Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I decided to move a comment up and reply to it as its own post because I want to really lay down my thoughts on why I have decided not to support Ron Paul. A commenter named Mike said:
Your blog for the most part has been pretty reasonable. Yet, you really seem to have it out for Paul. In the past few weeks it seems like your blog has been more of a hit blog against Paul.
I think he has misunderstood my purpose, but that's likely because I haven't taken the time to address the issue in a more comprehensive way than just posting about a specific issue that I have a problem with regarding Ron Paul. So let me do that now and explain my thinking in more detail.
It isn't a matter of having it in for him. Ron Paul says and really believes a lot of things I really, really like. He has been unwavering in his criticism of a wide range of constitutional abuses - suspension of habeas corpus, the weakening of the the 4th amendment, unconstitutional hate speech rules, etc. He has called for a complete ban on torture and for the closing of the gitmo detention center. He has called for the unequivocal end of warrantless wiretaps under any circumstances. He's the only candidate from either party with the guts to call for drug legalization. Those things are very important to me and I find the unequivocal nature of his stands on them refreshing. There's a lot about Ron Paul that I like a lot and I'd like to support him.
I and a group of friends, all libertarian minded, have been actively debating this issue lately among ourselves and I've been asking myself whether I can really support him. The disagreements among us are honest and sincere. The opinions range from relatively enthusiastic support (I think that's a fair characterization of the position of my friend Jim Babka) to unfortunate reluctance (which is what I would call my position). It's unfortunate because, as I said, there's a lot to stand up and cheer for in Paul's platform.
Over the last few weeks I have reached the reluctant conclusion that Paul is what Sandefur calls a "doughface libertarian." The evidence is clear to me that he supports what I consider to be the reactionary elements of libertarianism, the neo-confederate, anti-14th amendment wing. It isn't just that he takes money from them; he has actively courted their support. He's spoken to their organizations, he writes for their websites, he's put their most prominent voices, like Lew Rockwell and Gary North, on his Congressional staff. This is going far beyond the "any libertarian is going to attract some kooks" argument (which is undoubtedly true in and of itself). And for me, that is enough to make me decide that I can't support him.
Let me also say that I do not begrudge Jim, Perry, Gretchen and others for not reaching the same decision I have. I think they recognize that many of the things I've said are disturbing, but they may also ask: isn't there enough good in his bold stands for ending government abuses to justify supporting him anyway? They may also ask, when will you get the opportunity to vote for a major party candidate who takes such strong, unwavering positions on these issues again?
These are very legitimate questions. They seem especially legitimate to someone like me who has always voted with the very long term goals of influencing the public debate by moving beyond the simple two-party dichotomy we are stuck with and who has always voted for people with whom I've disagreed on some pretty big things. I think this is a close call and I do not begrudge anyone who decides the other way. It's a tempting position for me, even if it is one I ultimately do not take. A lot of people I respect a great deal will decide differently than I have on this, and that does not diminish my respect for them in the least. In the end, we all have to decide for ourselves what we are comfortable with.
So no, I don't really have it in for Ron Paul. I've just been debating this inside my own head very publicly.
Comments
Nice post Ed.
Of all the things in your list of problems with Ron Paul, the one that concerns me the most is his stance on the 14th Amendment. Fortunately, from my point of view, he's not going to be able to do much harm in that area, whereas I think there are a lot of things he could get done in all the other areas -- the good areas.
With regard to the 14th Amendment, I think about the choices a President Paul would make for the Supreme Court. There are some names I can think of that probably wouldn't be so good, but he couldn't get them confirmed. Then, there are other names that would be much better that he probably could get confirmed. This is just one example.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 27, 2007 10:14 AM
he's not going to be able to do much harm in that area, whereas I think there are a lot of things he could get done in all the other areas -- the good areas.
This was exactly what people said about Bush in 2000. Sure, Paul's more fringe policy ideas will be tempered slightly by Congress (as in they'll clear their throats authoritatively as they rubber stamp his bills) and the day to day compromises of having to run a country but there's more to Paul than just the obstacles that will keep him in check.
Paul gives cover to fringe ideas. Electing him to the senate has already legitimized them to some degree and making him president tells the country and the world that returning to the Gold Standard, Letters of Marque and Reprisal and all the other nonsense is on the table. It may be pushed to the back and hidden behind opposition to wiretaps and Iraq, but it's still there, waiting for a rainy day or the next opportunistic terrorist strike.
We've already slid so far off base in the last seven years that we now casually debate about how much torture is acceptable and what to do with our very own offshore Gulag. Not to mention our new colony in Mesopotamia. And this was under the watch of a Compassionate Conservative who was against nation building and wanted to restore dignity to America's name.
No matter how much mustard you add, Ron Paul's still a shit sandwich with a side of crazy. He may be right on a few policy ideas but what's the old saying about stopped clocks?
Posted by: Keith | December 27, 2007 10:35 AM
First, Keith, Ron was elected to the House, not the Senate. Second, he doesn't favor a return to the old government managed gold standard. He favors freely competing currencies. Even Milton Friedman, the king of the monetarists, thought this was a good idea, so its hardly fringe.
As for using the Constitutional remedy of letters of Marque and Reprisal is a way to avoid sending young men to die in foreign wars. Frankly, I think its one of his better ideas.
Finally, Republicans in Congress aren't likely to rubber stamp Paul proposals the same way they did Bush proposals.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 27, 2007 10:43 AM
In addition to his longtime ties to white supremicists and nativists (best blogged on over at http://dneiwert.blogspot.com ) the other problem with Paul is where he does become inconsistent in his libertarianism. He is anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, and most of the rest of christian right agenda. Once again, traditional religiosity becomes one of the limits of his alleged libertarianism. He may not want government acting under social contract to provide concrete services. He does want government to take sides on specific relgious-based values and force the population to obey the rules of one religious tradition. For all the alleged purity and consistency of his stance, it really does seem to come down to the libertarianism of/by/for old white christian men who wish it was the 19th-century again. Not so much for the individual freedom of gay citizens, female citizens, atheist citizens, etc.
Posted by: dr.steveb | December 27, 2007 10:43 AM
I don't think the person simply misunderstood you. I think they were probably a deranged Paulster, of the sort that claims that anyone who thinks Paul is a racist is clearly themselves a neo-con.
Posted by: Mephisto | December 27, 2007 11:02 AM
Dr. Steveb, you write:
"He does want government to take sides on specific relgious-based values and force the population to obey the rules of one religious tradition."
I'm curious, can you build a factual case, using quotes from Ron Paul's writings, that he would use the federal government to impose religous values on the American people?
Second, from which religous tradition does Ron Paul's desire to legalize drugs derive?
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 27, 2007 11:18 AM
Perry Willis wrote:
This is a good point. The anti-14th amendment position is quite unusual among legal scholars; only those on the fringe embrace it. And there's really no chance that the Senate would confirm one of them. At the same time, I think it's highly unlikely that the Senate would consent to any of the pro-14th libertarian legal scholars like Epstein or Barnett either. Their stance on the commerce clause, on Lochner and on the post-New Deal jurisprudence in general is likely to be viewed as poison by the Democrats, while their anti-majoritarianism on civil liberties issues will be poison to the Republicans. So who would that leave that Paul could nominate that has a good chance of being confirmed?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 27, 2007 11:21 AM
Janet Brown? Posner?
I don't know Ed, maybe you're right. Maybe he couldn't get anyone he would like confirmed.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 27, 2007 11:25 AM
House or Senate, two sides of the same dysfunctional body. But my bad, not being able to tell the idiots from the morons.
As for the Letters of Marque, who do you think will be getting those? Mercenaries like Blackwater, that's who. This little shoot 'em up scandal? Multiply that times a hundred, plus immunity since they'll be killing Terrorists for God and Country. That'll improve our relations with the world, letting loose a thousand Dog the Bounty Hunters. But at least our precious baby soldiers won't be in harm's way. Except the ones who think that killing Muslims for fun and profit sounds like a good idea.
And while Paul hasn't come out and said that atheists are non-citizens (like Bush, Huckabee and Romney has) he has made it clear that he's all for the Social Conservative agenda to deny the rights of woman, homosexuals and non-Christians. Check out his recent appearance on Meet the Press, or pretty much any time he opens his mouth for details. he's only a libertarian so long as it doesn't conflict with his worship of Supply Side Jesus.
Posted by: Keith | December 27, 2007 12:51 PM
Ed, assuming you don't opt out of the political cycle, whom do you support? For whom will you vote? Which candidate do you find superior across the broad range of issues.
More comment on you post here: http://thecrossedpond.com/?p=2336
Posted by: Jack | December 27, 2007 12:52 PM
I usually try to stay out of Ron Paul discussions, largely because most people seem to either recognize that Paul is crazy or slavishly hang on to his every word in a manner reminiscent of Lyndon LaRouche or Ayn Rand.
As a previous commenter has noted here and in previous threads, Orcinus has done a good job of documenting his far-right white supremacist connections, but there's even more reason to be vocal about not supporting Paul beyond that or his inconsistent libertarianism. The man is simply crazy. He rejects evolution, as has been discussed aplenty on scienceblogs, but he also firmly believes in most Trilateral Commission conspiracy theories and when recently given the chance to distance himself from the position that there is a sinister group trying to merge the US, Canada, and Mexico into a "North American Union" and replace the dollar with the "Amero", he instead took the opportunity to reaffirm this belief. He railed against the nonexistent plan to build a (somehow) sovereignty-destroying superhighway.
Many of Paul's issues that you agree with I do as well, even though I'm not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination (or rather, I'm largely a social libertarian but find most of libertarian economics to be absurd). But just because he's right on a couple of issues doesn't mean that he's right for the right reasons, nor does it mean that he's not batshit insane. Having a wannabe theocrat in the White House has been bad enough, installing someone who shares those tendencies but is a conspiracy nut as well doesn't seem like the best course of action to me.
Posted by: Jon | December 27, 2007 12:53 PM
His ties to white supremacy groups plus the alleged ties to fringe "Christian Nation" groups has him marked HELL NO, in my list of potential candidates. Add to that the Republican track record for honest candidates and...
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 27, 2007 12:53 PM
The best case FOR Paul may be the practical one; that is, he is not a full scale nutcase like the other Republicans and he is very aware of our fiscal temerity - unlike the Dems, who are all eager to swell social programs in the face of Bush's self-inflicted financial Armageddon.
Pulling up the roots of 700 overseas US military bases is a platform so audacious that it could be the only way to save us and no one else would try it.
Full disclosure - I have a bias toward gridlock in Washington.
Posted by: shrike | December 27, 2007 12:55 PM
For God's sake, the following are all from his website:
He wants to log national forests and claims racism is all in our heads. Grant personhood status to fetuses and returning the abortion issue to states while stating clearly that the intent in doing so is to end abortion. Trust big business to run the environment. He wants to fund vouchers for education and endorses home schooling with no testing required to prove the kids have actually learned anything.
C'mon, he's not exactly hiding this stuff. Don't you people read? Go to his site and click on the issues tab before you vote blindly. That's all I did here. Then, if you really want a scare, take time to read his writings. They're even nuttier. And one of the main things he trumps is the poor persecuted Christian's rights to shove his way of life down the rest of our throats.
I have a strange suspicion that Paul will make Bush look like a lightweight and that is a scary thought indeed.
Posted by: Donna | December 27, 2007 12:55 PM
Paul's views on the 1st, 9th, 10th, 14, and to a lesser extent 16th amendment trouble me.
The 16 only to the extent that Paul uses the passive voice to suggest it was not legitimately ratified (as he did in one of the article they have up at Lewrockwell.)
1st - Paul refers to church/state separation as a "phony activist separation doctrine" and says that the Founders only intended to prevent a national church. He's also said that the federal gov't can't interfere in state level religious matters, ignoring the P or I clause of the 14th amendment.
9th - This is one of the most important amendments, yet it is vastly underappreciated. It makes clear that the founders did not intend for the BoR to mean that those were the only rights we have. In an article saying that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, Paul cited the 9th amendment.
10th - The 10th says powers not with the federal gov't rest with the states and the people. Paul cites this amendment to say that states have the right to regulate private sexual conduct. With the 1st amendment, Paul says there is no church/state separation because the phrase isn't there, but he manages to read the "right" of state gov'ts to infring on individual liberty into the 10th.
14th - He pretends the P or I clause establishing that states can not violate the rights of citizens guaranteed in the B o Rs. He wants it repealed so that children born in America aren't automatically citizens. He's also called a Hoover appointed judge a leftist because of a decision relating to the 14th amendment that had to do with the regulation of commerce ... I haven't explored that much.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | December 27, 2007 1:30 PM
also, from the same article
Oh! I almost forgot - Paul was talking about a War on Christmas before O'Reilly. Paul apparently subscribes to the more original John Birch Society version of the meme
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
Replete with references to God? There's one in the DoI to "nature's God" and ZERO references in the Constitution.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | December 27, 2007 1:37 PM
I've never seriously considered Paul, but for a while I could sort of understand why people might find him appealing. However, when I found out he adhered to this particular version of "states' rights", I lost any possible respect for him and his campaign. It shows up even more blatantly in his remarks on flag burning laws, which he opposes at the federal level but seems to think are OK if a state duly passes them.
If something is well and truly a right, then government generally shouldn't interfere with it, except for obvious cases like conflicts with other rights. The level of government doesn't matter. I think there may be a bit of a gray area at smaller levels of governments, but definitely not at the level of the states. Many states today are more powerful than the federal government ever was in the 18th century.
Ron Paul appears actually comfortable allowing states a degree of control over individual liberty that he would consider tyrannical at the federal level. That suggests his stance on personal liberty is not very principled. To be sure, the other candidates' opinions aren't very principled either, but Paul presents himself as principled on this issue, when he is not. That's a very disturbing combination, and definitely not one I want to see in a president.
Posted by: ColoRambler | December 27, 2007 1:42 PM
Donna, the national forests are already logged. In fact, the biggest builder of roads in America is not the Department of Transportation, or even the various state highway departments. It's the National Forest Service, which builds roads into the national forests so they can be logged.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 27, 2007 1:42 PM
Good for you Hume's Ghost. This is the sort of fact based criticism that we need. I say this as a Paul supporter. I agree with much of the criticism (when it is fact based) -- I just think he would do far more good than harm.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 27, 2007 1:46 PM
Oops, Hume's Ghost just posted almost exactly the same thoughts I had, only better.
I would add that conservative interpretations of the 10th Amendment, like Paul's, conveniently ignore the last 4 words of the amendment: "or to the people". I don't see how anyone can take the amendment as a license for states to limit individual rights.
Posted by: ColoRambler | December 27, 2007 1:50 PM
I do suffer from some dissonance given that Paul is the only candidate who speaks forcefully against both the war on drugs and this nation's run away militarism ... I appreciate Paul raising these issues via presidential campaign but I can't resist focusing on the other issues. I hate to see a movement to end the drug war and stop the militarism tied into the above views.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | December 27, 2007 1:59 PM
I wrote about this a few weeks back so, let me hitch up my skirt and do a little blog whoring:
In An Asylum Full of Napoleon's He's the One Convinced He's Joan Of Arc
Posted by: Keith | December 27, 2007 2:24 PM
Perry Willis wrote: Good for you Hume's Ghost. This is the sort of fact based criticism that we need.
You're a Paul supporter and you need someone else to point this out to you? That idiotic screed on the Lew Rockwell site is from 2003 and anybody can find it in about 30 seconds with Google. Why do you support Paul when you know nothing of importance about him?
A good example of his thinking is in that article when he says, "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." Anyone that stupid shouldn't run for dogcatcher.
Posted by: tomh | December 27, 2007 2:56 PM
Hume's Ghost quoted the following from Ron Paul:
This is a perfect example of why I cannot bring myself to support him.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 27, 2007 3:01 PM
You assume tomh.
I do in fact know all of these things about Paul, and have listed them among my own criticisms in other comments on this blog. I praise Hume's Ghost not for bringing them to my attention, but for using accurate quotes to back-up his criticisms, something that nearly all other Paul critics have not done, preferring to shout and scream (and get many things wrong) instead.
I know Paul's defects and support him anyway because he is unlikely to be able to do any harm in the areas where he is wrong, while I believe it is precisely in the areas where he is right where he may actually be able to do something. This is in marked contrast to all of the other Democratic and Republican candidates who are wrong about nearly everything, and will be in a position to do much harm in nearly every area.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 27, 2007 3:04 PM
Perry Willis wrote: I know Paul's defects and support him anyway because he is unlikely to be able to do any harm in the areas where he is wrong, ...
That's an hilarious reason to back someone for president.
This is in marked contrast to all of the other Democratic and Republican candidates who are wrong about nearly everything, ...
Which is in marked contrast to Paul, who is not only wrong about nearly everything but has demonstrated the reading comprehension of a fourth grader in his tortured interpretation of the Constitution. Unless, of course, he really does understand it but twists it to further his own religious agenda. In which case he is a total fraud. Take your pick, fraud or just in the slow reading group. I was charitable and merely called him stupid.
Posted by: tomh | December 27, 2007 3:24 PM
I'm libertarian and not only won't support Paul, but hope he's forced to drop out ASAP. Perry says he'd do more harm than good, but I don't think he'd be that much better than gridlock. The main reason I'm against him is if the man were nominated I'm convinced he'd destroy libertarianism's respectability with the general public. There's the very troubling issues Ed posted on, an awful lot of his ideas are either ridiculous or antithetical to personal liberty as several folks pointed out above, and most importantly, he somehow manages to draw nutters out like he's wearing Tag bodyspray for crackpots.
After all this time national attitudes have finally shifted enough that a libertarian presidential nominee with any chance is actually a remote possibility. The last thing we need now is a clown like Paul hauling all the white supremicists, conspiracy theorists, tax dodgers, gold-standard drumbeaters, and 911 truthers out of the woodwork and forever convincing John and Joan Public libertarians are even nuttier than LaRouchies.
Posted by: SeanH | December 27, 2007 4:09 PM
You mean they're not.
{runs away}
Posted by: Orac | December 27, 2007 4:34 PM
Not to mention Paul doesn't believe in evolution. To me, this is *the* watermark test of what part evidence and facts plays into one's personal views and whether those views yield to them or are held in spite of them. Of course, one can just say Paul is ignorant of science in general, but that doesn't make it any better. Presidential candidates don't get that free pass.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | December 27, 2007 4:38 PM
I know Paul's defects and support him anyway because he is unlikely to be able to do any harm in the areas where he is wrong, while I believe it is precisely in the areas where he is right where he may actually be able to do something.
What, in the history of the world, makes anyone think this is some sort of realistic goal? "Vote for the lunatic and hope he does something sane" is the gambit that delivered every dictator, madman and tyrant to power, from Julius Caesar on down.
I know some of you Paulbots out there really want to smoke your pot proudly and not have to pay any taxes but living in a civilized democracy sometimes means having to think of someone other than yourself.
Posted by: Keith | December 27, 2007 4:46 PM
I'd like to point out that everyone here calling Paul a lunatic is probably going to go out and vote for someone who sees nuking Iran as a viable option.
Can you explain how Joe Blow smoking pot affects you? Can you also explain where your Federal income tax goes?
And if Ron Paul can truly end the Iraq war, the income tax, and restore the executive branch to its more humble station, then I couldn't care less what he thinks about sodomy or evolution. Hell, I'd totally give him head if he did all that (but i know he wouldn't ask nor would he tell.)
Posted by: Jack Mehoff | December 27, 2007 5:32 PM
Anyone who thinks ending the income tax is a "realistic goal" is loopier than all the 9-11 conspiracy theorists and evolution deniers put together. I think Keith more or less accurately summed up what sort of person finds that pipe dream irresistible.
Posted by: H. Humbert | December 27, 2007 5:45 PM
Humbert is the type of person that would tell a woman to just lie back and enjoy the rape since there's nothing she can do about it.
Posted by: Jack Mehoff | December 27, 2007 5:48 PM
Do you think that ending unconstitutional (and immoral) property forfieture laws is realistic? How about ending the Iraq War? How about shutting down our empire of military bases? Is any of this realistic? Can you even IMAGINE such a world?
Posted by: Jack Mehoff | December 27, 2007 5:51 PM
Ed said a little over a year ago:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/raymer_for_vice_president.php#comment-283389
I'm curious Ed. What's the difference this time around, where you don't support the Libertarian (even if he's technically running as a Republican)?
Is it because his proposed policies are even nuttier than Badnarik's? Or is it because he might actually have a chance of winning?
I would normally assume the former is correct. (And if so, then could you elaborate what the ideological differences between the two are?)
But I would think that you might be tempted to make another 'statement' vote (I would probably call it 'wasteful') by voting for him, since I think it's already clear that he doesn't stand a chance of winning.
Or, since RP is a Lib., but running as a GOP, are you possibly waiting to throw your support behind whoever gets officially nominated as the Libertarian candidate?
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 27, 2007 6:01 PM
Say what? Which of the Democratic nominees is likely to do that? And of all the serious candidates from either party still in the race, only Rudy Giuliani is crazy enough to do something like that. Keeping troops in Iraq (or not pulling them out immediately) is a long ways off from nuking Iran.
I want the US involvement in Iraq to end as much as the other guy but there are other, more palatable options available. It doesn't have to be Ron Paul (thank God).
Posted by: tacitus | December 27, 2007 6:28 PM
First off, I applaud the original article from which all these comments have come. This article seems to give a fair account of one man's personal reasoning as to his support in some areas and lack of support in other areas, relative to Ron Paul. Since we already now know that the mud-slinging(1) regarding Ron Paul's alleged racism, has ultimately and finally been discredited(2), and since this was the reason Mr. Brayton was withholding his support- I think I can safely assume that he will now support Ron Paul for President of the United States.
1) http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/24/smearing-ron-paul/
2) http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/the-ron-paul-vid-lash/?ex=1199163600&en=7b25470d94ea3b8b&ei=5070&emc=eta1
When the New York Times has to backpedal, you know the smear campaign was caught red handed.
Ron Paul, as President, will return the Presidency to its proper role and magnitude. He would not be some dictator in chief as some have suggested- we already have that in Bush and many who criticize Paul on this voted for Bush (some twice!) and IF they were intellectually honest in their arguments, they would at least admit it.
Operating strictly within the constitutional limits of the office of President means President Paul would have the real enumerated power to remove troops where they are not needed, especially in all areas where war has not been declared.
A lot of the social concerns some have about a Paul administration are taken up at the Legilative level or up to the state level. So anyone worried about their precious right to make sure their girlfriend kills her baby so they do not have to pay for it, will not have Paul to kick around - that is a legislative function. Paul will only remove the judicial over-reach from the legilative process. So if you want to live in a pro-death state, call your state legislature. If you want to live in an anti-abortion state, call your state legislature. Stop demanding courts make laws- they should only decide based on the law.
Personally, I think it is horrible that there is no state you can live in today that is anti-abortion. That is federal tyranny of the highest order, and if you really supported the 10th amendment, you would be anti-Roe, and choose to live in a pro-choice state.
As to the smears about Lincoln from Meet the Depressed, Ron Paul had a masterful interview wit Tim Russert(3) and fielded all the questions beautifully, and anyone who will watch it for themselves will see these claims baseless. If it was only true that the War against Northern Aggression was about slavery, then it would have been far cheaper for the North to purchase all the slaves and free all of them, as Paul reminded Russert- Slavery was ended Peaceably everywhere else in the world.
3) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22379112#22379112
As for other reliable sources, it does not help to name-call. Lew Rockwell does not need me to defend him, his site and the Ludwig Von Mises Institute are a wealth of information on anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism, and good ol' classical liberalism. It is highly regarded and recognized. Meanwhile not every columnist that is featured is libertarian- in fact, no-libertarian he, Pat Buchanan- a protectionist- is featured. Of Course, Ron Paul is no protectionist, or isolationist, either.
I praise Lew Rockwell for including the views of others amongst its criticism, not name calling, providing real thinking on the issues of the day. Even if they like to have fun along the way.
I urge all of us to vote for Ron Paul for President, to support him in the primaries and caucuses and the party nomination.
Vote for Liberty for All
Vote for Ron Paul 2008
Mark Watson
Aurora IL
Don't Steal: The Government Hates Competition
Posted by: Mark Watson | December 27, 2007 6:40 PM
doctorgoo:
I don't think Paul is any nuttier than Badnarik, who was pretty damn nutty. What swings it for me is that to vote for Paul I would have to vote for one of the two major parties, something I've never done and don't care to do.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 27, 2007 7:26 PM
Forget the 14th Amendment - How about the fact that Ron Paul is a racist douchenozzle.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/26/85617/090/639/426519
Posted by: Scott R | December 27, 2007 7:57 PM
Mr. Brayton:
I'm not going to get into Ron Paul's positions, as thers have gone over that (well, maybe a little). But I'm going to ask something else: why is it that you'd rather vote for someone who is obviously crazy on so many issues, just becuase he says somethign that sounds "plain speaking?" ?
Let me put it another way: Ron Paul says things that obviously appeal to people because they are necessary. It's good that he talks about torture and why it's bad.
But there's a sort of reductive view of politics that I get from reading why you decided he wasn't the candidate for you. Maybe it's the liberterianism.
It's like the only way to approach the two-party system -- something that Ron Paul is very much a part of by the way -- is to vote for someone who espouses things that are manifestly antithetical to everything you say you stand for, because he says one or two things that sound good?
Look, Mussolini and Franco both appealed to people who were frustrated by politics, But thats the thing, they and Ron Paul seem to appeal to people frustrated by the whole process of give and take and compromise that is necessary to a modern political system.
That's not to say one should compromise core beliefs all the time either. Just that, for example, while I might think that universal health care is a good idea that doesn't mean I am using that as my only issue. I look for candidates among Democrats because when I count up the things I am for that I would like to see happen I see that party as more likely to bring it about. I count up not only what the candidates say they are for but what they have done (that is why I have issues with, say, Hilary Clinton, because of her real, concrete actions in office).
Ron Paul speaks to things that are important, but at the same time he seems to appeal to people who have a view of politics informed by what Norman Spinrad called adolescent power fantasies. It's akin to movie versions of politics. For instance, if we get rid of the income tax all is wonderful, or go back to a competing currency standard. (We used to have competing currencies back in the 17th century. There is a reason we went away from that system).
Politics is a lot more messy than that. It requires that we work with other people and if we want to make changes, that we work with a lot of other people.
As importantly, just because someone speaks of important things doesn't mean they are even worthy of consideration, let alone support. See Mussolini.
It may be a symptom of the bigger problems our political system has. Joshua Holland over at Alternet (sorry no link) talks about this a little.
It just seems that in any other country in the world Ron Paul would be written off as a nutjob, or at best a very dangerous man.
Libertarianism is all very well, I don't subscribe to it because from an economic perspective it just ignores too many things (like transaction costs, differentials of people's power, the idea that markets simply aren't designed to address certain things). But is that the only reason you even considered Ron Paul?
It's like you're saying, "I don't like some things about the system, so I'm going to vote for a fascist out of spite." Because that is, ultimately, the kind of thing Ron Paul represents. (Before I get flamed for my use of fascism, let me say I am being rather more precise than most here. I am basing this on what above posters have put in and his own web site).
Thankfully, you've said you've decided not to vote for this guy. But really, help me understand why this guy--who again, seems to be against most of the things you say you are for--seemed like a good idea.
Posted by: Jesse | December 27, 2007 8:53 PM
Mehoff, I love it when nuts like you wail about "immoral" and "unconstitutional" taxes and compare yourselves to rape victims. It's all so amusingly insane. There's not many groups which can claim Kent Hovind as a martyr to their cause.
Posted by: H. Humbert | December 27, 2007 9:05 PM
Ron Paul seems like a dispicable wolf in libertarian clothing. How about Mike Gavel? He takes many great positions without having a downside other than not being widely known, lots of libertarians like him. And it's kind of cool that a 20-something hedgefund manager in NH is excited enough about him to be waging a one-man independent effort on Gravel's behalf.
http://supportinggravel.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Trinifar | December 28, 2007 3:38 AM
Hmm. Now what did Keith say?
Ahh. The standard strawman waved at any person who ever remotely expresses a small L libertarian view. Of course, banishing the income tax would be more appropriately labeled as big L Libertarian, but I consistently see the strawman readily whipped out by progressive posters at the slightest whiff of little L. Conservative economic views without the juicy target of conservative social views seems to leave some folk with only one round in their rhetorical revolver.
Do you enjoy the simplicity of pigeonholing folks as greedy and self-centered as opposed to expending the effort to consider, debate, or respect the merits of their position? Imagine you stake out an opinion and have someone come along, make zero factual points and just dismiss you as a liberal bleeding heart who hates America. Would you personally find that line of argument to be convincing? Would you expect many people in the middle to be swayed by such tepid rationality? I hope not. How about reading a two page display of eloquence making the case for full civil rights for homosexual couples garnering only a two line response focusing on the words: faggot, ass and AIDS? A more apt analogous scenario: Have you taken part or lurked in the Great Evolution Wars? How many times have you read a creationist handwave away a lengthy evidence-laden post with references to greedy and self-centered Darwinists justifying their lifestyles by denying God? Again, weak sauce convincing only to those who already have a Darwinist pigeonhole installed in their mind.
My reaction being provoked not by any love for Ron Paul. I find him to be a big W Whack for his attitude to the 14th, for the growing evidence of his racial views (or at least those of some uncomfortably close supporters) and for his lack of scientific comprehension.
At least I can now look forward to acquiring my own Paulbot pigeonhole in addition to my Randbot, Darwinist, Atheist, Fascist, Liberal, Hippy, American, White, Male, Hetero, Gay and Geek pigeonholes. Don't you all just love being easily classified for the convenience of others?
Ok, breathing deeper now. Pet peeve trigger point fading into temporal irrelevancy.
Posted by: Sean | December 28, 2007 6:31 AM
I think Sean just hit a very big nail on the head.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 28, 2007 8:15 AM
In addition to his dalliances with racist organizations, there is Representative Pauls' dalliances with medical cranks and quacks. Orac has a thread on his blog today documenting these dalliances which I find even more disturbing then his racist dalliances.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/12/ron_paul_quackery_enabler.php#more
Posted by: SLC | December 28, 2007 9:47 AM
It doesn't matter what Ron Paul says -- he's clearly both crazy and dishonest, and any good intentions he may actually have beneath all that (longstanding) nuttiness will me more than offset by his utter inability to face reality and deal with real problems and real people. Jimmy Carter had a lot of good intentions too, but he had no clue how to get anything done, so his goodness didn't matter.
Libertarians have always had a talent for saying enough right-sounding things to enough narrow, specific target-audiences, and getting them to ignore the overall cluelessness and insanity of their whole platform.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2007 10:06 AM
I agree with Ed about what Sean said.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 28, 2007 10:48 AM
" know Paul's defects and support him anyway because he is unlikely to be able to do any harm in the areas where he is wrong, while I believe it is precisely in the areas where he is right where he may actually be able to do something."
That's one hell of a gamble, Perry, and if you lose that bet -- what the hell, all you've lost is your liberty.
Also, I'm curious, what makes you think that he'll coincidentally be effective where you desire him to be but conveniently ineffective where you hope he isn't? That seems to me rather like the ostrich burying their head in the sand on the assumption that if they can't see a predator, the predator can't see them.
Posted by: Donna | December 28, 2007 11:11 AM
Thanks for the questions Donna. Paul's biggest problems, in my mind, relate to his interpretation of the 14th Amendment. This position has no support in Congress, so he will be checked by the legislative branch, and by the judicial branch too if it ever came to that. Meanwhile . . .
There's a lot he could do on his good positions without any support in Congress. He could stop torture and illegal spying. He could bring the troops home. He could close Gitmo. He could stop interfering in medical marijuana states and lessen drug enforcement efforts overall.
Finally, he could stop a lot of really bad spending by using his veto.
No other candidate even offers to do any of these things. The closest we might come on any of them is perhaps with Obama on a few of the national security items, and frankly I'm skeptical.
So, in short, I don't really think I'm gambling anything with regard to Paul, while I am farily certain of gettting a lot of stuff I don't want with all the other candidates.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 28, 2007 11:23 AM
He could bring the troops home.
And completely turn his back on the rest of the world and pretend it doesn't matter -- which has, in fact, always been a central tenet of libertarian "policy."
Finally, he could stop a lot of really bad spending by using his veto.
He could also stop a lot of really GOOD spending the same way. He could also stop the government from raising the revenue necessary to pay down our huge deficit and monumental national debt. All of which, again, are central tenets of libertarianism.
Of course, those who claim to support Ron Paul for his "good" promises, could also support Democrats like Kucinich (at least) for the same reason. Why don't they? Because their hatred of all things "liberal" overrides their ability to see straight; so they're left with nothing but insincere complaints, double standards, and disgraceful wishful thinking.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2007 11:41 AM
@Sean (with which Ed and Perry concur):
The "strawman" alleged here is that Paul believes US income tax unconstitutional and opposes its continuance. Is this actually controversial? This is a serious question, because if it is I think I'm missing something. So far as I am aware Paul is on record as considering the 16th amendment as not having been duly passed, and that hence income tax is unconstitutional; and as offering the remedy simply of cutting the spending covered by the tax.
Posted by: Robin Levett | December 28, 2007 11:43 AM
Okay, so Ron Paul thinks that individual states should have the right to ban abortion, sodomy, and gay marriage. What else? How about any religion besides Christianity? How about the teaching of evolution? How far does it go?
I really don't understand that position, or why someone who calls himself libertarian should support it. State governments are still governments, and it certainly doesn't increase freedom to allow them to become individual tyrannies. If they want to secede from the union and ban abortion (assuming that were possible), well, fine-- have at it. But how does it makes sense to allow them to do so before then? How does it increase individual rights?
The only explanation that I've heard so far is that it somehow increases the power of the federal government if it prevents the states from limiting freedom. But how? If a mafia don wants to prevent his cronies from beating me up in the alley, shouldn't I be in favor of that? I just don't get it.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 28, 2007 11:45 AM
Raging Bee . . .
Ron is on record as saying one of the reasons we need to cut spending is to be in a better position to keep the promises made for Social Security and Medicare, which have unfunded liabilites estimated between $45 trillion and $75 trillion. Ron doesn't like those programs, but he's hardly threatening to pull the plug on them. So your depiction is a bit of a caricature (see Sean's comment about straw men and useless labels).
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 28, 2007 11:50 AM
I agree with you Gretchen. This is Ron's big problem area. But again, the legislative and judicial branches would stop him from doing anything in this area.
Ron has one foot in the old right, and one foot in modern libertarianism. This 14th Amendment stuff is paleo-conservative. I don't think it has a future.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 28, 2007 11:54 AM
Like Ed, I have voted for the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in the past. I have done so consistently (except for a deeply regretted vote for BC in '92), despite knowing their candidates are nuts, including when Paul was their candidate. Yet I also won't vote for Paul this time. So how does this make any sense?
The Libertarian Party is a classic ideological party. Much too ideological, along the lines of Emerson's famous quote that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I am a moderate libertarian, and would not really want a Badnarik to win, but I do want the Libertarian Party to pull enough votes that one of the major parties has to take their supporters seriously and co-opt them by adopting a more libertarian platform. Probably not gonna happen, but I've rarely found a presidential candidate I could in good conscience support, so why not vote in a way that I can conscientiously support? (And let's not hear any nonsense about wasting" votes--that's mathematically impossible in a presidential election.)
My own biggest problem with Paul is on immigration. His libertarianism seems limited only to American citizens, and those fortunates that America invites in--the legal immigrant. "Illegal" immigrants are simply those who acted on the libertarian principle that every individual has the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that any government action denying them those rights is unjust. To me that's nativism, not libertarianism.
There is an argument for trying to control the amount of immigration overall. It's a basically Burkean argument that social change that occurs too fast is dangerously disruptive. In fact the increasingly violent response to illegal immigration is representative of that problem. So that's where the moderation in my libertarianism comes in--we should try to control immigration just enough so that the social change doesn't become too disruptive. But the mere fact that these people ignored a law that limits individual liberty should make them heros of libertarianism.
There's also the blunt fact that the increasing load of Social Security and Medicare will require vast increases in the number of tax-paying workers to support them, and since most Americans aren't having that many kids, we need just about all the immigrant labor we can get. The anti-immigrant nativists should look at Japan, which has always been anti-immigrant and is now faced with the prospect of a declining population.
OK, that's more than long enough. Apologies. /rant.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 28, 2007 12:04 PM
I agree with you too James. Immigration is my second biggest problem with Paul. I wonder how he got to this position from where he was in 1988? With most politicians I would assume that he adopted it to get votes, but there's a lot of evidence that Ron doesn't work that way, and this new position long predates his run for President. This is actually an area where Ron could do some harm, but we seem to be headed that way anyway. All of the major party candidates are anti-immigration to some extent.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 28, 2007 12:18 PM
Perry, it's my understanding that Paul's objection to open immigration is contingent on use of social services. He doesn't think it's fair that people should be able to come in and use taxpayer-funded services if they are not taxpayers, and so wants to end or limit those services before allowing an open border. I don't have a link I can give you to support this, though.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 28, 2007 1:00 PM
Oh, and also--
Perry wrote:
tomh responded:
Except that it's not a reason to back someone for president-- it's an explanation for backing someone for president even if you don't agree with every last thing they endorse. And who does agree with every last thing their candidate endorses? Doesn't pretty much everyone who supports a candidate do so in spite of certain aspects of their platform? And if they do, doesn't it make more sense to support a candidate in spite of those aspects if you don't think they are actually going to be willing/able to implement them if they achieve office? That sounds entirely reasonable to me, hardly "hilarious."
Posted by: Gretchen | December 28, 2007 1:05 PM
Doesn't pretty much everyone who supports a candidate do so in spite of certain aspects of their platform?
Yes, but out here in the real world, where we take responsibility for our actions, we tend to stick to candidates who are demonstrably sane and have a decent grasp of reality. Sorry, but Ron Paul fails big time on both counts, and he's been failing since 1984, if not earlier.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2007 1:12 PM
"I'd like to point out that everyone here calling Paul a lunatic is probably going to go out and vote for someone who sees nuking Iran as a viable option."
Kucinich, for one, doesn't fit into that category. Nor to the best of my knowledge does Gravel. I'm most likely going to vote for the Green Party candidate, so I can safely call Paul a dangerous lunatic on a scale that makes W look good without supporting a pro-war candidate.
Posted by: rev_matt_y | December 28, 2007 1:14 PM
Say something of substance, Raging Bee, or don't bother to comment. We know you can't stand Ron Paul-- no need to remind us repeatedly.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 28, 2007 1:48 PM
Gretchen: The problem with objecting to immigrants using taxpayer-funded services without themselves paying taxes is simple:
How, precisely, is an immigrant supposed to SURVIVE in America without paying taxes? If you buy things - sales tax. If you work (and aren't illegal... hmm ...) you're paying income tax.
If you own property ... property tax.
Seems to me the main reason illegal immigrants aren't paying taxes is because we declared them ILLEGAL, not because they're immigrants.
Or are we talking about emergency rooms in the hospital? (As that's the only "service" I can think of that an immigrant could take advantage of without working.) Because, uh. I fail to see why that can't be handled explicitly.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | December 28, 2007 2:29 PM
Gee, Perry, somehow I'm not reassured that he won't get the backing he needs to pass some of his Religious Reich shit through, especially when it comes to state-church separation issues. If there were no support for stances such as school vouchers, ending abortion or tearing down the wall between church and state, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Indeed, there would be no forum for a blog with this one's title. Frankly, they have shown what toadies and rubber stampers they by and large are. We do need to worry about the President's stance is on everything that is a deal breaker for us.
Posted by: Donna | December 28, 2007 2:49 PM
Donna . . .
Paul doesn't want to outlaw abortion at the federal level. He would veto any bill that attempted to do that.
Paul wants local control for education. He's not going to force any kind of national policy on education.
Yes, his stance on church-state issues is bad, but I'm far from certain you could get majority support for his views even on the Republican side, and certainly not from the Democrats. With 60 plus votes needed to move anything in the Senate you're going to have gridlock on this issue, FOREVER. Nothing is going to happen in this area.
The rubber stamp Congress you are talking about came when you had almost total GOP control in legislative and executive, but even that bad situation didn't result in the total meltdown you fear. How much did the religious right get of their agenda? Not much. Things would be even safer under a Paul White House becuase there would be so many divisions between him and the Republicans in Congress.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 28, 2007 3:02 PM
"I'd like to point out that everyone here calling Paul a lunatic is probably going to go out and vote for someone who sees nuking Iran as a viable option."
And who among the current candidates shows any sign of "seeing" this? Ron Paul's supporters show how desperate they are by pretending all the other guys are too dangerous to contemplate. Face the facts, people: your guy won't get nominated, and he won't be missed, so you might as well come down and start thinking seriously now. The sooner you face reality, the easier it will be. And the sooner you cut the wishful thinking and start thinking about serious policy options, the more chance you'll have of being relevant in the next election.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2007 4:05 PM
It's also a red herring and another good example how wrong Paul often is. Legal immagrants pay their share of taxes and most illegal immigrants are paying taxes for benefits they'll never receive. If Gretchen's right about his reasoning, Paul either has no idea what he's talking about or he's lying about his reasons for restricting immigration.
Posted by: SeanH | December 28, 2007 4:43 PM
SeanH wrote: Paul either has no idea what he's talking about or he's lying about his reasons for restricting immigration.
Exactly the same situation as when he tries to explain the Constitution. He's either a fraud or a fool, take your pick. Fortunately, after the first few primary votes he'll fade back into the obscurity of being the nuttiest nutjob in Congress, (no small achievement), and all this gushing over him will dry up.
Posted by: tomh | December 28, 2007 5:42 PM
Plain and simple he doesn't sound like the other candidates. I think that's what a great deal of people are drawn to about Paul. I think he's being honest and whether you like what he is saying or not that's not something you get from a politician very often. I disagree with him on a lot of moral issues, but morality should not be legislated one way or the other. He isn't running for governor of all fifty states, he's running for president and that's why I'm not concerned about his position on abortion or homosexualtiy. He did vote against the ammendment to ban gay marriage by the way. Less government would be a refreshing change in this country particularly if you consider that currently our government isn't really doing anything that well. Also, it would get people more involved in local government which a huge majority of Americans are apathetic about. When I compare the pros and cons the pros outweight the cons and that's why he'll get my vote.
Posted by: Michael | December 28, 2007 5:51 PM
Paul isn't the only one with the guts to point out the utter failure of our war on drugs. Perhaps he's the only candidate with even a mild chance at winning a primary, though.
Although I can understand why you'd forget Kucinich and Gravel if you are a libertarian.
Anyway, I pretty much agree that Paul is the brand of libertarian that is a little more frightening than others. It doesn't help that I'm not much of a libertarian, to boot.
Posted by: Saint Gasoline | December 28, 2007 7:10 PM
Hello there Ed,
From a 56 year old self-employed Georgian (since 1985)... born & raised in Texas.....oh, and Republican .....
I believe you did a fine job with this piece, and you seem to be a very pleasant and educated gentleman...
We Ron Paul supporters will surely miss your participation in this "movement"....as it seems you'd make quite an ally!
Sorry to know you will not be with us on this one Ed....
Wishing YOU a very Happy New Year......
Earl in Georgia
earlinga@bellsouth.net
Posted by: EARL | December 28, 2007 9:08 PM
I have read some very good pros and cons on Mr. Paul. I applaud you all. Some of you even have documentation on why you support or do not support the man. I appreciate that, also. Now I would like to see the same scrutiny posed to the rest of the candidates on their beliefs on what our constitution means. As far as I know, no other candidate has even mentioned our constitution, correctly or incorrectly. I have no problem holding Mr. Paul to the coals as long as we ask the same constitutional questions to the other candidates that might lead our nation.
Personally, I can't think of a single recently elected politician who hasn't trampled on every single aspect of our constitution and bill of rights.
Blessings all,
Breazen
Posted by: Breazen | December 28, 2007 9:34 PM
Yes, absolutely, Beazen! Start applying constitutional analysis to the other candidates now. I took an online quiz that was supposed to help you determine which candidate would be the best match for you, and it seemed to me that it was mostly beside the point -- all "issue" oriented, e.g. are you pro- or anti- abortion; and said little if anything about the candidates' attitudes toward the powers of the executive and so forth. Nonetheless I wasn't surprised that the "best" candidate only matched me by 30%! That's been my feeling about the election all along, and sadly I don't think that an examination of principles would help much.
Posted by: Vasha | December 28, 2007 11:41 PM
Here's another question for Ron Paul's supporters: did it ever occur to you to ask yourselves WHY the Republicans were allowing him to attack -- or pretend to attack -- most of their central policies from within their own party, while routinely demonizing the rest of us for doing the same thing? Do you really think the people who trashed war-hero John McCain are now going to let Ron Paul change the course they've been on since 1992?
The answer is simple: whatever anyone may pretend, Ron Paul's candidacy serves the Republicans' purposes: first, by dividing and misdirecting an opposition that would otherwise unite behind a more credible candidate; and second, by making those who oppose their policies look like harmless, clueless, irrelevant kooks, and thus making their worst failures into non-issues in the next election.
Those of you who support Ron Paul, thinking he represents real opposition to his own party's policies, should remember that he is still a member of the same Republican party that gave significant amounts of money to Ralph "Lenin Lite" Nader in 2004. You are, in effect, letting the ruling party hand-pick its own opposition. Do you really think this is anything close to an intelligent decision? Do you really think you'll come out of this with anything more than a huge "kick me" sign taped to your backs, while the Republicans laugh their asses off all the way back to the White House?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2007 12:03 AM
Paul's neglect of the 14th amendment and his desire to weaken the federal court system are two things that push me more toward Kuccinich as a favorite amongst the pile of candidates.
Paul may have some strong opinions, but there is also a level of feasibility (eg. Congress support). So, we can only really see.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | December 29, 2007 3:33 AM
To me Ron Paul is very similar to Pauline Hanson.
To those unfamiliar with Australian politics, Pauline Hanson was a fish and chip shop owner from Mount Isa in Queensland. She, and her backers, set up a political party called "One Nation" as an alternative to the the major parties. She ran for the Queensland seat of Oxley (Mt Isa is in Oxley). She was fond of sprouting racist rubbish based on imaginary facts and statistics. She was loved by shock-jocks and the conservative media because she said outrageous things and improved the ratings. However not everone in the media was going to swallow her diatribes.
Former ABC journo (now the Member for Benelong), Maxine Mckew savaged Pauline Hanson in an interview over her poorly researched ideas. Pauline Hanson's fans leaped to her defence (most tripping over themselves in the process) and claimed she had strong popular sipport because "she speaks, thinks and likes what we do."
What happened?
She concentrated the left's attention on her, allowing John Howard to get over the line by making him look credible and sensible while letting him "dog whistle" righ-wing racist subtexts to pander to a rising tide of xenophobia and hate. The 'strong popular support' did not materialise and she failed to win Oxley. "One Nation" was found to have been improperly constituted and was deregistered amidst acrimonious sprlits in the (former) party.
She made a comback in the last election (24 Nov) but again failed to attract much interest. Labor won with a solid 6 percent swing nationally.
All this soind familar?
I think (I could be wrong) that Ron Paul will not get nominated, but will allow the Republicans to tar the Democrats with Ron's brush. But in the end I think the Democrats will crawl over the line.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 29, 2007 7:56 AM
I soured on Ron Paul about a dozen years ago after we received a letter signed by him seeking to raise funds for the re-election of the racist gay-basher Jesse Helms. That told me all I needed to know about Ron Paul.
Posted by: raj | December 29, 2007 8:36 AM
Mark Watson: "If it was only true that the War against Northern Aggression was about slavery, then it would have been far cheaper for the North to purchase all the slaves and free all of them, as Paul reminded Russert- Slavery was ended Peaceably everywhere else in the world."
I've heard Paul make these assertions before; it amuses me how fuzzy a memory of the Civil War he apparently has.
The Civil War started because the South seceded. The South seceded because Lincoln, a free-soiler (an abolitionist who understood Realpolitik), was elected by a slim majority, and they saw it as a sign that free-soil was rising, which would in time lead to outright abolition. So they quit.
And, most people will agree, you can't just have regions breaking off of a nation at the drop of a hat.
So, Mr. Paul: exactly when were we supposed to buy the slaves? Before Lincoln took office?
Posted by: nedlum | December 30, 2007 9:38 AM
Perry, for God's sake, will you read his site? He wants to return abortion to the states specifically to break Roe v Wade. The only reason he isn't proposing it at the Federal level is because he's shrewd enough to plot -- which makes him very scarily more likely to succeed then present morons trying to. Be careful who you vote for.
Posted by: Donna | December 31, 2007 1:07 PM