Letters to the Editor
-
Ron Paul, Truth to Power
Ron Paul is called "crazy" all the time for acknowledging and openly stating all the simple truths that our culture has been trying to beat out of our heads for the past 30 years.
It's really hard not to like the guy--not so much for his views or policies, but just because he's actually speaking about "real life" in his speeches. Unlike most of the sound-bytes with no semantic content we hear from EVERYONE in American politics.
In a general election between Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul, I'd be crazy to vote for Hillary.
Of course, there's about as much chance of Paul winning the Republican nomination as Kucinich taking the Democrat one, and in a contest between Hil and ...well, whoever else from that Rogues' Gallery, I'd have to go with the Democrat.
-
Dr. Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton
Good article, Mr. Greenwald. I'm not saying that just because I'm a Dr. Paul supporter (I am), but because it shows an objectivity that's often lacking when discussing public questions.
Personally, I support Paul for two main reasons: foreign policy and civil liberties. His nonintervention foreign policy is exactly what this country needs, now more than ever.
Civil liberties? Paul's an ardent civil libertarian. Without civil liberties, a country just isn't worth living in.
Hillary Clinton is owned by every big interest in town. She's corrupt. She favors the Iraq war, and she hasn't said a thing about a possible attack on Iran. She's a neocon with the best of 'em.
-
The Long Beach (CA) Press-Telegram on Ron Paul
"The man is synonymous with integrity. A strict constitutionalist, he opposed the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, expanding the powers of the executive branch and allowing warrantless wire taps. The 10-term (not consecutively) congressman has never voted to raise taxes or for un-balanced budgets.
"And, steal our hearts, he refuses to participate in the congressional pension plan, returns some of his office budget to the Treasury every year and has never gone on a government-financed junket. (Are you listening, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez?)"
It is the insistence on following the Constitution and the consistent stance of not interfering with others that impresses me.
One teen told me that the old guy is saying the same things he said 30 years ago. Imagine that; consistency rather than telling the rubes what they want to hear.
He is the only one in the race who wants to give peace a chance. We children of the 60s might just remember what that means.
-
Hillary Clinton says a lot of things too
Clinton also writes a lot of things, then she removes them from the public domain once she changes course and gets some fresh political wind in her sails.
I heard that she said a lot to her husband during his term, too bad she is stonewalling any efforts to find out. I hear that the former Goldwater Girl also also wrote a pretty interesting thesis. Too bad none of us will ever get to read it.
Actually, saying and doing things that are regrettable later seems to be one of her most prominent personality traits. It's a good thing that she's "in no ways tired".
Everything she touches turns to pyrite.
-
Some things I appreciate about Ron Paul
"whatever else is true about him, he advocates his policies in a rational, substantive, and coherent way."
Very true. I won't vote for a libertarian like Ron Paul, but I do appreciate the way he elevates the debate.
Another thing I like about Ron Paul: He knows how to use the word "Democrat" in it's proper context. As in, he doesn't say "The Democrat party does not support such-and-such policy."
Also, as far as I know, he hasn't accused anyone of being unpatriotic because they disagreed with him.
-
You want to make a bet?
Of course, there's about as much chance of Paul winning the Republican nomination as Kucinich taking the Democrat one
Want to bet? There are plenty of bookies that would give you odds on it. You might want to make your bet now, before your odds get worse. When Ron Paul first announced his candidacy, he was at 227 to 1 to win, now he is at 6 to 1. there are going to be some happy gamblers and unhappy bookies if anyone placed a bet on Paul at 227 to 1. I know that they are out there.
If you are interested, you can go to a booking site and take care of it. According to the bookies, guess which candidate has the better odds between Kucinich and Paul? Kucinich is not anywhere near 6 to 1.
Just wait until the primary process starts up, then we'll see where Paul's chances lie.
-
Presidential debate
between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich..mano a mano. How much would you pay to see that?
-
omooex
Still, Glenn, in fairness, you should have included the Houston Chronicle article from 1996. There's a lot to like about Paul, but there are some things to be wary of and challenge him on. There's no reason why we can't support his efforts and still be aware of the the full range of his questionable views.
I actually thought about it and decided that, especially given the length of the post, it was really kind of off-topic and didn't add much.
Still, after seeing your comment, which raises a fair point, I added an update with a link to Dave Neiwert's post making the argument (which I find quite unpersuasive) that Paul actively courts racist elements and also added a link to that Houston Chronicle article, along with the pro-Paul response to it (the Chronicle link isn't working now, so if anyone has a working link, please provide it).
-
I prefer debate
Glenn, thanks for doing pushback on the unjustified and juvenile namecalling.
While there may exist a rare few residents of the body politic who are deservedly entitled to the epithet of "crazy" or similar appellations, I, as I believe is true with most of the public, prefer our debates to be about ideas, values, principles and the like.
-
power words and phrases, again
I'd take a strict constitutionalist over any candidate cuurently running for President in either party.
As a dabbler in constitutional law, I take issue with casual use of the term "strict constitutionalist." Like "pro life" and "activist judges," this term is heavily and deliberately loaded to carry the implication that anything not qualifying for the term betrays the constitution, etc.
The term "strict constitutionalist" has allowed jurists such as Justice Scalia to get away with carrying the banner of the only "legitimate" constitutional philosophy, with most others internalizing this highly dubious premise to a large degree.
Any constitutional scholar worth his or her salt will tell you that "textualists," "originalists," "strict constructionists," and the like can be every bit as arbitrary, inconsistent, and outcome-determinative as their much-maligned "living constitution" counterparts.
Any time someone lunges at me with the "strict constitutionalist" canard, I challenge them to tell me where in the constitution it specifically and explicitly applies the First Amendment to the states and the courts, creates executive privilege, allows courts to overturn statutes, differentiates racial from other forms of government discrimination, and on and on.
No one has constitutional "principle" cornered. There certainly are more and less consistent or principled applications of constitutional law, but people who hide behind the banner of "strict constructionist" or "originalist" have simply found a very fashionable way of foisting their own biases on the less informed.