A Ron Paul Republican Asks for the Vote

MORRISVILLE, NC - I'm in Wake County, home of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill,, and Cary, the heart of the Research Triangle, to chronicle some of the final hours of the BJ Lawson campaign. Lawson's the most successful of the wave of Ron Paul Republican candidates who won their party's nods for House seats. The good news for Lawson is that he's out-organizing Democratic Rep. David Price, the incumbent, and he's spent all day talking to voters at a crowded, slow-moving early vote site. The bad news is that Obama is running far stronger than Kerry did, and Kerry won this district. Price is counting on coattails.

I watched Lawson and a few volunteers walk among the voters, handing out Cato pocket Constitutions ("this is the rulebook," says Lawson) and informing them he's anti-war and anti-bailout and that Price is a 20-year incumbent. Not even the Democrats are put off by him. But the tide against the GOP has turned Lawson's affiliation into, as one volunteer put it, a "scarlet R."

"He's trying to change his party," said voter Jesse Benoit, who had talked with Lawson briefly, "which he has to, because it's not his party anymore. I'm voting a straight Democratic ticket."

This district isn't too indictive of the state, and Paul campaign veterans are not the most optimistic of Republicans, but they're not bullish on the ticket.

Lawson's banter with the voters has been fascinating, and I'll post about that a bit later.

Comments

joe | November 1, 2008, 4:59pm | #

So with the Republican Party imploding and a bloody civil war scheduled to begin Nov. 6, "Ron Paul Republican candidates" don't put Democrats off.

It's too bad Paul and Jeff Flake are so...nice. Decent. Gentlemanly.

There seems to be an opportunity here.

obi juan | November 1, 2008, 5:28pm | #

As a "Ron Paul" Republican myself, I was originally optimistic about reforming the Republican Party. But after having watched McCain supporters, particularly those at Palin rallies, I doubt that any reform is possible. And after this election, what with the way the McCain campaign has conducted itself over the last month, reforming the party is akin to shining a turd.

Darel | November 1, 2008, 5:28pm | #

The only hope our nation had was the election of Ron Paul as the GOP nominee.

If McCain isn't able to pull of a win then the GOP will be licking there boots wondering what happened? If so, it may force the GOP to truly become limited government republicans instead of embracing Rockerfeller brand republicanism.

BJ Lawson has been yet another voice to support worth while values instead of the sickness of big government themes found in both parties.

Our nation will truly benefit if BJ is elected and our nation will lose if the voters are not aware of his true values, actions and support of his oath to office as Paul has supported.

May more limited gov Ron Paul republicans upset the established big government leaders found in both parties.

Nathan B Forrest | November 1, 2008, 5:31pm | #

and a bloody civil war scheduled to begin Nov. 6

If'n I get to fight Yankees count me in!

Nigel Watt | November 1, 2008, 5:33pm | #

Lawson probably won't win, but hopefully he can make a run at NC governor with the name recognition.

Nathan B Forrest | November 1, 2008, 5:34pm | #

Too bad the front runner for the Ron Paul wing of the Republican Party is the Alaska Governor.
She is hated almost as much as Dr Paul!

J sub D | November 1, 2008, 5:39pm | #

and a bloody civil war scheduled to begin Nov. 6

If'n I get to fight Yankees count me in!

One ass kicking ain't enough for you? ;-)

Nathan B Forrest | November 1, 2008, 5:45pm | #

They don't make Yankees like they used to JD. I hear at one time Detroit was the manufacturing Capitol of the World.I remember from my grade school history that Boston Massachusetts was once the cradle of Liberty too.

Nigel Watt | November 1, 2008, 5:46pm | #

Too bad the front runner for the Ron Paul wing of the Republican Party is the Alaska Governor.
She is hated almost as much as Dr Paul!

...What?

Nigel Watt | November 1, 2008, 5:48pm | #

Also, Lawson has this awesome ad on the bailout.

obi juan | November 1, 2008, 5:55pm | #

Palin and Paul are nothing alike. Palin is an empty Republican vessel who will say whatever someone tells her to say. She has no underlying political philosophy.

J sub D | November 1, 2008, 5:59pm | #

Also, Lawson has this awesome ad on the bailout.

Damn good ad.

BDB | November 1, 2008, 6:06pm | #

Careful, obi juan. SIV and TallDave will accuse you of being a DailyKos plant.

Nathan B Forrest | November 1, 2008, 6:07pm | #

Ron Paul--small government, fundy evangelical base, pro-liberty, fringe party associations
Sarah Palin--small government, fundy evangelical base, pro-liberty,fringe party associations + has openly praised Ron Paul

mccleary | November 1, 2008, 6:17pm | #

BJ is the single R I'll be voting for this year.

The Independent (the very liberal arts weekly in the Triangle) gave Price a qualified endorsement over Lawson, and tipped their hand with this:

"Depending on your litmus test issues, Republican challenger William (B.J.) Lawson is a viable choice. While Lawson's Libertarian free-market stances and opposition to Roe v. Wade preclude us from endorsing his candidacy, he has many progressive views, including opposing the war in Iraq, strong stands on civil liberties protections, and a disdain for extending to corporations the same legal rights as individuals."

It's all about the RvW and free market...

cunnivore | November 1, 2008, 6:21pm | #

If McCain isn't able to pull of a win then the GOP will be licking there boots wondering what happened? If so, it may force the GOP to truly become limited government republicans instead of embracing Rockerfeller brand republicanism.

No way. The theocons can (justly) argue that McCain had no foundation and just drifted aimlessly through the campaign. They will then (unjustly) say that what the GOP needs is a strong Christian candidate to run on a platform of bringing our country back to God.

And in case you've forgotten, there's way more of them than there are of us. Huckabee, or someone like him, has to be the odds-on favorite going into 2012.

Nathan B Forrest | November 1, 2008, 6:30pm | #

what the GOP needs is a strong Christian candidate to run on a platform of bringing our country back to God

This description fits Dr Paul.Fundy God likes small government, that is why so many of his believers home school.

BDB | November 1, 2008, 6:32pm | #

I can't believe people use RvW as a litmus test.

Vermont Gun Owner | November 1, 2008, 6:41pm | #

I can't believe people use RvW as a litmus test.

Some people go crazy on the subject of abortion. My ex-girlfriend almost broke up with me when I told her I wouldn't help pay for an abortion if she were to get pregnant, but that I would help raise the child. This was after we had been dating for over a year. She wasn't sure if she could date someone with pro-life views. We eventually broke up for unrelated reasons.

mr simple | November 1, 2008, 6:43pm | #

These pat two election cycles (06, 08) I keep hearing rumors about the fundie socialcons breaking off and forming their own party. If this were true it would be an exciting day. I just try not to let my hopes get too high.

Kolohe | November 1, 2008, 6:43pm | #

I can't believe people use RvW as a litmus test.

Yeah, fetuses are slightly alkaline and will skew the results.

Dan | November 1, 2008, 6:46pm | #

The whole "straight ticket" thing needs to go. All it does is allow many voters not to think at all.

BDB | November 1, 2008, 6:47pm | #

I'm pro-choice but think Roe v. Wade is bad constitutionally. If it were a state issue I'd want it legalized where I live, but it is pretty far down on the list of things I care about

And unless you're voting for President or Senate, it doesn't matter. Your Rep. neither approves Judicial appointments nor confirms them, and can't do jack squat unless Roe is overturned.

J sub D | November 1, 2008, 6:53pm | #

And unless you're voting for President or Senate, it doesn't matter. Your Rep. neither approves Judicial appointments nor confirms them, and can't do jack squat unless Roe is overturned.

Article 5 of the constitution (amendments). So maybe, with a Reed Richards stretch here, your rep would matter.

Mad Max | November 1, 2008, 6:55pm | #

"Your Rep. neither approves Judicial appointments nor confirms them, and can't do jack squat unless Roe is overturned."

You can vote for Rep. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act (Details from THOMAS):

Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 1094 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1094
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction

`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on such date of enactment.

SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.

BDB | November 1, 2008, 6:56pm | #

Didn't think of that, J Sub. Still, I don't get people who make it THE issue (cue fundie Christians and raging feminists to scream at me.) If someone agrees with me 90% of the time I'm still voting for them.

mccleary | November 1, 2008, 7:01pm | #

BDB,

I share your philosophy on RvW exactly. There are so many other true violations of freedom, abortion barely cracks the top twenty for me.

Most of my friends are liberals, and I've tried to make the case that a position on abortion doesn't matter for a Rep (whereas bailout & Patriot Act votes do). But for many liberals national legal abortion is an ideological blindspot they can't move beyond.

EJM | November 1, 2008, 7:08pm | #

I'm in Wake County, home of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill...

I hate to say it, but of those municipalities, only Raleigh is primarily in Wake County; Durham is primarily in Durham County, and Chapel Hill is primarily in Orange County. However, Cary (which is now more populous than Chapel Hill) is primarily in Wake County.

RL | November 1, 2008, 7:59pm | #

If there is any hope for limited government, we need a national organization centered on the prinicple of VOTE AGAINST THE INCUMBENT. That's ALL INCUMBENTS. True, we'd lose people like Paul and Flake, but we need a simple, bipartisan principle we can get people to rally around. Obviously, it wouldn't be a 100% effective campaign, but if it converted a 99% incumbent re-election rate to a 60% rate, it would have DC shaking in its boots.

J sub D | November 1, 2008, 8:02pm | #

But for many liberals national legal abortion is an ideological blindspot they can't move beyond.

Are you sure just liberals have that myopic mindset?

BDB | November 1, 2008, 8:14pm | #

It'd be interesting study to see if there are more pro-choice Republicans or pro-life Democrats holding federal office, and how big the discrepancy is.

B.J. Lawson R[evol]ution! | November 1, 2008, 8:25pm | #

http://bjlawsonblimp.blogspot.com/

zoltan | November 1, 2008, 8:30pm | #

Paul's voting base may be fundy, but his national support certainly isn't.

And how exactly is Palin pro-liberty? Was it that bailout support or the millions of federal dollars she accepts for Alaska from taxpayers of other states?

Nathan B Forrest | November 1, 2008, 8:52pm | #

zoltan,

The governor of Alaska has a vote on the bailout in Congress? Go back to civics class 'cause you fucking FAIL.

Ron Paul takes earmarks.For the people who actually elect him to office not the 9/11 Truthers.

Dan | November 1, 2008, 8:52pm | #

...that is why so many of his believers home school.

A lot of people, for different reasons, dislike and don't send their children to government schools.

Elemenope | November 1, 2008, 9:04pm | #

I can't believe people use RvW as a litmus test.
...
Yeah, fetuses are slightly alkaline and will skew the results.

That was a good one; full of win, as it were.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 1, 2008, 9:15pm | #

Wow, Texas Tech is for real this year.

economist | November 1, 2008, 9:48pm | #

While I voted for Ron Paul (and stand by that vote to this day) for the Republican nomination, I harbor no illusions about his chances, even if he had somehow won in the primaries. It would likely be a 1964-landslide in Democratic favor. While some people are pissed at the government for meddling and screwing things up and would be happy for the government to just go away and leave them alone, far more believe the fact that the government screwed things up means the government must now fix everything. They tend to assume, of course, that they will bear none of the costs of the government's efforts to "fix" its mistakes. And so it shall ever more be. Time to strike out for the New World. Sure Antarctica is cold, but it's looking better by the minute. I'm in a pessimistic mood.

economist | November 1, 2008, 9:52pm | #

Nathan B Forrest,
While I tend to come down on the pro-Union side in most arguments concerning the War of Southern Obstinancy, I have to give credit where it is due. The Confederate armies were better at fighting than the Union armies. How else, after all, could the outnumbered, outgunned, isolated side hold out for four years and even score a few impressive victories?

Nathan B Forrest | November 1, 2008, 10:03pm | #

economist,

Your Cherokee kinsman fought for the Confederacy, both from Oklahoma and North Carolina. saturday is a bad day to start it but my Paul/Palin comparison is to remind so much of the cosmo element that a lot of those fundy evangelicals are on the same side- excepting the positive right of Federally recognized gay marriage of course.

Seward | November 1, 2008, 10:18pm | #

economist,

Because the Confederacy only had to defend the homeland. They had all the natural advantages of a defender. Anyway, the Confederacy always depended on foreign intervention to win the war; the fact that it could never string enough victories together to get that is illustrative of the fact that the Confederacy wasn't quite the military juggernaut that many think (indeed, both sides in the first two years of the war went up and down in their confidence due to conditions on the ground).

zoltan | November 1, 2008, 10:24pm | #

The governor of Alaska has a vote on the bailout in Congress? Go back to civics class 'cause you fucking FAIL.

Please go back to reading class. I said "bailout support" not "bailout vote". But no worries, your touchiness concerning Palin doesn't completely give you away. I'm sure Palin has a whole lot more in common with Paul too, like her anti-war stance, her anti-federalism stance on capital punishment, her opposition to drug prohibition, etc. Especially her extensive understanding of economics and international trade. But hey, she can see Russia from her house, so I'm sure throwing a few bottles of vodka over for a couple bushels of fish counts in her mind.

economist | November 1, 2008, 10:43pm | #

Seward,
Actually, the Confederacy, even given the natural advantages of defense over offense, held out surprisingly well against the Union forces. The problem (for them) was that the Union had time on their side. All wars are costly affairs and in those days there were very high rates of attrition. The less populous and less industrial south simply wore out, in part, of course, because they never did score a decisive victory that could put the Union out of commission. This, of course, is the flipside of defense advantage. When your enemy does hit you, he not only strikes your army but the base necessary to replace its human and material resources, while on the offense there is no (immediate) danger to one's base of resources.

John C. Randolph | November 1, 2008, 10:50pm | #

I've been supporting Lawson as much as I can since he first threw his hat in the ring. It was a blast watching him shred the necon prat that the party apparatchiki got to run against him in the primary, and his debate with David Price made it abundantly obvious what a slimy SOB Price is.

The contrast between them was striking. On the one hand, you had a 20-year incumbent pork-barrel shyster, and on the other, you had an honest man who means what he says, and believes that the constitution does, too.

Go BJ!

-jcr

economist | November 1, 2008, 10:52pm | #

NB Forrest,
I honestly couldn't tell you if any of my ancestors fought for the Confederacy. My genealogy is somewhat sketchy. What I do know is that opinions among the Cherokee were divided as to which side, if any, they should take. More divided than most Confederate apologists would be willing to admit. Some argued that by keeping the Union divided, they could effectively stop, or at least slow, white expansionism. The more astute Cherokees noted that the southerners tended to be more virulently anti-Indian than their northern counterparts, and pointed out that it was generally Southern Democrats (such as our good buddy Andrew Jackson) who were most hostile to their interests.

As for the Palin/Paul comparison, I partially agree. While I stop short of saying Palin's pro-liberty, I do, in fact, reject the "cosmotarian" idea that rural fundamentalists are necessarily un-libertarian. In any case, I'm willing to take any allies we can find, even if I don't share their religious inclinations.

Dan | November 1, 2008, 10:53pm | #

Re: the War of Northern Aggression:

Confederate strength: 1,064,000

Union strength: 2,200,000

Confederate losses: 93,000 killed in action; 260,000 total dead; 137,000+ wounded

Union losses: 110,000 killed in action; 360,000 total dead; 275,200 wounded

Given the size number, the navy, the technology, etc., the war really should have ended within six months. The fact it went over four years and the south was winning until two years in in 1863 says they were doing something right.

economist | November 1, 2008, 11:03pm | #

I'm sorry if my refusal to celebrate the Confederacy, Andrew Jackson, and the Old South offends some folks here. I'm not asking for the return of Indian lands or reparations. I'm not stupid, and I think there's a certain point at which one has to let go and move on. I figure several generations fills that criterion. However, it's one thing to accept the less flattering aspects of the past and quite another to celebrate them. The Confederacy was ultimately devoted to the institution of slavery. Many of these slaveowners also owned land that they had seized, some of it just thirty years previously, from Cherokees, Creeks, and other southern tribes. They fought hard and well, and they still got beat. I'm happy to leave all that in the past as long as everyone else is.

economist | November 1, 2008, 11:13pm | #

Dan,
While I fully support your right to free speech, could you possibly consider, in order to boost your credibility, using a less slanted term to describe the conflict between the American states called by most historians the Civil War? I'm perfectly happy to use the term "War Between the States" rather "War of Southern Obstinancy" if you'll reciprocate.

economist | November 1, 2008, 11:14pm | #

Last sentence should have read "'War between the States' rather than 'War of Southern Obstinancy'". And by reciprocate I mean that you drop the ridiculous "War of Northern Aggression" schtick.

Nigel Watt | November 1, 2008, 11:15pm | #

Look, I'm a huge fan of secession, and I'd love for my home state (Texas) to secede, but the Civil War was a contest between two really douchey governments.

zoltan | November 1, 2008, 11:42pm | #

This Texan agrees with Nigel.

Seward | November 1, 2008, 11:45pm | #

economist,

Actually, the Confederacy, even given the natural advantages of defense over offense, held out surprisingly well against the Union forces.

The Union had to defeat the Confederacy; the task of the former was much more difficult than that of the latter.

The problem (for them) was that the Union had time on their side.

That depends on how things turned out on the ground; I'm not the first to note this but if the Confederacy wins at Antietam than that likely means the entry of France and Britain into the war in an effort to end it. So depending on the timepoint the Union did not necessarily have time on its side.

________________________________________

Dan,

The fact it went over four years and the south was winning until two years in in 1863 says they were doing something right.

The Confederacy's star rose and fell and rose again prior to Gettysburg, however, the Confederacy had been severely punished in the West during 1862 and had been losing the war there since the early part of that year. The eastern portion of the war is too often overemphasized.

_______________________________________

economist,

Well, the Confederacy couldn't even live up to any sort of commitment to limited government. They were the first to use a draft in the war, they were a state which censored the press and the mails (then again, that had been happening in the South for several decades prior to the war), their taxation efforts were oppressive in nature, etc.

zig zag man | November 2, 2008, 12:01am | #

"Wow, Texas Tech is for real this year."

As a Texas Tech Alum (BA '89 / MS '92) I got a real kick out of that comment, especially after savoring the last minute win, what a game!!!!!one eleventy111!!!

Texas Tech 39

Texas 33

economist | November 2, 2008, 12:01am | #

Seward,
Where here do you see me seriously defending the Confederacy on limited government grounds? On any grounds, for that matter? I just pointed out that they put up a hell of a fight.

John C. Randolph | November 2, 2008, 12:43am | #

The fact it went over four years and the south was winning until two years in in 1863 says they were doing something right.

The South had Robert E. Lee, and many other extremely talented commanders. They also had a considerable advantage in morale, since a large number of Union troops were conscripts who had little interest in trying to conquer another country.

The New York draft riots are a fascinating story.

-jcr

John C. Randolph | November 2, 2008, 12:46am | #

economist,

A civil war is when two factions fight for control of a country. The south didn't want to control the north, they just wanted the north to withdraw their troops from southern territory.

I think a more accurate description would be "Lincoln's war to overthrow the Republic."

-jcr

Brandybuck | November 2, 2008, 1:27am | #

So if the Republican Party implodes, what replaces it? The Democratic Party is wholly statist and giving them one party rule is frightening. But the other parties are fringe parties. Yes, dare I say it, even the Libertarian Party. It's too busy having a conniption fit with the Barr nomination to be of any value. If the Republican Party goes, then there is no home for anyone interested in smaller government.

Nigel Watt | November 2, 2008, 1:32am | #

Brandybuck: Are you predicting a new "Era of Good Feelings", except run by the Democrats? That would be horrific.

cunnivore | November 2, 2008, 1:34am | #

Mad Max, that bill is blatantly unconstitutional. Congress can make laws to assign certain courts as the initial court for certain types of cases, but it can't remove issues from the purview of the judicial system entirely.

It shouldn't take too long for you to think of some really bad things Congress could do if it could unilaterally cut the SCOTUS out of the checks and balances loop by simply passing a law.

cunnivore | November 2, 2008, 1:46am | #

What a crock of baloney. The South attacked legally purchased Union forts and attacked Union territories in the west. Lincoln was a tyrant for sure, but let's not paint the Confederates as a bunch of enlightened 19th century libertarians. Far from it.

Brandybuck | November 2, 2008, 2:08am | #

Brandybuck: Are you predicting a new "Era of Good Feelings", except run by the Democrats? That would be horrific.

Worse. It's only thing to have the Dems in the White House, Congress, and busily stacking the courts, but it's quite another when there's not even an opposition party to voice an objection. A couple years ago I was naive enough to think that a third party might have a chance, but now it looks like we might have to be doing year-round ballot access drives just to get a second party on the ballot.

John Cosmos | November 2, 2008, 5:56am | #

So BJ is looking at what? 30-35%?

( sorry to change the subject from neo-confederate abortion beliefs)

Shane Brady | November 2, 2008, 8:48am | #

I interviewed BJ Lawson here:

http://www.mevio.com/shows/?sId=17755&mId=4624148

He sounded like just a plain old republican to me.

BakedPenguin | November 2, 2008, 9:33am | #

Shane, a "plain old Republican" wouldn't say this:

As a physician, I am particularly appalled by our treating drug abuse as a criminal offense rather than an individual medical problem. A particularly egregious byproduct of federal drug prohibition is our inherently unjust way of prosecuting these "crimes" and administering sentences, as rates of drug abuse and incarceration provide ample evidence for institutionalized racism. I reject the idea of incarcerating potentially productive individuals for making choices that hurt only themselves.

In Congress, I will work to end federal drug prohibition and federally mandated drug sentences. These policies are unconstitutional, disproportionately punish the poor and disenfranchised, and empower an underground economy of dangerous criminals that further destabilize disadvantaged communities. Changing our destructive drug policies will create a more just society by reducing crime and violence, reducing rates of drug addiction, and reducing the expense and long-term economic damage of imprisonment.

Chris | November 2, 2008, 10:29am | #

Whoa whoa whoa... did Palin fight during the Civil War? Or Paul? Oh, I see, I'M AN IDIOT.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 10:41am | #

Alaska was in the Confederacy Chris, c'mon.

I mean, you can see Richmond Va from Alaska.

economist | November 2, 2008, 10:47am | #

Plus, MNG, it's well known that Alaska is somewhere in the southern United States. I think it shares a border Finland, or Italy, or something.

kritarchist | November 2, 2008, 10:50am | #

All the pro-choice people are okay with abortion; they weren't aborted, after all. It would be so annoying having to defend the right to life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness (their own) is all they can handle. Hey, two out of three ain't bad.

JanissaryAustin | November 2, 2008, 11:16am | #

Thank you Nigel Watt & Zoltan: Texas secedes, DC recedes.

joe | November 2, 2008, 12:08pm | #

Alaska was in the Confederacy Chris, c'mon.

Well, obviously. They're both Real America.

Nigel Watt | November 2, 2008, 12:54pm | #

Thank you Nigel Watt & Zoltan: Texas secedes, DC recedes.

As long as we keep forbidding the legislature to meet but every two years, we'll be golden.

Brandybuck | November 2, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Alaska is a rural state. The southern states are all rural states. They're not enlightened cosmopolitan places like California or New York or Massachusetts. Evil evil red states. Don't trust anyone who doesn't commute two hours a day on packed freeways.

June | November 2, 2008, 12:55pm | #

re Roe v. Wade

While I'm strongly pro-choice (on everything), I'm willing to take my chances at the state level without R/W. Personally I think the 13th amendment covers the issue. Seems to me that if a woman does not voluntarily choose to carry a fetus for 9 months she has been placed in a position of involuntary servitude even if that fetus is granted the status of full humanity. I sure wish that those folks who oppose abortion would stop spending their money on accomplishing their goals politically and use it to find a way to remove a fetus in viable form so someone else can choose to become responsible for it.

BDB | November 2, 2008, 1:51pm | #

"Alaska is a rural state. The southern states are all rural states."

Dude, VA, NC, and GA will have more electoral votes than OH or PA next census in all likelihood .

BDB | November 2, 2008, 1:52pm | #

And Michigan will, have fewer, too.

Dan | November 2, 2008, 2:51pm | #

"He's trying to change his party," said voter Jesse Benoit, who had talked with Lawson briefly, "which he has to, because it's not his party anymore. I'm voting a straight Democratic ticket....."

Finished Jess Benoit: "...I don't like all that heavy thinking and stuff. I just vote based of them party labels."

Stefan | November 2, 2008, 3:09pm | #

Regardless whether he wins or not Lawson is poised to perform much better than previous Republican candidates in the traditional Democratic district and he is already attracting a sizable Democratic and African-American vote, that will vote for Obama and Kay Hagan, but for Lawson vs Price in the district. Lawson also raised much more than previous GOP candidate, more than 550 k. His online campaign has been phenominal,
and he also has one
www.davidsprice.com and a Democratic friend has constructed the following:
http://democratsforlawson.blogspot.com/

joe | November 2, 2008, 3:54pm | #

The southern states are all rural states.

Um, what?

Evil evil red states. Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida are about to elect Barack Obama.

Don't trust anyone who doesn't commute two hours a day on packed freeways.

The worst traffic in America is in metro-Atlanta.

Read a book, Brandybuck.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 4:13pm | #

OK, if no one else is going to defend Roe v. Wade...

First, it's nice to just say that those support it must be for murder. Of course those who support it don't see it as a murder. Neither did the Bible or the common law, neither of which treated the killing of a fetus as murder. So it's not like a far out idea. It's actually a common sense idea that the fetus in the early stage is not equivalent to a person. Most people who are pro-choice think that persons have rights but that personhood is tied to some level of sentience and rationality.

Second, the ruling itself is pretty defensible I think, especially if you think Griswold was rightly decided. If you want to argue Griswold was wrongly decided then be my guest, we can take that issue up.

Brandybuck
Pretty much every red state has crowded "cosompolitan" urban areas (Atlanta, Kansas City, Charlotte, etc) while pretty much every blue state has a large rural area (you mean to tell me Maine and Vermont are urban?). C'mon man, spit out the kool-aid.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 4:14pm | #

The Bible (Old Testament) gives the penalty for the negligent killing of a fetus and it is in no way commensurate with the killing of a person.

If I have to look it up I can, but let's hope we can proceed from here.

BDB | November 2, 2008, 4:16pm | #

Alright, who else is watching Fox News on Tuesday?

*raises hand*

VM | November 2, 2008, 5:34pm | #

"Finished Jess Benoit: "...I don't like all that heavy thinking and stuff. I just vote based of them party labels.""

ah, yes, Jess ascribes to the "TallDave" and "Meletary Loier" voting method!

Mad Max | November 2, 2008, 7:24pm | #

"Congress can make laws to assign certain courts as the initial court for certain types of cases, but it can't remove issues from the purview of the judicial system entirely."

Dr. Paul's bill did not such thing. It reserved abortion cases for the state courts. Liberal state courts would still be able to protect the sacred right to choose abortion, but if any state court actually decided to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. and the right to life, then the federal courts (including the Supreme Court) would be powerless to intervene.

The Constitution, in Article III, sets out the *maximum* extent of federal judicial powers, but does not require any federal court (including the Supreme Court) to wield jurisdiction in any particular class of cases - that is up to Congress. Even in the case of the Supreme Court - a court established by the Constitution, not by Act of Congress, the way other federal courts are - Congress has the power to make "Exceptions" to the Supremes' appellate jurisdiction.

Congress has wielded that power from the very beginning. In 1789, the first year the Constitution was in operation, Congress (which included Madison and many of that crowd) denied appellate jurisdiction to the U.S. Supreme Court when the state courts had upheld a federal claim. For instance, if the state courts struck down a federal law,there would be no appeal to the Supremes, no matter how wrong-headed the state courts were. This wasn't changed until the Progressive era.

The reason the Constitution allows Congress to create lower federal courts and define their jurisdiction is to achieve better *substantive* results than the state courts would reach if they had jurisdiction. If, in any class of cases, the federal courts aren't producing the right substantive results, Congress can limit federal jurisdiction.

In state-law disputes among citizens of different states - which comes within federal-court jurisdiction under Article III - Congress has limited federal court jurisdiction based on the amont of money in dispute.

In cases involving labor rack - I mean, unions - Congress has curtailed federal court jurisdiction in the Norris-LaGuardia Act, because they didn't like the federal courts issuing injunctions against peaceful union picketing. The Supremes held this to be perfectly constitutional. Dr. Paul simply wants a Norris-LaGuardia Act for unborn children, stripping the federal courts of the jurisdiction they have so badly abused.

Mad Max | November 2, 2008, 7:30pm | #

(Note - When I mention "liberal" state courts, I mean liberal in the modern sense, not liberal in the classical sense of supporting liberty.)

Mad Max | November 2, 2008, 7:31pm | #

change "if the state courts struck down a federal law" to "if the state courts struck down a *state* law or *upheld* a federal law."

Thank you.

Mad Max | November 2, 2008, 7:35pm | #

So, for the first century of our history, if a state high court declared a federal statute constitutional, there was no appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, no matter how unconstitutional that statute might be. Conversely, if a state high court found a statute of their own state to violate the Constitution, that was final, and the U.S. Supreme Court could not review the case. Congress changed this after the New York state high court struck down a state law against (I believe) certain labor conditions. It was believed that the U.S. Supreme Court might be willing to uphold such laws even if the NY courts wouldn't.

hmilton | November 2, 2008, 7:35pm | #

BAD news for PA from Associated Press: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry By P.J. Gladnick November 2, 2008 - 07:26 ET Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview. The result? Nothing. This audio interview vanished. Here is the transcript of Obama's statement about bankrupting the coal industry: "Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. Story Continues Below Ad ↓ That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them."

joe | November 2, 2008, 7:38pm | #

BDB | November 2, 2008, 4:16pm | #

Alright, who else is watching Fox News on Tuesday?

*raises hand*


Sean Hannity, 11:53 PM, November 4: Naw naw naw, not "Gawd Bless America, " "Gawd DAMN America, " thass in tha bah-bul!

BDB | November 2, 2008, 7:52pm | #

I've seen that thing about coal posted like 5,000 times in the comments of every single blog I've read without even a word being changed.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 7:56pm | #

Obama's lead on RCP getting pretty skimpy where it counts.

The Dems really, really did a stupid, moronic thing putting this guy up as the Presidential Candidate. WTF? Reckless, really reckless. the GOP did the best they could by nominating McCain, a centrist who was known for bucking his own party. The Democrats? Oh, we can sneak in an urban politician who is black and has an Islamic name. I'm rethinking this whole conservatives=the stupid party thing...

If Obama loses look for the liberals to nominate a gay unitarian Asian related to Mao. And then complain about the conservatives attacking all that...

Just Plain Brian | November 2, 2008, 7:57pm | #

I can't believe people are talking about that coal thing, and not Obama's Bigger Campaign Blunder

joe | November 2, 2008, 7:58pm | #

That's pathetic, BDB, but funny.

It's pathetic that that's how people think politics work. It's pathetic that that's how they think democracy and activism work.

In the face of the groundbreaking organizing and volunteer and messaging strategies of the Obama campaign, what does the other side have? They spam blog threads with cut and pasted boilerplate.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 8:02pm | #

Can anyone name any state that someone like Mark Warner would have lost this year but Obama will carry?

Other than Iowa I can't think of any.

I can think of some that a candidate like Warner would have walked to victory in though...

BDB | November 2, 2008, 8:04pm | #

"Can anyone name any state that someone like Mark Warner would have lost this year but Obama will carry?"

You would have traded Indiana and Iowa for West Virginia and Kentucky. Other than that the battleground map would look the same.Though it is a possibility Warner would have been much weaker in the upper midwest (WI, MN).

joe | November 2, 2008, 8:04pm | #

Florida 50.0 45.8 Obama +4.2
North Carolina 47.8 47.5 Obama +0.3
Virginia 49.8 46.0 Obama +3.8
Ohio 48.8 44.6 Obama +4.2
Missouri 47.3 48.0 McCain +0.7
Colorado 50.5 45.0 Obama +5.5
Nevada 49.3 43.5 Obama +5.8

Let me guess, MNG. Missouri and North Carolina is "where it counts."

Here, let me make my own prediction: when Barack Obama wins with well over 300 electoral votes and the largest popular vote % since 1988, the people who've spent the campaign using phrases like "close the deal" and "anyone else would be winning by..." are going to look like Paul Begala circa 2005, complaining about the DNC running a fifty state strategy being a disaster.

joe | November 2, 2008, 8:07pm | #

Can anyone name any state that someone like Mark Warner would have lost this year but Obama will carry?

Nevada, Iowa, possibly New Hampshire, Colorado. It wouldn't be close in North Dakota or Arizona.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 8:08pm | #

My parents will probably vote Democratic this year, but they would never have put an Obama sign in their yard. They just could not have explained it to any of their neighbors. Of
course they could not try to convince any neighbors.


Their neighborhood has plenty of Mark Warner for Senate signs though. Not as many as McCain signs mind you, but many more than Obama signs.


The liberals in the Dem party are assuming that everybody has the cultural experiences and outlooks they do. This kind of thing writes off whole areas and generations.

BDB | November 2, 2008, 8:09pm | #

"Nevada, Iowa, possibly New Hampshire, Colorado. It wouldn't be close in North Dakota or Arizona."

If John McCain, a SW native and latino-friendly pol, has trouble in the Southwest this year, any Democrat, ANY Democrat, would have won CO and NV. If this were any other candidate but John McCain they would do so in a walk.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 8:13pm | #

Florida 50.0 45.8 Obama +4.2
North Carolina 47.8 47.5 Obama +0.3
Virginia 49.8 46.0 Obama +3.8
Ohio 48.8 44.6 Obama +4.2
Missouri 47.3 48.0 McCain +0.7

All within the freaking margin of error. In a year where the sitting GOP incumbent is unpopular and the economy has tanked. That's deplorable for a Dem.

"Colorado 50.5 45.0 Obama +5.5
Nevada 49.3 43.5 Obama +5.8'

Warner would kill in those two states. He's very much like Gov. Ritter and the Udalls. His lead would be more like Udalls (13).

Obama could have been a great VP. All the benefit, none of the crap. Overreaching, overreaching.

BDB | November 2, 2008, 8:15pm | #

Here is my copy and paste:

"Some people stood in line for six hours yesterday to cast absentee ballots at Richmond City Hall. In eastern Henrico County, the line was so long that just before 2 p.m. voting officials delivered three additional voting machines to the Eastern Government Center."

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-11-02-0202.html

Both heavily Democratic areas.

BDB | November 2, 2008, 8:15pm | #

Turnout in the exurbs was much lighter.

Last-Minute Attack Ad | November 2, 2008, 8:15pm | #

Barack Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry, but has he thought how this will affect SANTA?!? Without coal for the bad children of the world, Santa Claus will be forced to give toys to ALL children, both good and bad. Can we really afford a president that coddles BAD children?

John McCain won't reward those hooligans that keep walking on your lawn, and who egged your house this Halloween, and he'll make sure they get the coal they deserve.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 8:16pm | #

GOP attempt to make Warner look bad:

"He, uhh, well, he , you know, uhh, made cell phones."

Warner campaign statement: "In these uncertain economic times I try to draw upon my expereince as a successful businessman...."

NRA: Uhh, we like Warner, no beef here...

White working class Reagan Democrats: We're willing to give this guy a chance.

Election: Landslide

Mr. Nice guy | November 2, 2008, 8:20pm | #

GOP attempts to make Obama look bad: "wacky urban political connections/lack of experience/crazy sounding name/Islamic ties/interracial love child etc."

NRA: "Holy crap this urban politician sucks!"

White working class Reagan Democrats: "WTF is a Barak?"

Election: Unnecessarily close, maybe a loss in a gimme year.

joe | November 2, 2008, 8:24pm | #

All within the freaking margin of error.
'
Um, no. Those are poll aggregations, so the margin of error is minute, below 1%. And I don't think polls with margins of error above 3 or 3.5% even get published anymore.

Of course, every single one of those states where the Democrat's lead isn't big enough are typically-red states.

Warner would kill in those two states.

Warner is a boring little pussy boy who can't give a speech. He doesn't know shit about organizing, and he's about as inspiring as a plain bagel. If he were the nominee, the parties would be roughly even in fundraising, their volunteer operations would be roughly equivalent, and their GOTV efforts would be roughly equivalent. The Democrats would be lucky to have half the registration advantage they're enjoying today.

Anyone notice the string of court victories the Democrats have been winning against Republican voter suppression/purging strategies? If Mark Warner were the nominee, there wouldn't be anything like the legal strategy and voter-protection infrastructure in place that the Obama campaign - led by a former civil rights attorney who successfully litigated voting rights cases - has put together. That could well turn out to be the difference in Ohio and Florida right there.

The liberals in the Dem party are assuming that everybody has the cultural experiences and outlooks they do. This kind of thing writes off whole areas and generations. Shove your Real American bullshit where the sun don't shine. We've winning, and it's the people who thought that was impossible who've proven their regional, solipsistic provincialism.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 8:27pm | #

BDB

Uhh, for eastern Henrico and Richmond that is little surprise. African-AMericans only make up 18% of the VA population of course, not a majority.

If Webb only won a squeaker in that state there is no way Obama wins VA. No way. For every person he excites there are 1.5 in VA that scares. And they will all be at the polls Tuesday...

joe | November 2, 2008, 8:29pm | #

Obama nomination: largest election landslide the Democrats have enjoyed in forty years.

Real Clear Politics projection: 353 Democratic EVs.

Pollster.com: 367 (blue states plus tossups w/ Dem lead)

Electoral Vote.com: 353

Fivethirtyeight.com: Median EVs in simulations = 333

Gee, it's almost as if "GOP attempts to make the Democrat look bad" aren't the most important thing in the world after all!

joe | November 2, 2008, 8:30pm | #

If Webb only won a squeaker in that state there is no way Obama wins VA. No way. For every person he excites there are 1.5 in VA that scares. And they will all be at the polls Tuesday...

You're getting to be like the global warming deniers.

Everyone who actually does this for a living - all of them - say exactly the opposite.

BDB | November 2, 2008, 8:31pm | #

George Allen was ten times the campaigner John McCain is, MNG. There's a reason he was the GOP front runner before "macaca".

Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 8:32pm | #

joe
"Warner is a boring little pussy boy who can't give a speech. He doesn't know shit about organizing, and he's about as inspiring as a plain bagel."

Uhh, yeah, this is why the guy is considered an unstaoppable juggernaut in a red state, because he can't organize...

"We've winning, and it's the people who thought that was impossible who've proven their regional, solipsistic provincialism."

Not yet, and even predicted not by much, in a very favorable climate. And where that "regional, solipistic provincialism" has been addressed the Dems are winning by A LOT MORE.

"Of course, every single one of those states where the Democrat's lead isn't big enough are typically-red states."

Yes, this is a Democratic year, even if they ran a live chicken. A terrible candidate like Obama can run strong this year.

btw in a typically red state Warner leads by 20+ points. In another Udall by 13 points. Etc.

BDB | November 2, 2008, 8:33pm | #

If Jim Gilmore were the Republican nominee, Obama would be leading by 20 points too, lol.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 8:35pm | #

If Obama wins VA Tuesday I will post under the name of "Crow Eating Dumbass" for the following month. It just ain't going to happen fellas.

Just Plain Brian | November 2, 2008, 8:35pm | #

Don't forget Intrade, where Obama is at 89, and McCain at 11.9

joe | November 2, 2008, 8:37pm | #

Let's put this in perspective: Over the last eight months, John McCain has been ahead in the RCP aggregate for a grant total of 21 days.

Damn those Democrats, they took way too big a risk!

Uhh, yeah, this is why the guy is considered an unstaoppable juggernaut in a red state, because he can't organize... It's not a red state. The Democrats won the last Senate race. They control the governor's mansion. It's a blue state.

Not yet, and even predicted not by much, in a very favorable climate. Yes, yet, and yes, by much. Barack Obama has consistently had a six+ point lead for a couple of months now.

Republicans across the country, including his opponent, are using their past associations with him in their campaign literature. That doesn't generally happen with candidates who aren't particularly popular.

joe | November 2, 2008, 8:38pm | #

I'm holding you to that, MNG.

BDB | November 2, 2008, 8:38pm | #

That reminds me, MNG. If you really think McCain will win VA, there is a fortune to be made on Intrade for you. Just FYI.

BDB | November 2, 2008, 8:41pm | #

Intrade Market Prices for VA:

Obama 86.9
McCain 13.0

You can make dollars on the penny, MNG.

joe | November 2, 2008, 8:43pm | #

John Kerry is going to win his Senate race by a bigger margin than Barack Obama will win the state.

Barack Obama is going to win New Hampshire by a larger margin than Jeanne Shaheen will beat John Sununu - heck, she might even lose.

It's really not that significant that a hometown boy can outperform the national candidate in a local race.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 8:47pm | #

McCain will win VA, mark my words.

Is there any reason to think Warner would not have a higher lead in Ohio, for example, than Obama? All those white working class voters he lost in the primary, Warner would have no issue with at all.

Times that by other states he's struggling in...

Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 8:48pm | #

I will say this: when the returns come in on the east coast we may know the election. If Obama wins either VA or Fl it's over.

BDB | November 2, 2008, 8:51pm | #

MNG, why don't you bet on Intrade then? If I was that sure I'd bet at least $1,000 with those odds. You'd make a killing!

Mr. Nice Guy | November 2, 2008, 8:51pm | #

Gotta go to bed now, but Crow Eating Dumbass. If McCain loses VA, that's how ye can mark me here for the following month...

Margin of error, and slipping every day...

SIV | November 2, 2008, 8:52pm | #

If Obama wins VA Tuesday I will post under the name of "Crow Eating Dumbass" for the following month. It just ain't going to happen fellas.

Go Obama! Hope and Change for the Old Dominion!

SIV | November 2, 2008, 8:54pm | #

BDB,

Prediction markets are good for measuring what people believe which isn't what is going to necessarily happen.I'm not speaking about this election but the reliability of prediction markets.

BDB | November 2, 2008, 9:00pm | #

"Prediction markets are good for measuring what people believe which isn't what is going to necessarily happen.I'm not speaking about this election but the reliability of prediction markets."

I agree with that, SIV. Intrade thought Pawlenty was going to be McCain's VP after all. I'm just sayin', if I were as sure about this election as MNG is I'd bet with those odds. It'd be a quick and easy way to make a buck if you're that sure.

BDB | November 2, 2008, 9:01pm | #

Having him post as "Crow Eating Dumbass" will be pretty entertaining, though.

SIV | November 2, 2008, 9:04pm | #

If GA had that VA spread I'd put a couple of C-notes on McCain."Crow Eating Dumbass" oughta risk at least a double sawbuck

BDB | November 2, 2008, 9:05pm | #

"If GA had that VA spread I'd put a couple of C-notes on McCain."Crow Eating Dumbass" oughta risk at least a double sawbuck"

Exactly. Those that bet on long shot Palin sure hit the jackpot back in August, that's for sure.

SusanM | November 3, 2008, 4:40am | #

This thread proves how utterly loony the libertarian movement really is. How many are here simply to have legal marijuana? More than a few I'd imagine.

zoltan | November 3, 2008, 7:22am | #

Wow, way to contribute SusanM, considering that less than a dozen of more than a hundred posts even mention drugs. But hey, you're just so witty and discerning I bet all the ladies in your knitting group think you're the cat's meow! Hope little Bobby doesn't get stuck on the reefer now!

Sturdi | November 3, 2008, 8:52am | #

Urban areas aren't enlightened. They are just densely populated. That's why their legislators treat people like livestock. Look at all the laws they have to manage the herd. Don't eat transfats, wear a helmet, don't arm yourself, etc. Gotta keep those taxpaying gerbils in line.

Sturdi | November 3, 2008, 8:55am | #

SusanM

Marijuana = (Alcohol - fatalities)

Any questions?

joe | November 3, 2008, 11:33am | #

Is there any reason to think Warner would not have a higher lead in Ohio, for example, than Obama?

He'd wouldn't have the organization Obama has put together, and he wouldn't have turned out the Democratic base as well.

Tim GallienUSMC | November 3, 2008, 3:33pm | #

A NEW HOPE
We all have been living a nightmare. A vision D. Eisenhower warned of in his 1961 farewell address to the nation. In his address, Eisenhower warned of the corruption of our government, our society, and our culture by the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. It seems that, as a nation, we have not listened. Eisenhower’s dire vision has become our reality. And from this fearful dream, this nation is waking. Our eyes are opening to the truth collectively for the first time. WE THE PEOPLE are finding that we have been subjugated, placated into ignorance and fear, lied to by the very people we have entrusted to preserve and protect our rights, liberties, and our constitution. Many will turn away in fear of truth and close their eyes once again. To open our eyes to this reality, is to also understand that we are all responsible for it as well. complacency and dependence upon the machine keeps THE PEOPLE in line because it is convenient and safe. We have sold our souls. We have as a nation let this happen to ourselves.
My heart breaks for the people of this nation. Our government wages war upon our freedoms, liberties, and our constitution. I watch our republic’s destruction, not to the sound of guns or bombs, but to the sound of thunderous applause of those held captive by terrified patriotic blindness, guided by the propaganda of fear, as we give our rights and even the lives of our fellow man for the profit of the corrupt. A fear that is erasing our great history of freedom and repeating itself 70 years later with another dictatorship of war, under the guise of homeland security and the protection of the people.
BUT THERE IS STILL HOPE.
With love and openness, we can overcome ignorance and fear. It is our right as the people, and my duty as a United States MARINE written into our constitution by our founding fathers, entrusted to us, by the people, to ensure that our liberty, freedom, and the constitution never again become the subjugation of the corruption that we have wrought upon ourselves. We must take back our country, and give it to the people. So let us open our hearts, take responsibility, and make our HOPE become our reality. Lets begin REVOLUTION. His name

Dr. Ron Paul

SusanM | November 3, 2008, 10:19pm | #

Okay, that was a cheap one. Although the pro-drug crowd is well represented on the threads it wasn't here very much.
I do think that libertarianism has to find (and here's the irony) a more unified theme. As it is, its a self-defeating mix of paranoid ravings, pop-economics and "anything goes" self-indulgence.
Talk to anyone who has lived under communism (as I have done) and tell them about the assault our freedoms are under. They will laugh their asses off and tell you to stop whining.
I can't deny that our government has badly overstepped its authority. Making hysterical claims or asserting that your righs are violated because you can't take away someone elses will not do anything but hurt your goals in the long run.