary, focus on the technicality that he doesn't want to impose those beliefs on people on the federal level.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Very interestingly, Kopel does not agree with Ron Paul on getting out of Iraq--but he doesn't make a big deal out of it in this almost entirely supportive piece.

    Maybe that's because Kopel isn't a libertarian purist? :-)

    There are some things I don't agree with RP on but that doesn't mean I am not "entirely supportive".

  • ||

    This is my last post here. Seriously.

    Hear Hear!! Let's hope he means it

  • Dave Woycechowsky||

    WWjS?

    lol. I wonder this sometimes. Fortunately, he usually tells us.

  • ||

    Edward's posts remind me of French newspaper headlines in the early days of the German invasion.

    Every day they would publish that the French had stopped the German advance at some town - and the town of the day would be 50 miles closer thant the town of the previous day's headline.

  • SPD||

    Edward,

    I certainly hope you will return and express your opinions, since this board is meant to encourage the free exchange of ideas, regardless of whether they are in sync with the majority opinion.

    Look at the beating joe takes on the regular basis, and he doesn't back down!

    You will never be banned or shouted down on H&R. After all, we're not freerepublic.com.

  • ||

    I'm supposed to be thrilled that he has more support among young voters than Gary Hart and George McGovern? Yeah, that worked out great for President McGovern and President Hart.

    Of the people running Paul is the only one I would vote for but that just means I'll be sticking to my new policy of never voting again.

  • ||

    Edward:

    This is my last post here. Seriously.

    Good! The IQ average for the thread will go up.

  • Edward||

    Wow, here come the oh-so-wacky "Urkobold" douchebags chiming in. Try being funny for once. I'm done with you fools.

  • Episiarch||

    Hear Hear!! Let's hope he means it

    Seeing as he didn't the last 10 times, I somehow doubt it.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    See, stuff like this causes me to doubt my cynical and realistic gut feeling that there is no way in hell Ron can go all the way or even close.

    One must take care not to believe things just because one wants them to be true.

    It's hard, though...



    To quote Warty (again)

    Ron Paul needs to stop infecting me with his horrible, horrible optimism.

  • thoreau||

    This is my last post here. Seriously.

    That was the best thing you could possibly say. Now, end on a high note, Edward. End on a high note.

  • Episiarch||

    And again, EDWAAAAAAARDOOOOO chimes in seconds before me, this time to prove me right. Thanks, dude.

  • Guy Montag||

    Later on this afternoon Paul will be addressing the Chicago Cubs World Series Committee.

    ed wins the thread.

  • ||

    Edward, you need to fall on your knees and pay penance to URKOBOLD. HE alone is your troll-mother-father, it was in the URKOBOLD's tortured and vaulty wombage that your troll-self was formed. Do not renounce your own god, or misfortune is sure to follow.

  • thoreau||

    Edward, I wish you knew how to quit us.

  • ||

    Ok Edward, the whole fake quitting thing is getting old. Can't you find something else entertaining to do?

  • ||

    TWC--The war is more than just one thing to agree or disagree with him about; to a great majority of his supporters (and I daresay to many of his GOP detractors) it is THE defining thing about him; to see conservatives willing to support him despite it (tho as I said I doubt Kopel represents a trend) is a Bigger Deal than liking him despite disagreements on, say, abortion or immigration.

  • VM||

    Rein - sounds like a plan!

    EDDIE - (may I call you Eddie?) - first you reject the URKOBOLD. Now this? A THREAT TO LEAVE? (Will you cancel your subscription?)

    Mein gott! Did Mona get gender reassigned?

  • ||

    Look at the beating joe takes on the regular basis, and he doesn't back down!

    Yeah but joe's comments are most often well thought out.

  • ||

    I think part of this is the disillusionment with the Republican establishment in Congress. They took over in 1994 and end up being the same big government addicted crooks that the Democrats are. Paul to his credit is the only really anti-government candidate.

    As far as the Iraq war goes, it really isn't an issue for the 2008 elections. By the end of 2008, the drawdown in Iraq is going to start regardless of who wins the election. The Iraqi government will slowly take over and the war will end with a whimper. There won't be any dramatic withdrawals. There won't be any helicopters leaving the embassy. None of it. The conversation will just change to something else. The anti war side will claim that they caused the reduction of American troops and that spurred the Iraqis to stand up and take over. The pro war side will point to an independent Iraq and few US troops and claim victory and no one outside of a few ideologues will care.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    ...... EDWAAAAAAAARDDDDOOOOOO

    Speaking of Donderoooooooooooo, I have it on medium authority that he has vanished somewhere on Old Mexico. Somebody forgot to tell him that US cell phones don't generally work in Mexico and now he is gone.

    I may jest about forwarding his mail to the Tijuana Jail, but I'm serious when I say that (even today) one does not want to disappear south of the border.

    http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com/

  • SPD||

    Rick,

    True enough, and joe often refrains from using the term "douchebags." It's more that people tend to respond to ad hominem attacks with more ad hominem attacks, and it brings the discussion thread down as a whole.

    So if Edward wants to contribute his ideas without personal comments, and others can respond in a similar manner, then great; so much the better. If not -- well, I certainly don't advocate helicopter nannyism on this board, so I guess the flame war would continue!

  • Edward||

    Reason's Ron Paul cheerleaders are also experts at grasping their own pricks whenever Ron Paul's name is mentioned. This is my last post here. Seriously.

    Just kidding!

  • ||

    Funny, Edward or is the Edweird? You need to look in the mirror

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Edward's Hit & Run lament. Dedicated to us.

    {turns and nods to Tee}

  • ||

    Holy crap! A journalist that didn't interject his own opinion about a certain policy issue and just reported what he saw? FIRE HIM IMEDIATLY!!!

  • Edward||

    What really fascinates me is how you dimwits cannot follow the often repeated advice: don't feed trolls. The troll simply exercises his free speech to diasgree with your bromides and orthodoxies, and it drives you nuts. Why does what I have to say about Mr. Joke Candidate Ron Paul irritate you so much that you can't just fucking ignore it?

  • ||

    it's not what you say, Edward, it's how you say it. repeatedly. You just seem like a sad pathetic loser, and frankly, it's depressing that obsessives like you exist.

  • ||

    Again, we are wacky, VM. I don't know what to make of that. Edward, please explain.

    The Paul campaign will result in a significant shift in the GOP. The war-is-everything crowd and the religion-is-everything crowd are both small minorities of the GOP, and the success of Ron Paul will, at a minimum, get the at-least-as-numerous libertarian elements back at the table. To be ignored and given nothing more than rhetorical support, true, but it beats not even being acknowledged.

    Paul is likely the Goldwater of the 21st century, only without the hawkishness. If he actually wins the nomination or comes close to it, we could see some real discussion of limited government in national political discourse. On the other hand, if Clinton/Giuliani wins the whole shebang, and we may go the other direction. It takes a village to beat the crap out of prisoners and give them free medical care afterwards.

  • ||

    "Holy crap! A journalist that didn't interject his own opinion about a certain policy issue and just reported what he saw? FIRE HIM IMEDIATLY!!!"

    It is kind of funny. I guess Doherty expected Kopel to give the guy no credit for anything and run an unfair hit piece on Paul because Kopel disagrees with Paul about the war.

  • ||

    that has been the "warblogger" and NRO crowd's m.o. of late, John.

  • Edward||

    These stupid threads sure are easy to hijack. You all want to talk about your nutsoid presidential hope, and instead you're talking about me. Fuckwits.

  • Edward||

    My new job is sucking farts out of subway seats.

  • ||

    "Paul is likely the Goldwater of the 21st century, only without the hawkishness."

    No he is Goldwater with Henry Cabot Lodge nutty isolationism. That is going to be his downfall. People want to believe that this country is a great nation. They like to be internationalists. If they didn't, why doesn't a real isolationist ever win an election? Also, if he ever did win the nomination, can you imagine what someone like Hillary Clinton would do to him over some of his statements about 9-11? Not that it would be fair, but the Democrats would destroy Paul over the fact that truthers seem to support him and some of the more vacilating statements he has made about 9-11.

  • ||

    Before the War™, National Review occasionally had involuntary spasms of libertarianism. Why they drank the Iraq Kool-Aid so deeply is beyond me. We fail in foreign policy all the time--so what if this time it involves our military? It's not like we didn't prove that we can defeat most armies in three weeks or less--we did. What the heck's the point of all of this must-be-unified-it's-war crap? Other than a few crazy lefties and extreme anarchists, no one wants the U.S. to have some sort of disaster over there. Well, some of the president's opponents may be a little happier than they should that things aren't going well, but an actual cataclysm does none of us any good.

    John,

    No doubt that Paul holds positions that most of us here have problems with. But his fundamentals are sound, and he's the only candidate I can say that of.

  • Jay D||

    In other news:

    Michigan is an open primary. All the big Democrats [except Hillary] pulled out of the primary. Michigan Democrats can be assured a Hillary win, and if they are feeling spunky, there are no real consequences for going out and putting in a vote for Ron Paul.

  • Edward||

    Did Ron Paul ever fire the staff who put racist comments in his newsletter? What is it about Ron Paul that attracts racists?

  • VM||

    "No doubt that Paul holds positions that most of us here have problems with. But his fundamentals are sound, and he's the only candidate I can say that of."

    well said, ProGLib. Excellent comment!

  • ||

    "that has been the "warblogger" and NRO crowd's m.o. of late, John."

    It is true. Bush finally fired Rumsfeld and actually sent an army into occupy ground and put and end to the whole stay in the camp and use special forces to do targeted strikes strategy and actually did counter insurgency. Wow, it actually works even though we seem to have to re-learn it every 40 years or so. Only time will tell. Maybe a new insurgency will break out his spring and things will go back to square one again, but I doubt it. I read the other day where the US is down to a battalion in Mousul. Absent another huge breakout of violence similiar to what happened in Anbar in 2005, I can't see how the whole thing doesn't just slowly grind to a halt.

  • ||

    John,

    I guess Doherty expected Kopel to give the guy no credit for anything and run an unfair hit piece on Paul because Kopel disagrees with Paul about the war.

    Gee, why would Doherty assume that National Review would do that?

    Have you ever looked at old threads and read what you, personally, you yourself, John, have written about people you disagree with about the war?

    You once called me a "long-time supporter and defender of Saddam Hussein." You've oftern told me I was a racist who didn't think Middle Easterners were civilized enough to support a democracy. You told me I was yearning to see America defeated, looked down on people in the service, and harbored anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

    Face it, John - disparaging people as unstable, unpatriotic, weak, and evil because they oppose the Iraq War has defined the Republican Party for the last five years, from the White House to the leadership in Congress to the RNC to the Noise Machine, right down to Noise Machine-groupies like yourself. And now you're pretending to be surprised that Doherty would expect more the same from an NRO writer?

    Give me a break.

  • Edward||

    No he [Ron Paul] is Goldwater with Henry Cabot Lodge nutty isolationism. That is going to be his downfall.

    Can a cadidate who hovers around 2-3% have a downfall?

  • ||

    "I too am surprised that the semi-official magazine for the Republican Nationalist-Evangelical Party would be so enthusiastic about Paul."

    Don't be too surprised. They also came out against the war on drugs.

  • Edward||

    Sorry--caNdidate

  • Edward||

    Sorry--JOKE caNdidate.

  • ||

    "No he [Ron Paul] is Goldwater with Henry Cabot Lodge nutty isolationism. That is going to be his downfall."

    No, the Republicans' nutty meddling foreign policy will be their downfall.

  • ||

    "I will donate $1,000 to Ron Paul campaign but only if 10,000 other people will do the same, not a $penny$ sooner."

    http://www.pledgebank.com/us-patriot-drive

    Deadline to sign up by: 31st December 2007
    31 people have signed up, 9969 more needed

    More details
    This is a very realistic goal that will virtually ensure Ron Paul republican nomination and then on to presidency.

    10,000 donors of $1,000 each will generate additional $10,000,000 for the campaign.

    !!!No commitment until we reach our goal!!! - that is the ultimate power of a pledge.

    This is the most amount of money any republican candidate can hope to raise (looking at what GOP front runners can bring in). Remember this is in addition what the campaign can raise on its own.

    I understand that this is a lot of money, therefore I don't expect people to just drop $1,000 on the spot before the goal is reached. This pledge has no obligation to contribute before the goal is reached, what so ever! But by signing up, if we do not reach our goal !!!you risk nothing!!!, and if we do, your $1,000 donation will virtually guarantee that Ron Paul has enough money to take the GOP nomination to go on, and be the most honest president in our lifetimes. There will be absolutely no doubt that your $1,000 contribution, once we reach 10,000 donors, will make **unimaginable** difference, therefore make it that much easier to plop down a $grand$.

    In addition, I will make sure that everyone of the donors receives a certificate of patriotism. This certificate will have a special, unbreakable authenticity code printed on it. These will be the only authentic certificates, period, and who knows, someday may carry as much value as prominent awards, all for going way above and beyond for the benefit of United States Of America, the greatest nation on Earth!

    The only thing left is to go out and get the pledges, !!!no commitment!!! until we reach our goal of 10,000 donors. Thats the power of a pledge, you sacrifice only when you know it will make **the** difference.

  • Anonymo the Anonymous||

    It's a shame NRO doesn't have commenting on their articles, because NRO and Edward really deserve each other.

    Speaking of Donderoooooooooooo, I have it on medium authority that he has vanished somewhere on Old Mexico.

    Does anyone doubt that the explanation behind this involves prostitutes?

  • Edward||

    Forget the pledge. Throw your $1000 down the sewer. Ron Pail's racist supporters will pick it up.

  • ||

    Before we start seeing his face on milk cartons, somebody needs to tell the "mainstream libertarian" people that Dunderhead is undercover and posing as Edward on this thread. Location: unknown.

  • ||

    Now we know that Edward is as short of integrity as he is, insight.

  • ||

    "the Democrats would destroy Paul over the fact that truthers seem to support him"

    Most truthers are Democrats. Maybe they would switch over and vote for him.

  • ||

    Paul's astounding fund-raising, inlcuding his absurdly outsized take of donations from people in the military, indicates to me that he is becoming a rallying point for people who are against the war, but cannot stomach Democrats.

    Which is a pretty good chunk of the electorate.

    Jay D, interesting point about Michigan.

  • ||

    I agree that Ron Paul has a small chance at becoming the nominee. First, he's not crazy, anachronistic, isolationist nor extremist.

    The problem with Paul's campaign is that the campaign is too intellectual for the majority of the American populace. The TV-tranced masses want to be told things like:
    We can; and we are going to WIN the war!
    The economy is great and getting better.
    I like the Yankees/Cubs/Red Sox/etc.
    I'll help the government make you rich.


    They don't care about their slipping freedoms.
    They ignore the fact that the government LENDS people their own income to pay for their children's college tuition (in the form of Federal Student Loans). Yes, I'm paying interest on a portion of my parents' income, lent to me in the form of education loans.
    BASEBALL TEAMS were mentioned at both party's debates!
    We have congressional hearings about STEROID USE IN BASEBALL when we have an UNCONSTITUTIONAL WAR GOING ON!

    People need to wake up before they can hear the music. If we keep heading down our current path, the music may be that of the fat lady singing of liberty.

  • ||

    First they ignore us.

    Then they laugh at us.

    Finally, they will fight us. Then we will win.

    Go Ron Paul!

  • ||

    Every day more people climb aboard the RON PAUL band wagon. And we're going to ride it all the way to Washington. Suck it Edwaaarrrddddoooo!

    RON PAUL
    Like Jesus only more powerful

  • ||

    I see David Kopel as a solid libertarian on most matters but he's way confused about foreign policy.

  • ||

    Even if Ron Paul doesn't win, the race he's running, the significant support he's picking up, and the loud applause his anti-Iraq-War comments get at every debate are having a major effect on American politics.

    Howard Dean lost the primary. Anybody want to argue that Howard Dean has not been one of the most politically-influential people in America over the past four years?

  • Edward||

    Nazi Traitor David Duke Supports Ron Paul
    Former Klansman, ex-convict and Neo-Nazi Traitor David Duke supports Ron Paul for President. Ron Paul already has the support of such far right figures as Pat Buchanan and Larry Pratt as well as a 100 percent rating from the John Birch society.

  • Episiarch||

    Every time Edward posts, I can see his hand under the table moving faster and faster. He'll be grunting soon.

  • ||

    However long the Paul campaign train can chug down the track, at the end we need to see the passengers commit to launching new, grassroots, community and campus libertarian educational and activist clubs. Libertarians need to be seen and heard in local communities all over the country, every day, engaged in issue discussion and action. And I'm not talking about the LP and ballot access and finding another candidate to run for Election Judge or get .5% in a congressional race.

  • ||

    God, it's worth sending my $$$ to Ron Paul just to drive Edward crazy. In fact, in general, donating to Paul is the best entertainment investment I've made years.

  • ||

    "The problem with Paul's campaign is that the campaign is too intellectual for the majority of the American populace."


    Yeah, you are just to smart for the dumb hicks. I have never met Ron Paul, so I can't really say anything about him personally. But his problem is that attracts people who have bizarre or outdated economic and Constitutional views that simply do not jive with reality. Most people want their taxes lowered and for Congress to stop stealing their money and trying to regulate every aspect of thier lives. That is it and when Paul stays on that message, he does well and has attracted a few followers. When the cooks come out and start talking about how the country has been going down hill since they destroyed the Constitution to fight the civil war or whatever nonesense, he doesn't look so good.

  • ||

    David Duke supports the breathing of air. Edward, you seem to have a strong sense of principle. Obviously, you will want to boycott air until the Nazis and other racists stop supporting it.

  • Dave Woycechowsky||

    Howard Dean lost the primary. Anybody want to argue that Howard Dean has not been one of the most politically-influential people in America over the past four years?

    1. Howard Dean didn't lose the primary. The Iowa caucus lost it for him.

    2. Howard Dean has not been politically influential since they done him dirt in Iowa.

  • NY voter||

    Did Ron Paul ever fire the staff who put racist comments in his newsletter? What is it about Ron Paul that attracts racists?

    Ghouliani never met with black officals, community leaders, or any other group during his 8 years. That's racist.

    There was a reason Louima claim that Volpe said "it's Guiliani time" was so quicklly and widely believed, Rudy hates and fears blacks for no other reason than their skin color.

  • ||

    Dave,

    Also, Howard Dean raised a ton of money and got a ton of support from the internet. Just like Ron Paul he did everything but actually get someone to vote for him. Politics is pesky that way; if you don't get very many people to vote for you, it doesn't matter how many internet commenters love you.

  • ||

    It takes a village to beat the crap out of prisoners and give them free medical care afterwards.

    Great line! I'll use it (with attribution) in the future, I'm sure.

  • RP supporter||

    Dean was a one trick pony, his only difference was his war stance.

    RP has a lot of differences witht he other candidates, first among which is that he is honest.

  • stephen the goldberger||

    Even if Ron Paul doesn't win, the race he's running, the significant support he's picking up, and the loud applause his anti-Iraq-War comments get at every debate are having a major effect on American politics.

    here here.

    I care about Ron Paul potentially winning, but I care even more about him shifting debate and realigning the republican party with its supposed small gov't foundation.

  • ||

    "Ghouliani never met with black officals, community leaders, or any other group during his 8 years. That's racist."

    Considering the fact that black community leaders especially in New York are almost inevietably race hustling jive artists, I am not really sure what your point is. I am sure Rudy has some bad points doesn't he?

  • ||

    Dave,

    Howard Dean is the Chairman of the Democratic Party.

    Chairman Dean initiated the 50 State Project. Say hello to Senators Webb, Tester, and Whitehouse. Hello, bicameral majority.

    Howard Dean showed the Democrats how to run a "choice, not an echo" campaign after years of Daschle-esque efforts to blur distinctions on issues of war and security.

    The positions, themes, and strategies that have defined the Democratic majority (which controls the shape of political debate in the country) since 2005-2006 are those that Dean brought into mainstream politics in 2003, and made the organizing principles of the Democratic Party in 2005.

  • ||

    John, methinks you don't know what you're talking about. Giuliani has a long history of marginalizing black people and defending their murderers and abusers who work under him in the executive branch in New York.

  • Dave Woycechowsky||

    Also, Howard Dean raised a ton of money and got a ton of support from the internet. Just like Ron Paul he did everything but actually get someone to vote for him. Politics is pesky that way; if you don't get very many people to vote for you, it doesn't matter how many internet commenters love you.

    Another difference is that with Dean I went to a meet-up (my only dabbling in electoral politics beyond voting), but with Paul I registered Republican in the hope I can cast a primary vote for him.

    It will be fun to vote across my party line for Al Gore when the time comes.

  • Dave Woycechowsky||

    Sinecure.

  • ||

    Politics is pesky that way; if you don't get very many people to vote for you, it doesn't matter how many internet commenters love you.

    Tru Dat.

    For example, Republican Congressional candidates in 2006 had a ton of money, and a large, devoted Amen Choir on the internet.

    As they ran against the candidates who were often recruited, funded, and polished up by the Dean machine.

  • ||

    " I did a lot of work in the Gary Hart campaign in 1983-84...."

    Does this mean Mr Kopel is one of those "mugged by reality" types?

    It's fascinating to watch these guys cautiously stick their heads out of the underbrush and say things like, "I'm not sure, but the last six and a half years don't really seem to have worked out as I expected when I voted in 2000."

    Mr Greenspan, for example, suddenly allows (with no mention of his own complicity in the current inflation(!) and other miscellaneous economic bumps in the road) as how the Republicans haven't stayed true to their roots. As for Bush, Greenspan's sophisticated analysis seems to boil down to, "I never really liked that guy."

    Are they just slow learners, or are they preparing to position themselves as advantageously as possible in the next incarnation of the Government Party?

  • NY Voter||

    Nice, John, that's nice.

    So Charlie Rangle is a "race hustling jive artists"? And the 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement group? And the leaders of the largest black churches in the city? I personally might not always agree with their positions, but you gotta talk to the people who are paying taxes when you're a political leader.

    Nah, fuck em, they're all hustlers, you know how those people are.

    So you're hoping for David Duke as Girliani's running mate, I suppose?

  • ||

    Randoph

    He also as mayor helped lower the murder rate by 67%. Most of those vicims are minorities. Ed Koch and David Dinkins, through their incompetance, killed more black people than the Klan ever did. The racist thing to do is to let the race hustles and community "leaders" run things into the ground not actually make the city livable like Giuliani did.

  • ||

    "So Charlie Rangle is a "race hustling jive artists"?"

    You are God damned right he is. He is one step above Al Sharpton. What are kidding me? You surely can come up with a better example than that.

  • ||

    "From 1995 to 2000, civilian complaints of excessive force by the NYPD declined from one complaint per ten officers to one per 19 officers. Meanwhile, shootings by cops declined by 50 percent and were far lower under Giuliani than under Dinkins"

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_rudy_giuliani.html

    It is a myth that the police force was somehow more brutal under Giuliani. The facts just don't bear it out. The difference was when some cop shot someone or beat them up under Dinkins, no one blamed the mayor for it.

  • ||

    John,

    I don't think it's accurate to say that Paul's message requires intellectuals to understand it; rather, it's a message that requires a little more thought than "war good/bad, want free stuff paid for by someone else, protect me from drugs, terror, fat, cavities, smoke". Which is why his message is harder to communicate. Even our hoi polloi find the condensation that spews from other candidates annoying, though.

    As for Dean's influence, I think that it was considerable during and after the last election, but he doesn't strike me as having the influence that McAuliffe did. I also think the Democrats have just as much as the GOP reduced the main thrust of their campaign to war issues. I think a position on the war is important, but I'm certain that most Americans have other issues that are more important to them.

  • ||

    My sense, and there's nothing scientific about it other than talking to my friends/associates, is that war fatigue is an increasing factor among Republicans. Iraq is a truly demoralizing affair, even for the folks who believed in it for a long time, and I don't think it arouses the same kind of passion among non-pundits that it did before.

    Combine that with the overall suckitude and negativity of the GOP "frontrunners," and it's not hard to understand why Ron Paul is gaining at least some support. There's a LOT of unhappiness with Bush in the GOP base, and any candidate that seems connected to his malaise is in trouble, I believe.

    RP is still a huge longshot, but his campaign is far from laughable. He connects with a deeper, more emotionally satisfying conservatism than than the imperialistic, preachy version we've been subjected to over the last decade or so.

  • ||

    Edward,

    Guilt by one way associations is way dumb, even for you.

    BTW-for one to score well on the John Birch society rating, one must vote for/support smaller government and less intervention, both foreign and domestic. Pat Buchanan's criticisms of our government's foreign policy are excellent.

  • ||

    "But his problem is that attracts people who have bizarre or outdated economic and Constitutional views that simply do not jive with reality. Most people want their taxes lowered and for Congress to stop stealing their money and trying to regulate every aspect of thier lives. That is it and when Paul stays on that message, he does well and has attracted a few followers. When the cooks come out and start talking about how the country has been going down hill since they destroyed the Constitution to fight the civil war or whatever nonesense, he doesn't look so good."

    I'm curious about these outdated Constitutional views. Is it the whole "Congress should declare war" thing? Enumerated powers? Please enlighten.

    BTW, which cooks are coming out for RP? Gordon Ramsay?

  • Fluffy||

    "But his problem is that attracts people who have bizarre or outdated economic and Constitutional views that simply do not jive with reality."

    This is asinine.

    The acceptable range of debate over the meaning of the plain language of the Constitution has been narrowed over the last 75 years. This narrowing has been accomplished largely by the efforts of leftist statists [who don't want to have to re-fight political battles they previously won] and also by conservatives who simply have no fucking balls and are so terrified of what they perceive to be the political damage that would arise from a reconsideration of the New Deal and the Progressive agenda.

    "Your views on the Constitution are outdated" is a coward's substitute for an argument. What it's really saying is, "Please shut up about the Constitution guys, because if the Democrats think you don't accept the modern regulatory / welfare state they're going to come beat us up and I'm scared and want my mommy."

    Every line of the Constitution is open for discussion every day. Every court decision and every precedent and every line in the Federal code is open for discussion every day. And not wonkish discussion about technical details, either, but fundamental discussion starting from zero. Stare decisis means shit to me.

  • x,y||

    While Kopel's piece was nice, we have a long way to go to convince the war-mongering NR types:

    This is Jim Geraghty on Paul after the debate:

    "UPDATE: I forgot Ron Paul. That's for two reasons. First, with so many candidates on stage, the fourth or fifth guy in that lower tier is easy to forget. Second, the Vast Conspiracy To Keep Down Ron Paul told me to leave him out.

    I had wondered if he would make a bigger splash, or seem higher-profile, as he's now rolling in dough. Eh, not so much. It's nice to hear a guy come out and say he doesn't like any subsidies for anybody, but in the end, Ron Paul is playing on a different field, and competing for different voters than everybody else.

    As I just noted in conversation with one of the strategists for one of the candidates, actual debates are rare at both parties' debates. Among Republicans, Romney thinks Giuliani should bleed over the line item veto, Hunter's tougher on Communist China, and Paul wants federal government to be trimmed to about four employees. Beyond that, the policy differences are pretty small."

    This speaks for itself.

  • x,y||

    And here's the link:

    http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/

  • ||

    People from Texas who've never been to New York are going to define any black Democrat you name as a "race-hustling con artist," NY Voter.

    Oh, excuse me, "jive artist." Not "con." "Jive."

    Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangeld - who can even tell the difference?

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    Well said!

  • ||

    " Ron Paul is playing on a different field, and competing for different voters than everybody else. "

    Stumbling onto the truth.

  • ||

    "I think a position on the war is important, but I'm certain that most Americans have other issues that are more important to them."

    I think you are right Pro. First, the war never really hit that many people that hard becuase most people are not in the military. Second, the war is winding down. It is going to end. Iraq isn't going to become a satillite of Iran or some Al Quada state. It is going to be reasonable functional federal democracy. I think most people get a sense that the worst is over. Why do you think Hillary Clinton is campaigning on domestic issues like health care and savings bonds for babies? It is not because she wouldn't campaign as an anti-war candidate if she thought that is what would get her elected. It is because she gets her news about what is actually happening in Iraq from someone besides Dave Weigel. She knows the war is winding down and is not going to be that big of an issue in 2008.

    Fluffy,

    "Every line of the Constitution is open for discussion every day." We have had that conversation and the people through about 70 years of elections have decided that they don't view the Constitution that way. Thanks for playing. Thinking about things like the Lockner decision are great for college debating societies but get you nowhere in reality.

  • NY Voter||

    You know, I did see I guy who I thought might be selling drugs down the block. He was just standing there near the bus stop sign.

    He was black, of course.

    Hmmm, now that I think about it, I bet it was Charlie Rangle!

  • Edward||

    Ron Paul's charisma and smashing good looks will trump his association with racist loonies and Christian-nation kooks. A new bright day is about to dawn!

  • ||

    Funny to see who's trying to blur distinctions on the war now.

  • Edward||

    Ron Paul on the Christian nature of America:

    From "The War on Religion" by Ron Paul

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

    The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

    The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

  • Richard Dawkins||

    Ron Paul is part of the problem.

  • Urkobold™||

    EDWARD AND RICHARD DAWKINS HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON: THEY'RE BOTH DICKS.

  • Edward||

    "Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion."---Ron Paul

    Maybe one of you Ron Paul enthusiasts can dig up these many references to God in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

  • ||

    Hey Special Edward, get a haircut. You can get a loan from John Edwards for one. I think he has $400 to spare. He sure shouldn't waste it on his campaign.

  • Edward||

    Dodging the question, sage?

  • ||

    Ron Paul's Christian zealotry doesn't bother me. Because on every issue where other politician use some piece of religious argle bargle as pretext for screwing us over, Ron Paul always says "the Constitution does not authorize the government to do that".

  • ||

    "Maybe one of you Ron Paul enthusiasts can dig up these many references to God in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution."

    I don't agree with Ron Paul on this issue. I do agree with him on his noninterventionist foreign policy.

  • ||

    It is even more funny that the only candidate I have seen who has pledged to pull our of Iraq immediately, no questions asked, is a Republican fringe candidate who is polling at like 2%. It is facinating how the Iraq war issue is fading from the scene.

  • ||

    Ron Paul is an absurd longshot, with no possibility of winning the election or even having a significant influence on it.

    Therefore, I spend hours each day trying to make him look bad in the eyes of his supporters.

    Because he's such a non-entity.

  • Edward||

    One Osama bin Laden establishes a theocracy, he'll probably have a non-interventionist foreign policy, too.

  • ||

    Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich are neither Republicans, nor polling at 2%.

    Iraq fading from the scene. Uh huh. That must explain why no one is talking about it.

  • ||

    If Rudy wins the nomination and the evangelicals go third party. Ron Paul could be their man. Think about it, he is pro life, very Christian, a great speaker and has a built fund raising and campagn base. Think about it, who else would they run? Alan Keys? I don't think so. Paul could also pull some from the Democratic Party by advocating an immediate pull out from Iraq, something the Democratic candidate most likly won't be doing.

  • ||

    "Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich are neither Republicans, nor polling at 2%."

    I will give you Richardson, but he is at best a distant third behind Clinton and Obama and Kucinich is more of a fringe candidate than Ron Paul. Yes, no one is talking about the war. They are talking about health care and other domestic issues the Democrats think they can win on. I don't know Joe maybe you need to call them and save them from themselves.

  • Edward||

    "Maybe one of you Ron Paul enthusiasts can dig up these many references to God in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution."--Ron Paul

    "I don't agree with Ron Paul on this issue. I do agree with him on his noninterventionist foreign policy."--Rattlesnake Jake

    Unless Ron Paul is a total ignoramus, his assertion about many references to God in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is a fucking lie.

  • ||

    The People's Priorities: Gallup's Top 10

    Gallup's Editors constantly update their analysis of the American public's priorities for their elected representatives in Washington -- the men and women sent to the nation's capital to do the people's bidding. The Top 10 Priorities list is based on an analysis of open-ended responses to questions asking Americans to name the top priorities for the government and to name the most important problem facing the nation today, plus a series of additional questions in which Americans rate the priorities of the issues and concerns facing the nation today.

    Each of these Top 10 Priorities listed below is accompanied by a capsule summary of what the American public wants its representatives to do on each.

    1. Iraq

    Iraq is clearly the dominant policy issue on Americans' minds. It has been at the top of the list on Gallup's most important problem list since March 2004. By a wide margin over any other issue, Americans say it should be the president's and Congress' top priority.

    http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24391

  • ||

    See what I get for a long lunch.

    Unless Ron Paul is a total ignoramus, his assertion about many references to God in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is a fucking lie.

    You know all about lying. You could be called as an expert witness. Why can't you keep your promises? Oh, that's right, you're a 20 gallon douchebag. Go away, you liar, you fraud fraught gasbag assboil.

    Edward | October 4, 2007, 1:46pm | #
    Fuck you and the rest of your wacky "Urkobold" cronies, PL. In fact, fuck this entire lunatic blog and everyone on it. I'm done with it.

    Edward | October 1, 2007, 10:46am | #
    Fuck this place. I'm outta here for real this time.

    Edward | October 1, 2007, 11:54am | #
    Fuck you SugarFree, this is my last post here.

    Edward | August 31, 2007, 2:48pm | #
    Wow, no sympathy at all for a man suffering the ravages of chemo therapy, but pious reverence for a dead crackpot like Aaron Russo. I'm glad I decided to stop posting in this psycho ward.

    Edward | August 31, 2007, 2:55pm | #
    No, I realy have decided to stop posting here. This is absolutely my last post. I just couldn't resist commenting on the hipocricy. It rivals that of all the family-values-anti-gay Republican gays put together. I'll resist commenting in the future because I won't read this garbage anymore. I'm going to read Finnigan's Wake instead.

    Edward | August 15, 2007, 11:18am | #
    This is my absolutely final contribution to this psychopathic forum. Please ban me.

  • ||

    You miss my point Joe. We are talking about the candidates. Why are they not coming out with plans and pledges to end the war upon entering office? Hell, Hillary Clinton wouldn't commit to being out of Iraq by 2013. Is she that much of a hawk?

    What do you think is going to happen in Iraq Joe? Do you really think the US will just walk away one day and there will be a repeat of Saigon 1975? Do you think a Democratic President want that on his watch? Realisticly, the war is just going to wind down over the next year or two and whoever is President in 2009 will start troop reductions and take credit for "winning the war". Absent some as yet unforseen outbreak in violence, it is difficult to imagine there being a need for this many troops in Iraq by next summer letalone the summer of 2009 when the next President can actually start to have an effect. Thank God, things are actually gettting better.

  • ||

    He also as mayor helped lower the murder rate by 67%. Most of those vicims are minorities. Ed Koch and David Dinkins, through their incompetance, killed more black people than the Klan ever did.

    Questionable. Crime was going down nationwide. He hired more cops, which undoubtedly helped, but without the national ebb of the crime wave it wouldn't have been that dramatic.

    I will give you Richardson, but he is at best a distant third behind Clinton and Obama

    He's also the Governor of New Mexico, for crying out loud. Clinton is an uber-insider and Obama (who voted against the war) is a rock star.

  • ||

    Dodging the question, sage?

    You mean about how much of a knob you are? I's say a pretty damn puny one. There, you happy?

  • ||

    Edward,

    I answered your question about why racists are attracted to the Ron Paul campaign here:

    Ron Paul does have a great deal of support on Stormfront which is a neo-Nazi website.

    The reasons why they support him is that he wants to end Federal Affirmative Action and because he is opposed to the Federal Reserve.

    The reason why they like the affirmative action policy is obvious; no more special perq's for "race enemies".

    The latter is because they view it as him being against the modern banking system which they feel to be controlled by the Joooos.

    This does not discredit Ron Paul; Alot of racists have embraced libertarianism once they saw the state apparatus used "against them". In the days of Jim Crow these guys had no truck with the idea of Freedom of Association until suddenly the laws went from mandating segregation to forbidding it.



    Walter Block once famously tried to convince a group of Neo-Nazi's to become libertarian, telling them:

    You guys should join us. We'll let you have flags. We'll let you have marches. We'll even let you build ovens! You can't put anyone in them against their will, obviously... We're offering you far more than anyone else will.



    Ron Paul is, to a Neo-Nazi, the lesser of 15 evils.

  • Edward||

    Thanks, Tarran. Good points. Still, I worry a bit about a man who doesn't denounce such support. Paul has never really distanced himself from the 9/11 Truthers, and his religious views probably appeal to a whole range of unsavory theocratic types. Aside from his position on the war and taxes, it's hard to understand why libertarians are so worked up about him. Aren't most libertarians secularists?

  • Edward||

    SugarFree

    Many of those are from others posting in my name. I have such presence here that people onot only attack me, they also imitate me. Not bad for a troll.

  • Edward||

    Gee, everybody is avoiding the question of Ron Paul's God references in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I guess not feeding trolls is a very selective practice.

    I wonder if Osam and Ron Paul have ever met. They have a lot of common ground.

  • ||

    Why are they not coming out with plans and pledges to end the war upon entering office? They are. Every single one of them.
    The issue is how the withdrawal will occur and over what timeframe, which is also the remaining debate among most of the public, as you would have read if you'd gone to the link.

    But I will note, once again, that you are now describing as "hawkish" exactly that position - end the war, walk away from the mission, keep a few troops in the area to contain the mess - that you were calling "treason," "cowardice," and "defeatism" when John Murtha was talking about it two years ago.

    Do you really think the US will just walk away one day and there will be a repeat of Saigon 1975? I think the US will walk away, and there will not be a repeat of Saigon in 1975.

    Everybody realizes that the drawdown of troops is that imposed by manpower limitations, as the generals have been saying we would have to do this year, regardless of events on the ground. I don't know who you think you are fooling at this late date with your rerun of the happy talk from 2003 and your pretense that the troop reduction is a response to improvements on the ground, but it certainly isn't American voters.

  • ||

    Well, I enjoyed the article.... But a major GOP member stated last week he supports Ron Paul. I had dinner with this guy who is a neocon who is near a revolt of the neocon agenda. I asked if I could write an article and reveal his name but he stated he wanted to go on record in the weeks to come. When he comes foreward it will be huge news! So very exciting things are happing for Dr. Paul. Let's just count the blessing we have seen thus far and hope more will come foreward.

  • ||

    Edward,

    Some of the most libertarian people I ever met were members of a sect of Christian Fundamentalists who had fled communist Yugoslavia. These guys wouldn't vote. They wouldn't sit on juries. They refused government hand-outs. They had been ruthlessly persecuted by Tito's regime for refusing to serve in the army.

    They viewed the government as a diabolical entity that tried to turn men against God's will.

    Libertarianism is not a religion. It is essentially a renunciation of aggressive violence. You can have a fundamentalist who views homsexuality as evil living next door to a cultist who'se religious rites are based around witual sodomy all living peaceably together if they adhere to libertarian principles.

    As to Ron Paul and thocracy: having read the monthly essays he has written throughout his career, his short books etc, it is clear that whatever his religious views, he is absolutely unwilling to use the state to ram them down people's throats. This is the guy who supported Reagan back before it was cool, then turned around and was the only republican to vote against giving Reagan a congressional gold medal because it exceeded Congress' powers.

    Honestly,Ron Paul's religion appears nowhere in my list of concerns about him. the 'end birthright citizenship' thing is the big potential deal-killer for me.

  • ed||

    RON PAUL
    Like Jesus only more powerful


    It didn't exactly end well for Jesus.

  • ||

    Alas, Kopel shows a naivite not uncommon among libertarians when he writes, "Polls show that about quarter of Americans are libertarians, in a general sense."

    These figures are bogus. They usually come from interpreting as "libertarian" everyone who calls themselves "conservative on ecomomic issues, liberal on social." This ignores that, for example, to many people who classify themselves this way, "social liberalism" actually includes government *prohibition* of private discrimination.

    Any poll that purports to show that a vast number of Americans are libertarian can do so only by stretching the concept of libertariansism beyond all recognition. No movement that had that much popular support would be so politically impotent.

  • Guy Montag||

    Wait! If Ron Paul becomes President does Ohio still remain a State or not?

  • Minion of URKOBOLD||

    TIME TO PLAY, "WHO SAID THIS: EDWARD, OR A SLIGHTLY SCHIZO, NOT-POTTY-TRAINED LABRADOODLE"

    1) ARRRRGGGHHGAGAGAAAAAGAAAAAAA
    EDWARD OR THE AFOREMENTIONED LABRADOODLE
    BBBZZZZZT. IT WAS HELGA, THE NANNY, AFTER SHE GOT A ROOT CANAL

    2) MMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAFGGGGGGFFFFGGGFFGFFG
    EDWARD OR THE AFOREMENTIONED LABRADOODLE
    BZZZT. WRONG AGAIN. THAT WAS ALSO HELGA. FOR THOSE WHO ANSWERED, "HELGA" THIS TIME, THAT'S STILL WRONG BECAUSE THE QUESTION CALLED FOR EDWARD OR THE AFOREMENTIONED LABRADOODLE.

    3) I'M LEAVING THIS BLOG
    EDWARD OR THE AFOREMENTIONED LABRADOODLE
    BZZZZT. WRONG AGAIN. TO LEAVE THIS BLOG IS A PERFORMATIVE, AND THAT PERFORMANCE HASN'T HAPPENED, SO THE ANSWER IS NEITHER. HELGA DIDN'T SAY THAT, EITHER, BECAUSE OF THE ROOT CANAL. STICK WITH ME HERE, PEOPLE

    4) OH LOOK. THE URKOBOLD JACKASSES.
    EDWARD OR THE AFOREMENTIONED LABRADOODLE
    BZZZZT. THERE WAS NO FROTH AND SPITTLE. THAT MEANS NEITHER SAID THAT THIS TIME. WHEN EDDIE (EDWAAAAARRRRDDDD(ild)OOOOOOOOOOOOO) TYPES, IT'S A) WITH ONE HAND FOR SOME CURIOUS REASON - THAT PROBABLY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT HE KEEPS SOME SANIWIPES BY HIS COMPUTER, AND HIS STRANGE OBSESSION WITH PREVENTING YOU FROM ACTUALLY LOOKING UNDER HIS DESK AND B) THE FROTH AND SPITTLE SHOW GIVES HIS NEIGHBORS THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE'S A HOSE LOOSE ON HIS WASHING MACHINE, BUT HE IS JUST SO GOSH DARNED BUSY PHILOSOPHIZING LIKE AN UNTRAINED LABRADOODLE THAT HE JUST SIMPLY IS TOO SHY TO BOTHER THE MAYTAG MAN, WHO, INCIDENTALLY RESEMBLES IN ACTIVITY, THE THIRD BASE COACH FOR THE WHITE SOX.

    5) DEMAND KURV!!!!!!
    EDWARD OR THE AFOREMENTIONED LABRADOODLE
    DING DING DING. THAT'S CORRECT. IT WAS "MATT DAMON".

    SEE, YOU CAN GET IT.

  • x,y||

    Excellent post David T.

    I used to describe myself (in my late high school and early college days) as "economically conservative and socially liberal" when people asked what I meant when I said "libertarian." This sufficed for most people, but I stopped doing it for the reasons you note.

    It bugs me when people say that now, because 9 times out of 10 they:

    1. Support the war on drugs;

    2. Think the state should have a role in licensing marriages;

    3. Don't support eliminating the IRS;

    4. etc.

    All "economically conservative and socially liberal" has come to mean is: I want lower taxes and think gay couple should be allowed to marry.

  • ||

    Edward,

    Bullshit. You liar.

    Many pre-date the spoofing fad. And most of the time you reply to me with a hearty "Fuck You."

    The room is quite smoky from the raging fire of your pants.

  • ||

    Edward:

    Once Osama bin Laden establishes a theocracy, he'll probably have a non-interventionist foreign policy, too.

    Slow-witted Edward has gone from guilt by association to guilt by imagined association!

  • ||

    just to not let this slide, the Declaration Of Independence does indeed have many references to God, though I don't believe the Constitution does. Capital G-o-d, if not necessarily the Christian one. I am not a Christian, btw.

    "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

    "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

    "the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"

    "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

    This isn't really "replete" with references, but it's enough to make the claim serious.

  • ||

    Poor lonely Edward.
    Only sane man in nuthouse.
    Just like ... um, Ron Paul.

  • Fluffy||

    "Every line of the Constitution is open for discussion every day." We have had that conversation and the people through about 70 years of elections have decided that they don't view the Constitution that way. Thanks for playing. Thinking about things like the Lockner decision are great for college debating societies but get you nowhere in reality.

    Way to backpedal and move the goalposts.

    Are libertarian interpretations of the Constitution rejected by many American voters? Based on the election history of the last 70 years, yes.

    But that isn't what you said.

    You said that libertarian interpretations of the Constitution were bizarre and outdated. Neither of those claims can be defended with reference to the outcome of any particular election or series of elections.

    You may as well claim that since Bush won the last two elections, that means that his interpretations of the limits of executive power are the only ones with merit and anyone who disagrees is pushing a bizarre and outdated view.

  • Edward||

    So as long as a religious zealot opposes the IRS, he's ok with you guys?

  • Edward||

    SugarFree

    Your agitation belies your name. I'd say you're on a sugar high.

    I've nenver responded to you with "fuck you," so go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    Paul can think that Jesus is coming back next week so long as he agrees that the government has no official role in welcoming the Messiah back for his return engagement.

    I simply refuse to get bogged down in these tangential issues. Paul has a long history of believing in limited government, as defined by the Constitution. He may think we're currently extreme in our separation-of-church-and-state views without being a theocrat. Even in law school, we discussed quite extensively the tension between the right to free exercise of religion versus the prohibition against establishment of religion. It's a thorny matter, no doubt. But I've seen no sign that Paul's religious feelings have or will interfere with his extremely strong views on limited government and individual liberty. A number of early First Amendment proponents were religious fanatics who wanted to ensure that their minority views were protected, so personal religious belief and political convictions can remain mutually exclusive.

    Paul's not perfect, but he's the best we've got this time around.

  • ||

    "Aside from his position on the war and taxes, it's hard to understand why libertarians are so worked up about him. Aren't most libertarians secularists?"

    Most of his emphasis is on opposition to an interventionist foreign policy. He says very little about the separation of church and state.

  • ||

    I used to describe myself (in my late high school and early college days) as "economically conservative and socially liberal" when people asked what I meant when I said "libertarian." This sufficed for most people, but I stopped doing it for the reasons you note.

    There are different degrees of libertarian, and I doubt you'll find two self-described libertarians who agree on everything. To me, "economically conservative and socially liberal" is a pretty good shorthand way of describing libertarianism to someone of a different persuasion. That's not the philosophical basis for libertarianism, of course, but it pretty accurate states the results, I'd say.

  • ||

    What Temporary K said.

    I'll make the same point I made on the "Toleration" thread below: the doctrine of the separation of church and state was created by Christians, who believed in God, and drew upon the teachings of their churches.

  • Fluffy||

    With regard to the separation of church and state issue, I believe this is one of those instances where Paul chooses to cloak a libertarian position in language that makes it appeal to populists and conservatives.

    [For the best example of this, see his position on free trade: Since Paul favors libertarian-perfect free trade, he can claim he rejects NAFTA as "managed trade". But the logline "Paul rejects NAFTA" plays to protectionist conservatives who don't probe his full position.]

    I think we can judge what Paul means by claiming there is no separation of church and state by examining his proposed voluntary school prayer amendment. He seems to be saying that if the state provides a facility to be used by the public in common, that it should not be able to prevent some of the citizens from employing that facility to a religious purpose. If the state cannot prevent free political speech in a school or on the town green or in a park, they should not be able to prevent religious speech there either. So if children voluntarily pray in school, you can't plead "separation of church and state" as an excuse to stop them. If people meet in a public park and convene a religious ceremony, the state should not be able to claim the right to stop them based on the Establishment clause either.

    It boils down to a fundamental claim that the use of public property by religious citizens does not violate the Establishment clause if the use is voluntary and not mandatory. And it's certainly an interesting argument. Particularly since in Paul's America the public / state area would be so small that its voluntary use for religious activity by some citizens would almost be beneath notice.

    It's a libertarian argument, but because Paul can headline it "Paul opposes separation of church and state" it can appeal to conservatives too. It's just a bit of verbal finesse.

  • ||

    "Once Osama bin Laden establishes a theocracy, he'll probably have a non-interventionist foreign policy, too."

    Is it the responsibility of the US to prevent him from establishing a theocracy?

  • ||

    Rattlesnake Jake:

    Most of his emphasis is on opposition to an interventionist foreign policy. He says very little about the separation of church and state.

    Ron Paul opposes all most government programs and government regulation. And he has the voting record to prove it! Also, he opposes the government funding of "faith based initiatives".

  • stephen the goldberger||

    Tarran didn't have to but he rendered your childish antics moot Edward. How can you seriously claim Ron Paul is going to establish a christian theocracy if you have any clue what he believes in? There are so many other issues where you can try and attack the man, but to claim he's going to blur the line between religion and gov't is just fundamentally ignorant.

  • ||

    Stevo,

    Thanks for that.

    I may have to resort to calling Edward "Jersey McJones in a pant-suit."

  • ||

    BTW Joe,

    Here is the Washington Post on Hillary Clinton position on Iraq,

    It is only when you examine the details--like the fine print in an insurance contract--that you discover that [Mrs.] Clinton's pledge to "get out of Iraq" is far from iron-clad. There are numerous conditions attached. She enumerated some of them in the June 19 Democratic debate when pressed by Chris Matthews. Read the full transcript here. Clinton's list of "vital national security interests" in Iraq turns out to be quite lengthy:

    "We cannot let Al Qaeda have a staging ground in Iraq."


    "We have made common cause with some of the Iraqis themselves in Anbar province."


    "We also have to look at the way the Kurds are being treated."


    "We also have to pay attention to Iranian influence."


    "We will have to protect our interests. We'll have an embassy there."


    "If the Iraqi government does get its act together, we may have a continuing training mission."
    Here are a couple more reasons cited by Clinton for a continuing deployment of American troops to prevent Iraq degenerating into a failed state "that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda." They come from an interview she gave to the New York Times back in March.

    Iraq "is right in the heart of the oil region."


    Leaving Iraq altogether would be "directly in opposition to our interests . . . to Israel's interests."
    Somehow that doesn't sound like a firm promise "to get out of Iraq" or, even less, a guarantee to "end our involvement there."


    I almost hope she wins next year, just so I can welcome you over to my side.

  • ||

    Edward | October 1, 2007, 11:54am | #
    Fuck you SugarFree, this is my last post here.


    It must have been A GHOST!

    You've slipped from simple liar into dissembling and mendacious. A lateral move at best.

    Spin your fairy tales, Oh, Great Bard!

  • ||

    John,

    Once again, you just described the Murtha Plan as "your side."

    You could have spared us all the venom, and admitted he was right two years ago.

    I haven't budged. First Murtha, then Clinton, and now you have come to my position.

  • ||

    Look at the beating joe takes on the regular basis, and he doesn't back down!

    Yeah but joe's comments are most often well thought out.


    Retroactively previewed that for you, Rick.

  • Fluffy||

    Joe,

    I think John is persuasively arguing that Hillary doesn't support the Murtha plan, because the sheer number of qualifications she places on her statements is a surefire sign that she won't change the occupation policy.

    If Hillary is elected, she will produce a litany of excuses why she can't withdraw the troops - even leaving a few behind for training missions - "at this time" or "until we achieve goal X" or "in this new set of circumstances". She's laying the rhetorical groundwork for it now.

    Saying you'll withdraw the troops if your laundry list of concerns is dealt with is not a withdrawal policy. After all, in theory W would withdraw the troops too, if only his own laundry list of goals were achieved. No withdrawal plan is a withdrawal plan if it is in any way hedged.

  • SugarFree||

    I apolgize to you, Edward. Your points about Ron Paul's religious zealotry and association with Birchite loonies are well taken. We libertarians don't have a lot of good talent to choose from, so we go with what's available. We know we won't win anyway, so who really cares? It's just fun to be part of a movement.

  • ||

    If Rudy wins the nomination and the evangelicals go third party. Ron Paul could be their man.

    No, Ron Paul will go back to (IRONY ALERT!) his well-paying government job as a Representative from Texas.

    He's doing his bit for freedom, but he's not an idiot.

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    The relationship between Hillary's position, Bill Richardson's, and George Bush's is comparable to that between Mike Dukakis, Bill Clinton, and Pat Buchanan on affirmative action.

    Yes, there is some daylight between the liberal and center-left position, but they are both miles away from the conservative position.

    There is a big question to answer - should we keep trying to turn Iraq into a client state, or should we stop that? Clinton, Richardson, Murtha, Pelosi and I say we should stop those efforts. Bush, Cheney, McCain, and John say we should continue them.

    It's the difference between a candidate who wants to cut the top income tax rate to 28%, a candidate who wants to cut it to 30%, and a candidate who wants to raise it.

    If, in 2013, we have 2000 troops in Kurdistan and 20,000 in Kuwait, and they occasionally foray into Arab Iraq to attack jihadist bases, then we will have ended our involvement in the Iraq War, and gone back to fighting the War on Terror instead - which is what all of the Democrats are saying we should do, and what all of the Republicans are saying we should not do.

  • Edward||

    but he's not an idiot.

    I think the jury is still out on that one. He seems to see references to God everywhere. Maybe he's got some rare form of dyslexia.

  • ||

    Let me rephrase the Big Question: should we keep fighting a war to establish a client state in Iraq, or should we abandon that mission?

  • Edward||

    Let me rephrase the Big Question: should we keep fighting a war to establish a client state in Iraq, or should we abandon that mission?

    It depends on how crucial a ready supply of oli will be. Greenspan thinks oil was the main reason for invading and occcupying Iraq in the first place. All the rest is just rhetorical cover.

  • ||

    joe,

    If by "establish a client state" you mean stay there forever, make Iraq the 51st state, protect the people's civil liberties the way we (sort of) do here, and establish a robust infrastructure such that we will have an uniterrupted supply of oil, then yeah, we should.

    That's really the reason we're losing. We're not going all in, Naepoleon-like.

  • ||

    Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangeld - who can even tell the difference?

    Seriously, joe - what is the difference?

    [Written mostly to get joe to throw Al Sharpton under the bus in order to make Charlie Rangel look good.]

  • Minion of URKOBOLD||

    DRAWDEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

    LOOKIN FOR THE OLI SUPPLY!!!!!!!

  • Edward||

    Opps, "...how crucial a ready supply of OIL will be..." Talk about dyslexia.

  • SugarFree||

    That's ok, Edward. We all make typos.

  • ||

    Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
    Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
    Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
    America Deceived (book)

  • Edward||

    Ron Paul would let church-dominated states ban Darwin. Everybody knows it's better to have churches run things than the Demon State.

  • ||

    Edward,

    I can't tell - is your comment meant to be descriptive or prescriptive?

  • Minion of URKOBOLD||

    oooh. EDDIE. VIOLATION OF 'jOE'S LAW' - WHENEVER YOU GO OFF LIKE A TWADDLENOCK, YOU'RE GONNA MISSPELL SOMETHING.

    HOW CAN WE BELIEVE THE ED'STER? ED-A-ROONI SAYS HE'S GONNA SOD OFF AND DISAPPEAR, AND EVERY TIME I TELL CATERING TO GET THE CAKE AND PARTY FAVORS READY FOR THE CELEBRATION, THE ED-MEISTER JUST GOES AND PLUNGES BACK IN THE FRAY.

    C'MON EEEEDDDDWWWWAAAARRRRDDDD(ild)OOOOO. YOU'RE KILLIN' US. AND THE CATERING STAFF IS STARTING TO SWEAT IN THE GAZPACHO!

  • Edward||

    "Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government."--Ron Paul

  • ||

    I don't think it's accurate to say that Paul's message requires intellectuals to understand it; rather, it's a message that requires a little more thought than "war good/bad, want free stuff paid for by someone else, protect me from drugs, terror, fat, cavities, smoke".



    Many, many people aren't capable of firing on that many cylinders. Not even close.

  • Edward||

    Joe,

    Descriptive.

  • ||

    Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):



    Hey, everybody, look! The prodigal thread-spamming asshole is back!

  • Edward||

    I wonder whether Ron Paul thniks that we atheists can be moral, civil people.

  • Edward||

    Opps, thinks

  • ||

    Eward,

    Can I take it by your quote of Paul at 4:48 that you are now endorsing him? Because I don't see anything wrong with that quote. A true conservative, IMO, knows that you can never look to the governent to teach you how to be morally straight.

  • ||

    I wonder whether Ron Paul thniks(sic) that we atheists can be moral, civil people.

    Considering the uber-evangelicals that pushed the war in Iraq, I'd say he probably does.

  • ||

    Why does Amazon not sell "America Deceived"?

  • Edward||

    A true conservative, IMO, knows that you can never look to the governent to teach you how to be morally straight.

    Right, but only religious zealots think that morality is the sole province of religion.

  • ||

    only religious zealots think that morality is the sole province of religion.

    Well, since Paul didn't say anything to that effect, I don't see what your point is. After all, he probably knows a lot better than you that good parenting produces better morality than any church ever could.

  • ||

    Rattlesnake Jake,

    This "America Deceived" guy is a comment spammer that's been hitting H&R (and apparently a lot of other sites) for a long time now. He appears to be searching for threads referencing conspiracy theories, then dropping his packaged advertisement and taking off. Here's a list of some of his H&R spamming incidents by date, with professed name and email addresses:

    Feb 9: Hank G (John11724@cs.com)
    Feb 12: Larry Halston (Billdone11722@cs.com)
    Feb 21: Jack D (John11724@cs.com)
    Mar 21: David B (Billdone11722@cs.com)
    May 20: Henry T (John11724@cs.com)
    October 10: Jack (John1724@cs.com)

    A Google search returns a long list of sites he's spammed with this crap. I know Reason doesn't tend to do much IP blocking (note Edward's continued presence), but I'd certainly nominate this guy.

    Another poster, tomwright, posted this about "America Deceived" back in May:

    So far as the book goes:
    America Deceived is published by iUniverse.
    IUniverse is known as a vanity or subsidy publisher, who will publish anything by anyone that wants to pay for it.

    That does not make them illegitimate, but it contrasts them with University and commercial publishers, who publish things that are either of serious interest to various communities, or that they think are good enough to make a profit from.

    Amazon does still list this book, Barnes and Noble do not, even with an ISBN search. Amazon will list things sold by third parties, using Amazons site as a portal. Barnes and Nobel are more discriminating, but not by much. They do list books by iUniverse, Xlibris and other publishers like them. IUniverse has some link to B&N as well, but I am not sure if they are a subsidiary or in some sort of partnership arrangement. So for B&N to not list the book may say something.

    The one review on Amazon states:
    "After reading the first couple of pages it became apparent that this is a vanity press book. No serious publisher would have considered it. The author has no idea of how to write fiction, so he just throws silly ideas on a page . . . beginning with a long list of black celebrities, followed by the n-word. Then a list of events in American history all caused by a family of conspirators. Don't waste your time."

    Looks more like a case of an execrable author on a nutty topic being studiously avoided by the rational.


  • SIV||

    If Paul can capture this much regard and affection from other mostly small-government conservative Republicans who aren't with him on the war (though I suspect Kopel is a weird outlier on this) things can get very interesting come primary time.

    I suppose I'm one of those "weird outliers" as well.I would strongly suggest Dr Paul "Sistah Souljah" the Truthers and firmly and clearly state(for the benefit of those who don't understand him) his willingness to defend the United States.

  • Edward||

    This time I really am going. I have to take a trip (I'm flying first class!) I hope you don't miss me too much. Maybe some other Ron Paul skeptic will take my place.

    Keep the Faith!

  • ||

    Edward,

    Have a nice trip. I've got you covered:

    Ron Paul is from Texas. Look at the lousy presidents we've gotten from there so far!

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    TWC--The war is more than just one thing to agree or disagree with him about; to a great majority of his supporters...

    Brian, I'm sorry that I didn't get that point at first, maybe because I am a little ambivalent on the whole thing. Sick of the war, yes, but not rabid about ending it TODAY. I guess you are correct, the war issue does kind of galvanize both sides, and that makes the observation much more important than simple partisan libertarian ideals about purity.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Edward, how's that new job you mentioned? Is it difficult to suck farts out of subway seats? Do you see yourself moving on to buses? And would that be a promotion? Of sorts?

  • Sherlock||

    I'm pretty sure that there's at least 7 different people posting as "Edward" 'round here

  • ||

    I am Edward!

  • ||

    No I am Edward!

  • ||

    I am Edward!

  • ||

    just to be clear, I'm not Edward.

  • ||

    I am Edward! And so's my wife!

  • ||

    Edward:

    Maybe some other Ron Paul skeptic will take my place.

    The term "skeptic" gives far too much credit to your low rung and frequently ridiculous nay saying.

  • ||

    Edward,

    I hope the diseased cunt that is your face seeps pus forever.

    (The funny thing is, I've never even spoofed the asshole. I just pointed out that he's a liar, an assertion he proves over and over again. It's sad that we've gone from one full-time troll to two.)

  • Paul||

    Here's one for you guys. Click my URL deal. This is the University of Michigan Ron Paul rally that was held after the debate. Keep in mind that Michigan is Willard's home state, and he had to pay "supporters" to show up at Mackinac Island...

  • ||

    Go here to get a tool that monitors the Ron Paul fund raising campaign by the minute right on your desktop!

    http://gibwo.com/ronpaul/

  • ||

    It's sad that we've gone from one full-time troll to two.

    Who's the other one?

  • ||

    Thanks Gerald! That's a very cool Ron Paul fund raising monitoring tool.

  • ||

    I am from Texas, a Republican and a conservative. Ron Paul is a joke and an embarasssment to the great state of Texas. I would vote for a three-legged goat before I wold vote for him. He is not a Republican, he is a Libertarian running as a republican.

  • ||

    inowat,

    What?? I'm a Republican too. Ron Paul is the most pro-capitalism, anti-government regulation candidate running.

    Note that it was Ronald Reagan who said that: "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism...The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

  • If you\'re going to get it wro||

    people who have bizarre or outdated economic and Constitutional views that simply do not jive with reality

    Slackers, all of you who responded!

  • Theist||

    ed | October 10, 2007, 2:34pm | #
    RON PAUL
    Like Jesus only more powerful

    It didn't exactly end well for Jesus.


    It hasn't ended for Jesus.

    Just sayin'.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement