Letters to the Editor
-
@hume
So there was a conspiracy to create the EU? The "global elites" foisted it on member nations?
You know that thing called the EU Constitution? It went up for a vote and failed. Yet, it is still there. I guess that it was the "member nations" that pushed it through anyway, and not the global elites.
-
Dirks
The fact that RP's constitutionalism fits nicely with the viewpoint of those who see the Civil Rights Act as an Unconstitutional encroachment of the Federal Government over States Rights end up meaning that racists will indeed gravitate toward his campaign whether he encourages it or not.
Reminds me a bit of a conversation I had with a friend of mine about the Civil War. We were talking about the view among some that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but "economics" or "states' rights." He joked that when someone says that to him, he sarcastically retorts, "Right, the Confederacy was fighting for the right to coin its own currency."
Conservatives have no hesitation stating outright that a judge who finds that the Constitution provides a certain power or privilege that allows an outcome favored by liberals was not guided by a principled reading of the Constitution, but motivated solely by a blinding desire to achieve those liberal outcomes. But barely suggest that conservatives have similarly impure motives, and you will need smelling salts to bring them back from their feigned shock.
-
Good Old L.W.M., making up more stuff...
The biggest Ron Paul distortion is probably the actual level of support for him. It's all an internet manipulation. Even the 11/5 "momeybomb" stunt.
the 5000 people at the Philly rally must have been a small group of spammers then.
I guess only L.W.M. is allowed to make baseless claims, as long as they support establishment positions I guess. L.W.M. has never met an establishment politician whose policies he didn't like.
I am honestly curious, can you pinpoint the exact moment in time when you went from Idealist to Apologist? Or was it a gradual change as "reality" chipped away your resolve?
-
H.G./ "libertarian"
Look, if you go through the Newiert posts Glenn links to you might notice that I contributed some of the stuff that Glenn called a smear of Paul.
Exactly. H.G. is a long-time and highly valued contributor here. He even guest-blogged on my pre-Salon blog. I just don't agree with him about the fairness of pinning these attacks on Ron Paul.
Yet I see no need to start attacking Glenn for being a "libertarian", nor do I feel any animosity towards him.
I'd really love anyone who wants to throw that label at me to excerpt any sentence or sentences I wrote about Paul that justify that label.
I defend all sorts of politicians with whom I disagree on various issues. I spent weeks, if not longer, defending Nancy Pelosi from unfair attacks back in October, November and December. I've done the same with Juan Cole, Howard Dean, Scott Ritter, and many, many more people who could not remotely be called "libertarian." This desperate need to label is so cheap. Labels can have some value, but not when they're used as lazy epithets.
It seems clear to me that Glenn's concern is that Paul's sorely needed outspoken criticism of the Bush administration's lawlessness is being marginalized by unfair attacks on Paul's character. That's completely consistent with what he's been doing with U.T. since the start.
Precisely. In my first book, I wrote a whole section complimenting Bob Barr, Bruce Fein, George Will and other conservatives who objected to Bush lawbreaking and unconstitutional actions. That has been one of the dominant themes of this blog since it began, and -- whatever else you want to say about him -- Ron Paul has been very good on those issues.
I'll support most anyone who is. Just weeks ago I was being accused all over the place of being a Chris Dodd shill because I was praising his FISA stance and encouraging people to contribute to his campaign. Is Chris Dodd a "libertarian"?
-
Not Crazy. Just Very Very Wrong About Almost Everything
I'm with those who are kind of puzzled about Glen's apparent water-carrying for Ron Paul. Yes, I carefully read all the caveats, but still, there is something kind of specific about this particular defense of a politician from unfair media attacks.
Perhaps Glen is just trying to play fair. He's defended Edwards and Gore from this kind of media labeling. Has he defended HRC? I don't recall, but this post definitely makes Glen seem pretty anti-HRC.
I think those calling for a little balance in post about Paul from a guy who claims not to actually support him are correct. Where do you disagree with Paul, Glen? Do you like his ideas about the gold standard and New World Order conspiracies?
I find this Ron Paul surge particularly disturbing because a family member, someone I always considered a strong liberal, is a strong Paul backer, and I really wonder if he's thought this through, and if any of Paul's liberal supporters have. Sure, he's right about the war, but he's wrong about everything else.
People praise Ron Paul for his consistency and integrity, but where others see consistency I see slavish adherence to an ideology--damn the consequences! I will take a practical politician who looks at the expected results of policies over one who thinks a single ideology is the solution to every problem any day.
Waaaay back in the thread, some posted the following:
Paul has also said political reality would prevent any of his more ideological views on SS and Medicare from happening.
This may, in fact, be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard a politician say. Imagine a convicted murder asking the parole board to set him free. "Sure, I'd like to kill someone else, but surely some good person out there will stop me."
-
Respect not the same as support
I am with Glenn on this. I doubt that Glenn "supports" Ron Paul. I don't think Glenn is a conservative Republican.
But that is not the point. People like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, who Paul praises in the embedded YouTube clip, are exactly that democracy is about.
The whole point is to have political leaders (not exactly the same as 'politicians') who state their views openly and honestly and defend them intelligently.
If Ron Paul does not think that Social Security is constitutional and, ultimately, wants to roll it back, I disagree. But compare Ron Paul to Rove and Bush, who want to cripple Social Security but lie about it. They claim they want to "reform" the program.
How much healthier is a democracy with people like Ron Paul? I think he is exactly what the doctor ordered. Not as a person who I would vote for, but as a person who advances the public debate in an intelligent, honest and responsible way.
If my ONLY choice was between Ron Paul and any of the Republican candidates, Paul would get my vote in a heartbeat.
In the end, if we cannot take people like Paul (and Kucinich, who I support) more seriously, we are going to be stuck with the likes of Hillary, Lieberman, Giuliani, and the rest of the "serious" Beltway asswipes.