Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Well this is very interesting. Ron Paul won the annual presidential straw poll at CPAC. Why is it interesting? Well for one thing, the same people booed Bob Barr for saying that waterboarding is torture - but Ron Paul says the same thing and has submitted legislation to ban it. Yet Paul won the straw poll and won it easily, with 31% of the vote. Romney was second with 22% and Palin way back at 7%.
If you told that crowd that Ron Paul had sponsored the American Freedom Agenda Act (which has only two co-sponsors, one of them being Dennis Kucinich) and they would throw him to the wolves. Here's what that bill would do:
Repeals the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Authorizes the President to establish military commissions for the trial of war crimes only in places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy.Prohibits the President from detaining any individual indefinitely as an unlawful enemy combatant absent proof by substantial evidence that the individual has directly engaged in active hostilities against the United States.
Prohibits the detention of any U.S. citizen as an unlawful enemy combatant.
Entitles any individual detained as an enemy combatant by the United States to petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Prohibits any civilian or military tribunal of the United States from admitting as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion.
Prohibits any federal agency from gathering foreign intelligence in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Subordinates the President's constitutional power to gather foreign intelligence to such prohibition.
Gives the House of Representatives and Senate standing to file a declatory judgment action in an appropriate federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of a presidential signing statement that declares the president's intent to disregard provisions of a bill he has signed into law because he believes they are unconstitutional.
Prohibits any U.S. officer or agent from kidnapping, imprisoning, or torturing any person abroad based soley on the president's belief that the subject of the action is a criminal or enemy combatant. Allows kidnapping if undertaken with the intent of bringing the kidnapped person for prosecution or interrogation to gather intelligence before a tribunal that meets international standards of fairness and due process.
Provides that nothing in the Espionage Act of 1917 shall prohibit a journalist from publishing information received from the executive branch or Congress unless the publication would cause direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to U.S. national security.
Prohibits the use of secret evidence by the President or any other member of the executive branch to designate an individual or organization with a U.S. presence as a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization for purposes of the criminal law or civil sanctions.
Think any of those would get even 25% support at CPAC? Not a chance. Yet the guy who proposed that legislation just won their straw poll. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
Although it does appear that some of the crowd understood that, as Politico reports:
As the results were displayed on twin large screens in the ballroom - and even before Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio could announce who won - a cascade of boos came down from a crowd that views Paul and his fervent supporters as an irritant.
Politics
Comments
Wait a minute. The same crowd who claims that they want the government out of their lives are fine with the government picking people up and holding them indefinitely without explanation? The government conducting surveillance without warrants? And forced confessions?
I've always wondered how providing health care to all is somehow government intrusion into our lives, but wiretapping our phones without showing probable cause isn't.
Posted by: Chiroptera | February 22, 2010 12:09 PM
The same crowd who claims that they want the government out of their lives are fine with the government picking people up and holding them indefinitely without explanation?
Ah, but they don't want government out of everyone's lives, just theirs. Gays, liberals, social activists, non-capitalists, and atheists could all be rounded up and shot for all the wingnuts care. So long as Christian churches aren't being taxed and they're allowed to own guns, they're happy.
Posted by: schism | February 22, 2010 12:21 PM
The voter turnout was something between 21 to 23% (less than the national average - why does CPAC hate America by not voting?). Its trivial to get the nuts that support Ron Paul to show up and vote in mass.
Posted by: yoshi | February 22, 2010 12:30 PM
That's because these "conservatives" believe in government being out of "our" lives. All that surveillance and imprisonment and stuff is only done to "them"... unless the President is one of them and then their out to get us.
Posted by: Algerine | February 22, 2010 12:35 PM
Gov. Barbour finished last (among those w/ at least 1%).
Given CPAC polls' sorry predictive history, he's a lock.
Posted by: Foggg | February 22, 2010 12:38 PM
"Gays, liberals, could all be rounded up"
but i thought everyone wanted this? least thats what black/mexican/white/asian voted for in prop8
Posted by: NeoCon Hysteria | February 22, 2010 12:39 PM
gays dont have any solutions.. they just want to make everyone gay like them. when you refuse, they through a little hissy fit and call you a racist.
It doesn't have to make sense. Its all about their psychotic twisted emotional delusions.
Posted by: NeoCon Liberals | February 22, 2010 12:43 PM
These CPAC straw polls are interesting, but only within 24 hrs after they were taken. Beyond that time, they are very unreliable regarding future GOP trends.
If I had to wager today on who the GOP's presidential nominee will be in 2012, I'd go with Mitt Romney - who from what I have heard was hardly embraced with open arms by CPAC conventioneers last week. Scott Brown, on the other hand, the crowd couldn't get enough of which boggles the hell out of me considering his pro-choice abortion rights, pro-govt health care stances.
Posted by: CHV | February 22, 2010 12:47 PM
The word around a couple of conservative blogs was that CPAC attendees felt spited (and were, probably) by Sarah Palin's choice to speak for the tea party and not them. So the results of this poll were partially a result of that.
Posted by: Tamarron | February 22, 2010 12:51 PM
Of course Palin didn't show up at CPAC. She wasn't paid.
Posted by: CHV | February 22, 2010 12:55 PM
Repasted from a previous thread...
In response to Ed:
I would be willing to bet that if you took a poll of those in attendance and asked about torture, warrantless wiretaps or the 4th amendment you'd find less than 10% -- and that's being generous -- who would agree with Ron Paul on those issues.
So why did Ron Paul waste his time with a group who are diametrically opposed to him 90% of the time? Pick one or more possible answers: a) he doesn't care enough about those other issues to stand up for them and risk losing CPAC's support; b) CPAC are using him as the token libertarian and don't really give a shit what he has to say; c) Ron Paul and his supporters are bankrolled by anti-government, anti-accountability business interests, so they'll always put business interests ahead of real individual liberty; d) CPAC gave as much thought to their straw poll as they gave to rebuilding New Orleans -- and, in all likelihood, may not even remember who they voted for when they wake up tomorrow morning.
Yet another case of a "libertarian" dutifully acting as a mannequin in the shop window of his worst ideological enemies, and pretending he's "front and center." What a fucking joke.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 22, 2010 1:09 PM
"Scott Brown, on the other hand, the crowd couldn't get enough of which boggles the hell out of me considering his pro-choice abortion rights, pro-govt health care stances."
Well, he's the hero of the moment for beating a Democrat in one of the most liberal states. How well will this translate into potential electability for any higher office? Who knows. But otherwise, yeah, he seems to be the kind of "Rockefeller Republican" the conservatives say they hate. But he drives a truck!
Posted by: Moopheus | February 22, 2010 1:20 PM
In response to Raging Bee at 11
" So why did Ron Paul waste his time with a group who are diametrically opposed to him 90% of the time? .... Yet another case of a "libertarian" dutifully acting as a mannequin in the shop window of his worst ideological enemies, and pretending he's "front and center." What a fucking joke. "
Ron Paul is old enough to remember when REPUBLICANS were the ones pushing civil rights and free speech and noninterventionist foreign policy. He wants them to return to this and fight the Kr!st*l neocon mindbending. Are you really suggesting that abandoning the field to the Ch@n*y wing is the best use of his growing organizational power? He isn't afraid of the fight, even if he might not win. If he doesn't try, he DEFINITELY won't win.
Whose side are you on?
Posted by: spinnikerca | February 22, 2010 1:38 PM
Are you really suggesting that abandoning the field to the Ch@n*y wing is the best use of his growing organizational power?
You're kidding, right? Where, exactly, is the evidence of his "growing organizational power?" He's currently holding office with REPUBLICAN support, which kinda implies his "organizational power" comes from Republicans. And our once-great country has been harmed enough by that "organizational power" already.
He isn't afraid of the fight, even if he might not win. If he doesn't try, he DEFINITELY won't win.
Of course he's not afraid of a fight -- he knows he's not relevant, he knows he'll never win, so he'll never be held responsible for anything; and he'll never have to answer for his ridiculous opinions or his crazy-quilt lunatic base. He doesn't have to get off his ass and get out of his bubble-verse because he'll never have any real responsibility dumped in his lap.
Whose side are you on?
If all you can do is question my loyalties or motives when I raise legitimate questions about your guy's actions (questions you won't answer), then I'll take that as an admission that you know you have no case.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 22, 2010 2:17 PM
Ron Paul is old enough to remember when REPUBLICANS were the ones pushing civil rights and free speech and noninterventionist foreign policy.
Perhaps he's too old to remember when the Republicans kicked all of those causes to the curb and didn't even look back once.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 22, 2010 2:20 PM
Raging Bee's exactly right on this one. Looking to Ron Paul to be the savior who brings actual conservative principles back to the GOP is folly, to say the least. First of all, Ron Paul does not have the power to right the ship. Second of all, RP's populist tendencies make his policy opinions a confused mish-mash of the eminently reasonable and the downright insane.
Posted by: James Sweet | February 22, 2010 2:32 PM
@ James Sweet
Ditto, a man who wants to defend the first amendment by giving local governments the right to fuck with it hardly deserves to be called a savior of any kind of principals.
He may be a lesser of many evils, but he is still evil.
Posted by: deep | February 22, 2010 2:45 PM
No, Ron Paul is not any kind of savior bringing conservative principles back to the GOP. In fact, that's the whole point of this post, that many of the things he stands for are absolute anathema to conservatives today. The point is the cognitive dissonance going on here.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 22, 2010 2:48 PM
Oh yeah, I got the point of your post, Ed, and I do think it is an interesting observation. Actually, I think a lot of Ron Paul supporters, on both sides of the aisle, don't have any idea about the majority of his policies. They see an apparently-sincere populist, hear him talking sense one of their pet issues, and assume (wrongly) that he makes sense on most issues.
I was mostly echoing Raging Bee's response to spinnikerca at #13, who seemed to think that Ron Paul has the potential to get the GOP back to legitimate conservative principles. I ain't buying it.
Posted by: James Sweet | February 22, 2010 3:29 PM
bachmann bbc beck blitzer bolton breitbart cheney coulter cspan
gutfeld hannity horowitz huckabee ingraham krauthammer
kristol likud limbaugh malkin north npr oreilly palin perry
potok rivera rove scarborough stossel susteren
The 5 dancing Israelis arrested on 9/11 in NYC
were very proud of the work of the Mossad.
(no more Twin Tower asbestos problem)
Ventura USN Sheehan Perot Paul OathKeeper NamVet
Nader Medina McKinney Kucinich Kaptur Grayson
Gravel Gonzalez Fallon CoffeeParty Clemente
Choate Carter Baldwin Anderson
Posted by: NadePaulKuciGrav | February 22, 2010 3:51 PM
I can't believe a bill like that has only two co-sponsors. That's obscene. Every one of those points should be completely mainstream.
Posted by: Nemo | February 22, 2010 3:56 PM
Does anybody accusing Paul of being CPAC's token libertarian really think he could get the same kind of audience at an ADA gathering or similar venue?
Oh yeah, I got the point of your post, Ed, and I do think it is an interesting observation. Actually, I think a lot of Ron Paul supporters, on both sides of the aisle, don't have any idea about the majority of his policies. They see an apparently-sincere populist, hear him talking sense one of their pet issues, and assume (wrongly) that he makes sense on most issues.
They gotta be either evil or stupid, right?
Posted by: Three Wolf Shirt | February 22, 2010 5:05 PM
Libertarians in general? Certainly not. The bulk of the CPAC attendees? I'm inclined to think "yes."
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 22, 2010 5:25 PM
Not so much either as just very, very busy. If it doesn't affect their chances of getting either:
1) Laid, or
2) Reelected
then it's not really worth spending time on. Which means that if the rubes back home don't have a clue, and the funding sources don't care, then
Jackson Brownethe pols have better things to do.Posted by: D. C. Sessions | February 22, 2010 5:30 PM
The really worrying thing is that many people see Ron Paul as a step forward for the GOP. Digging beneath his libertarian facade, however, turns up a host of worrying beliefs and motivations, ranging from evolution denial to - at the very least - "pal-ing around" with racists. "States' rights" is just a convenient Trojan horse for an anti-abortion, anti-gay rights agenda.
I'm yet to be convinced that Ron Paul is anything other than a religious conservative wolf in libertarian sheep clothing.
Posted by: V. infernalis | February 22, 2010 6:08 PM
Ron Paul's winning the straw poll best illustrates that there currently are no conservative candidates that appeal to the entire conservative base.
It's easy for nearly all strains of political ideologies to respect Rep. Paul if one isn't actually voting for his nomination or for a particular bill that distinguishes him. I love the fact he participated in the 2008 Republican Presidential debates because he revealed how antipathetic conservatives are from many of the American principles they claim to admire. Mr. Paul also brought integrity to the table of those debates, which revealed the complete lack of that characteristic in the rest of the stable with the possible exception of Michael Huckabee (in most matters I found him an honorable man until he goes off on the anti-science/"Christian Nation" propaganda).
However, when it gets right down to it, Mr. Paul's position on economics is downright loony. Even nearly all YECs go to a medical doctor when they're sick and in any intense campaign where the light shines bright, even most conservatives will find Mr. Paul's position on the gold standard or the Fed not just too extreme, but nuts. History clearly shows those positions have been falsified by massive failures similar to our knowing blood-letting or prayer doesn't provide the results of modern medicine. And Economics has come a long ways since the 1920s.
I'd guess the very 50% of Republicans who believe Sarah Palin isn't qualified to be President would be the same 50% who would reject Mr. Paul as presidential timber with the exception of a handful of conservative-libertarians who share Mr. Paul's creationist-like ignorance of economics. I still chuckle at one of our semi-resident trolls who adheres to Paul's brand of economic theory bemoaning the fact inflation was going to explode several months ago when the Fed increased the money supply. Said troll didn't seen to know we were in the biggest contractionary fiscal quarter in decades and that wasn't his conclusion, but from one of his favored "economists".
The real weakness of the GOP however isn't Ms. Palin or Mr. Paul, but instead the fact its supposedly successful governors, e.g., Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, don't appear remotely qualified to govern (character or intelligence) and offer us the same economic plan as President Bush and the 2000's Republicans - cut taxes without any supportive plan to correspondingly cut spending, putting us into an even worse debt and economic growth position than Bush put is in during his tenure without addressing those issues which will cause future catastrophic failure - lack of an educated work force with a corresponding paradigm buster on jobs, a health care and social security system that can't handle the increasing retiree rate, and no plans to mitigate global warming.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 22, 2010 6:19 PM
I agree that Paul is an agent of the anti-abortion/anti-gay agenda (don't forget the fact that he's a racist, too), but I also think that his positive positions (being against the "War on Drugs," being against the Iraq war, etc.) are genuinely held as well. It's possible to hold positions that don't neatly align with a standard social conservative or libertarian framework. Paul is wrong on enough issues that I would never consider supporting him, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a strictly Christian right prototype or a David Duke white supremacist.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 22, 2010 6:21 PM
Pauls positions on a lot of domestic issues hearken back to those of Andrew Jackson (the original modern democrat!). Both hate banks, do not favor internal improvments (roads canals railroads high speed internet paid for by government), advocate paying off the national debt. Both don't care what happens to minorities (Paul as noted, Jackson in kicking the southeastern indians to OK).
Posted by: Lyle | February 22, 2010 6:42 PM
V. Infernalis wrote:
He's both, actually. The thing that sets him apart from the religious right is his absolutely consistent constitutional stands. There is nothing in the American Freedom Agenda Act that the religious right supports. When it comes to executive power, separation of powers, the 4th amendment, warrantless wiretaps, torture and so forth, he's spot on. That's why I wanted to be able to support him in 2008.
At the same time, you are right that he also represents that paleo-conservative, anti-14th amendment, southern nationalist perspective, which in many ways is on the far right fringe even of the religious right. That's why I could not support him in 2008.
Sometimes people just don't fall into the neat categories we wish they would.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 22, 2010 6:46 PM
Mr. Heath @ 26:
[blockquote]The real weakness of the GOP however isn't Ms. Palin or Mr. Paul, but instead the fact its supposedly successful governors, e.g., Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, don't appear remotely qualified to govern (character or intelligence) and offer us the same economic plan as President Bush and the 2000's Republicans[/blockquote]
This baffling lack of memory from many voters will never cease to amaze me.
Obama has made mistakes over his first year, yes, but some citing (including those at CPAC last week) his "failure" to magically reduce the unemployment rate back to 5-6% and undo years of GOP mismanagement in, now, about 400 days is beyond ignorant.
America is truly a "we want it yesterday with a side of fries" culture.
And as an Obama backer (albeit not one who is blind to his faults), my concern is he will pay the price in 2012 for getting the US economy out of the gutter (inch by painful inch) only to see a new GOP president benefit from Obama's efforts when all he/she did was take credit for someone else's hard work when the wheel came 'round.
Posted by: CHV | February 22, 2010 6:48 PM
I think it is further proof that the Republicans/conservatives have contracted political rabies.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 22, 2010 6:54 PM
In addition to Paul's Neanderthal stance on economic issues, his foreign policy stance harkens back to the bad old pre-War isolationism. To say the the US shouldn't invade countries to remake them in our image is quite sensible, but for the (still) world's only superpower to pull out of the United Nations and withdraw from the world is dangerous in the extreme. Despite the many, many mistakes the US has made, it still has at times done enormous good. While Iraq points out the serious problems of intervening where one shouldn't, 500,000 dead Rwandans show the dangers of not intervening where one must.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | February 22, 2010 7:10 PM
I think you guys are crazy calling Ron paul a racist and anti-gay. He has said repeatedly that he is for gay marriage, and repealing don't ask don't tell, because of the right to privacy admitted by the constitution. Ron Paul is one of if not the only true republican in the senate or congress, that has ideals based off the original REPUBLICAN idealogy, which non interventionist foreign policy is apart of. He is a strong devoter to the constitution, and would die for it. I voted for our president now, but needless to say I would be supporting Ron Paul if he ran in 2012.
Posted by: Blake | February 22, 2010 7:21 PM
CHV @ 30:
Is it only us disenfranchised small 'r' republicans who think Mr. Obama is both an outstanding* President and better than we hoped he'd be relative to how brilliantly he managed his campaign?
I'm not sure we all realize how brittle the economy was or how effective the Republicans have been at thwarting Congress. I also don't buy the self-proclaimed 'common wisdom' criticism a 'la Peggy Noonan (the most idiotic "respected" columnist?) that the President should have focused more on jobs rather than taking on our fundamental problems we've procrastinated about for years, i.e., health insurance reform and focus on revamping energy policy, not to mention the tremendous progress in executing our wars and regaining diplomatic leverage and soft power.
They seem to also forget the incredible effort to create and pass a stimulus bill and how much better his two budgets were over all of Bush's, in spite of how difficult it is to develop those budgets given the lack of appointees being established in their respective agencies. It's like the guy's making first downs and keeping the ball in spite of his starting at the 5 yard line and having to spot two wide receivers (unprecedented minority party obstructionism).
*With the exception of his position on prosecuting those who committed torture and his continuation of some of Bush's executive power cases in the courts.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 22, 2010 7:23 PM
Michael Heath- I agree with you. This "focus on jobs" mantra is blather unless you have specific measures you are proposing and can show how somehow the attempt to pass a health care bill renders them unfeasible. The fact is that health care ranks as the #1 or 2 issue for most business owners. Nor are tax cuts going to create many jobs. Businesses hire because they forsee demand for their products, not because they can get a payroll tax holiday. And many of the really innovative businessess are losing money or breaking even, so capital gains tax cuts don't even hit their radar.
The fact is that given the size and global nature of the bubble that burst, we should by rights be in something as bad as the Great Depression. The fact that we are not is testament to wise policies. I have to be fair minded and give plenty of the credit to Bernanke and even to Paulson, but Obama certainly deserves a share.
By the way, I wonder what our Republican friends would be saying if the stock market began rising shortly after a GOP President took over from a Democrat and was up by 50% a year later? They would be carving Mount Rushmore, I suspect.
Blake- Ask the 500,000 dead Rwandans what they think of a "non-interventionist foreign policy.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | February 22, 2010 7:48 PM
Blake stated @ 33:
I don't recall anyone in this thread describing Rep. Paul as 'anti-gay', if they did you are certainly correct. However he does have a racist past both in his own publications and his associations and he's never honestly come clean on either. Americans are a forgiving bunch so I've always assumed this is a character flaw where a mea culpa would increase my respect for him. We also must remember that this country continues to contain a large contingent of Southern racist, YECs, so-called "states rights" advocates who swarm to Mr. Paul. So calling out his integrity on this matter is even more imperative given we can discern a possible motivation for not coming clean as a former racist. Personally I don't think he is racist anymore, but his past deserves criticism given his lack of contrition.
Blake stated @ 33:
As someone who identifies as a small 'r' republican you are correct that some of Rep. Paul's philosophy is consistent with the orginal republican principles as they were understood at our founding, while remaining cognizant that even the framers debated what was republican. Especially during the first three administrations. Modern day conservatism that now dominates the Republican party shares virtually nothing with the framers in spite of their claims. However there are two large exceptions to Mr. Paul's talking points and behavior that do not square with republicanism.
The first is that republicanism was by definition elitist, one reason we have a bicameral Congress where state legislatures voted for U.S. Senators. Two reasons the framers were elitists was their fealty to education that resulted in the conclusion that human reason rather than primitive religious beliefs were the proper approach to seeking truth. The second was their disdain for the 'temporal passions' of simple majorities where they believed elites like themselves stacked in the Senate would better guide progress and avoid 'sects and factions' from dominating both the development of policy and governance. This is no way describes Mr. Paul or his adherents, who are mostly religious populists or young people who like his libertarian sentiments while not being educated in political science or economics.
The second failure is Rep. Paul's not being well-read on matters of science and disciplines core to good governance, e.g., economics. While I realize Mr. Paul is a medical doctor, his approach is that of a practioner, not a scientist. And his ignorance regarding history coupled to what our best functional experts understand and their debates and weaknesses appear to not be known to Mr. Paul, who like a good small 'd' democratic populist* is clueless where republicans by definition advance science and academics. Our republican founders were nearly all extremely well-educated for their time and in fact demanded the same from their peers.
Paul's 'states-rights' position is arguably un-republican, however I wouldn't make that argument relative to the founders since it split self-proclaimed republicans into two camps almost immediately into the 1st Administration and Congresses starting up, the Washington/Adams/Hamilton federalists and the Madison/Jefferson camp (where the latter fragmented into even more camps).
*Some of these Southern 'states-rights' conservatives avoid the term populist by instead claiming they support 'democratic conservatism'. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is its most visible advocate. It's died down some since Republicans are no longer the majority party and their belief that Karl Rove would lead them to a 'permanent majority' has self-evidently failed, making minority rights suddenly look more attractive.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 22, 2010 8:09 PM
Ron Paul is a lying sack of shit, a racist and and, uh, oh yeah, a lying sack of shit. He's nothing but an opportunist who, like Ross Perot and Pat Buchanon, says what he thinks will boost his own fortunes.
Posted by: democommie | February 22, 2010 8:25 PM
Good Darwin, why doesn't Michael have a blog yet? I would read it every day for the rest of my life.
Posted by: Tamarron | February 22, 2010 8:32 PM
Andrew Sullivan provides a round-up link of I think exclusively conservative critics of Ron Paul (I know Bainbridge and Frum are): http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/the-antiron-paulites.html#more
Like I said earlier, there is no way Mr. Paul could withstand the scrutiny it takes to be a leading candidate in a presidential primary, ditto with Sarah Palin. However I don't fear Mr. Paul nor do I think any GOP presidential nominee would pick him as their VP candidate. However I think some might pick Ms. Palin and that scares the hell out of me. Unlike Rep. Paul, Ms. Palin's ambitions in no way correlate to the country's interests while I think Mr. Paul is sincere and does want what's best for our country.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 22, 2010 8:46 PM
Somewhat off topic, but did anyone catch Glenn Beck's speech at CPAC? My wife got it via a link from one of her facebook family, and kind of liked it, even if she couldn't say why. I don't like arguments with her, so I didn't press her on it. I heard a couple of whopper lies, and afterwards wanted to feel better by listening to the more embarrassing parts of his Catie Kouric interview. My wife ended up playing the whole thing, and in it, he claimed to be a libertarian, that he isn't against gay marriage, that he's not a conspiracy theorist, and he isn't in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act. I kind of wonder how much of that interview or his show was just plain lying.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | February 22, 2010 8:51 PM
"Wait a minute. The same crowd who claims that they want the government out of their lives are fine with the government picking people up and holding them indefinitely without explanation? The government conducting surveillance without warrants? And forced confessions?
I've always wondered how providing health care to all is somehow government intrusion into our lives, but wiretapping our phones without showing probable cause isn't."
This hits the nail right on the head. What a bunch of drones.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 22, 2010 10:14 PM
"States' rights" is just a convenient Trojan horse for an anti-abortion, anti-gay rights agenda."
A look back in history reveals that the states rights argument has been used for good and evil. Jefferson and Madison used it to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. Federalism was a core principle of our founding for good reason. Now, this argument has obviously been used to violate individual rights in the South and helped keep the plantation system alive long after slavery ended but lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.
The states government can be an effective route to challenge the over reach of the federal government. I think I see more hypocrisy on this issue on this site than any other. Much like Conservatives, Liberals want local control over issues they think the national government is intruding in their lives on and national control over other issues. Healthcare is front and center in this. Sword cuts both ways.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 22, 2010 10:30 PM
Ed stated:
"At the same time, you are right that he also represents that paleo-conservative, anti-14th amendment, southern nationalist perspective, which in many ways is on the far right fringe even of the religious right. That's why I could not support him in 2008."
Then I guess Madison and Jefferson were far right wing because they used some of the same interposition and nullification arguments against increase in federal power like the Alien and Sedition Acts. In many cases the states rights argument is the proper one and the best way to curb federal power. Look at the medical marijuana issue and how ignoring the federal law helped win the day. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 22, 2010 10:38 PM
Hm. Sounds like Glenn Beck concluded the CPAC audience was saturated with Ron Paul fans.
Posted by: llewelly | February 22, 2010 10:41 PM
Michael Heath stated:
"Two reasons the framers were elitists was their fealty to education that resulted in the conclusion that human reason rather than primitive religious beliefs were the proper approach to seeking truth"
This is an overly general and thus false statement. Faith and Reason can co-exist and many believed this. If you doubt this read enough Jon Rowe posts and you will not.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 22, 2010 10:48 PM
@Raging Bee:
I've always wondered who these alleged anti-government business interests are. Do you mean the bailed-out financial firms, the industries that rely on fuel and transportation subsidies, the industries that rely on government-granted monopolies through tariffs, copyright, and patents, the heavily subsidized agribusiness sector, the real estate corporations that make a fortune gaming local zoning laws, the mining and timber companies that rape public lands for pennies on the dollar, or the giant chain stores and large manufacturers that use their clout to abuse eminent domain to get locations cheap, get special breaks on local taxes, and mandate the reconfiguration of the power and road networks to better suit their needs?
RP got some industry support, but nothing compared to what others got. It both doubt and hope that it's true that he was funded primarily by the anti-government visionaries, but he definitely wasn't funded primarily by corporations, who are after all literally created by the state and utterly dependent on it.
Posted by: Miko | February 23, 2010 12:09 AM
For proof of states right and nullification arguments in history that actually defended individual rights see this:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/10/the-untold-history-of-nullification/
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 23, 2010 12:20 AM
Whoa, what? That requires explanation.
Posted by: TheDude | February 23, 2010 3:17 AM
Michael Heath #39:
"I think Mr. Paul is sincere and does want what's best for our country."
I for one am not at all comforted by sincerity if the prescriptions are wrong and dangerous. In fact if someone is propounding bad ideas, I would far prefer that they are insincere about them, because then they can be dissuaded from actually attempting to carry them out.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | February 23, 2010 7:08 AM
JusticeLeague @ 49:
I hope it made it clear that I in no way endorse Mr. Paul, but that is based on both policy matters, a defective education, and a defective approach to considering what functional experts argue which is similar to how most conservatives think but not nearly as bad as most.
I think your argument that one can change anothers' opinion is relevant, I concur and that is why I would argue that I'd prefer a know-nothing Paul over a know-nothing Palin. Where I object is who we prefer when two types of wrongness are in play.
I'll use George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan as examples. When Mr. Reagan discovered that supply-side economics didn't work and that his initial mix of mostly tax cuts and some raises* were generating deficits and helped send us into a new recession rather than promoting economic growth, his response was to raise taxes in six of his eight years in office (though Reagan thought he got shafted because his deal with Congress was bigger spending cuts than they passed, however when it was all said and done, Reagan budget values were about 99.5% of what Congress passed).
When George W. Bush was confronted with the fact that his initial tax cuts were also failing to grow the economy sufficiently enough to raise the appropriate amount of revenue to fund his cuts, he stood firm. In fact even as early as 2003 his CBO Director told him that his 2001 cuts were a failure and his 2003 cut proposals (which passed) would certainly cause the next business down cycle to be worse than if he focused on balancing the budget. Unlike Reagan who may have been wrong many times but I argue had his country's interests at heart, Bush's fealty to his financial base and his political ambitions had Bush refusing to yield.
In this analogy Paul is Reagan where Palin is W. I don't prove anything here, I merely argue that I think why someone holds bad positions is important. You seem to agree, however you seem to believe that a smart liar is more likely to modify their position than an ignorant good guy. You may very well be right, I might be right, or it might depend on who we're considering where each of us might be right some of the time but not all of the time. I promise to consider your point.
*What many people do not know is that when Reagan initially cut taxes, he also closed loopholes. The net effect was an effective tax raise on the poorest two quintiles, the very people that do not save and should therefore not see taxes raised in a recession. So his tax passage caused increased saving by the top quintiles in a recession when the economy needs spending and cut after-tax income on the very groups that spend all their income in a recession.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 23, 2010 8:36 AM
TheDude @ 48 - I assume you know about the tremendous amount of work that went into the stimulus package and are therefore questioning only Obama's efforts regarding the budget.
I think his accomplishments were immense since there was far more effort than normal that went into them, especially in light of having to quickly pass a stimulus bill. Most President's have to immediately focus on looking at the next fiscal year-only soon after inauguration with the exception of a few campaign promises they might try and pass when first entering office. However Mr. Obama had to create a 2010 budget while there were far more moving parts given the immensity of the stimulus bill that would go effect fiscal years 2009 - 2011 (possibly 2012 a well, I forget given I haven't looked at the budget in about 10 days).
In addition Mr. Obama made campaign promises to add extra degrees of transparency to the budget process in the very first budget he owned (2010 which starts 10/1/09) and a degree of even greater scrutiny and transparency in second budget, 2011 which was released in late-Jan. to both the public and to Congress. I think he and his team met their promises so far though his budget director is far from done in these areas.
Also, his predecessor's budgets were a mess in terms of budget performance, i.e., Bush always wildly failed to meet his budgets, estimating greater growth than actual and far less spending than he spent. Mr. Bush's budgets under-estimated future spending levels because he purposefully left out known expenditures such as the Iraq and Afghan War, whose cash outlay run rates were about $10 billion per month during most of Bush's budget development cycles.
One thing that saved Bush from even worse budget performance misses was that interest rates were low most of his tenure. So even though the principle we were paying kept going up (the nominal amount of federal debt), we didn't see a commiserate rise in interest payments since rates kept dropping given the weakness of the economy for most of Bush's tenure. In fact most Bush years our interest rate payments as percentage of the federal budget were about 15%, they were 22% near the end of Reagan's tenure since the economy was booming and therefore rates were higher. Mr. Obama's team struggled much of the middle of the 2009 calender year to get economic growth rates and projected interest rates right given the immensity of the current recession, which results in a bigger projected variance in growth, partly due to greater inflation risks coming out of recession with big stimulus spending.
The last difference is that Mr. Obama made a campaign promise to be very involved in the budget process. So when he was asked questions by the press regarding the budget, I was carefully listening to understand whether he was merely repeating talking points provided to him or if was involved enough to speak from authority. I was impressed in his knowledge. This was important to me since his initial response to "Joe the Plumber" during his campaign showed a level of ignorance from both of them regarding what line item the federal government taxes. "Joe" and Mr. Obama falsely assumed it was revenue when if fact it is net income. This fundamental ignorance caused me great concern though Obama's degree of ignorance on all matters was far less than Sen. McCain's.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 23, 2010 9:04 AM
Michael Heath #50-
Of course a big difference is that when Reagan took office, the top marginal rate was 70%. At that level, taxes might negatively impact investment, since you would need to get 20% in a table investment like stocks to do better than parking your money in tax free bonds at 6%. When Bush II took office, the top marginal rate was 39% and the calculus was very different.
Today's "conservatives" are not even following their own economic reasoning. I don't buy the Laffer curve, but even it doesn't say that cutting taxes always increases revenues. If that were the case, revenues would be maximal at a 0% tax rate, an obvious impossibility. The Laffer curve says that there is an optimal tax rate that maximizes revues. Go above that and you choke off economic activity and reduce revenues. But it also says that below that you can't generate enough revenue either.
As far as Bush's "fealty to his financial base" I don't think he really did investors any favors. The market was lower when he left office than when he came in, something that no President since Hoover could say. As an investor I would much rather make 10%/year and pay 40% of my gains to the government than lose 2%/year and owe no taxes.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | February 23, 2010 9:08 AM
I find it quite amusing how much Ron Paul scares people. If it were Sarah palindrome who won the coac pole every news organization would have declared her the new presidential canidate. Their would have been a time magazine cover and non stop interviews. I think Ron Paul supporters puss most republicans off because they challenge their beliefs with historical data and constitutional interest. It's easier to argue with other niave political ranters on the liberal side.
Ron Paul has said hay marriage is fine. He actually said it shouldn't even be a state issue but one for religeous organizations. Their are gay churches so it's fine.
You only need to look back to Eisenhower to find Ron Pauls type of conservatism. Richard Nixon the biggest thug and pig in American presidential history changed the republican party to corperate socialism and switched the republican party to the old southern dmocratic party. Case in point Strom Thurman who switched from a racist southern democrat to a republican. Prior to that the republican party was the civil rights authority. Once Johnson a democrat voted for anti segregation the parties switched.
Ron Paul is not a racist and his religeous views are seperate from his political policy unlke mike huckabee. If you respect personal liberty it doesn't matter what other people do as long ad they don't infringe on your liberties. It is the same across the globe. We have no right to perform military operations on other countries without declaring war. Never mind staying for decades. We are in a technolgical age of weapons. There is nearly no need for mass troop deployment. After Tesla biefeld and others created laser and high energy weapons it became possible to not just destroy nukes but destroy cities with out having to use a rocket to deploy weapons.
The problem is most people don't realise how misled they are. They believe what's on the news or blogs etc. Fortunately information is so much more available to those willing to read things that may even challenge their beliefs. Ron Paul may be fat from perfect but he is consistant and has read and been a part of history much more than mist of us. As q congressman he has seen much more than us. Don't be scared but the times they are a changin.
Posted by: Jay B | February 23, 2010 9:17 AM
JusticeLeague@52:
That's because W.'s financial constituency was never market investors but instead certain financial interests, mostly in fossil fuels, Big Food, Pharma, but also military hardware. Increases in prices in fossil fuels and food in particular suppress overall economic growth. One of the initial reasons I became a public opponent to Mr. Bush in 2003 was that it became clear that Bush's interests were not aligned to the market. In fact that was when I began distinguishing the difference between being "pro-business" which I am and "pro-business interests". Mr. Bush was clearly the latter and never the former.
So I was never referring to market investors when I referenced Bush's financial constituents, I was instead referring to the constituents who financed his campaign and the source of his family 's political power.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 23, 2010 9:25 AM
Michael Heath:
You know that I am generally in agreement with you. We do disagree, however, on St. Ronald the Miscommunicator. I think he was a dirtbag, you don't. Now, after reading your comment @ 50, in part:
"Unlike Reagan who may have been wrong many times but I argue had his country's interests at heart"
my only quibble would be that "his country's best interests" would be an idealistic, free-market paradise that has not and will not exist in this particular corner of reality. So, I get what you're saying and although I disagree it's not rancorous disagreement.
King of Ireland:
Are you really looking for someone to hand you your ass on another subject?
Posted by: democommie | February 23, 2010 9:27 AM
Democommie,
I think there are two targets non-conservatives love to slam that also deserve some respect as well, Pat Buchanan and Ronald Reagan. Certainly we can all point to certain positions, talking points, and even demonstrated behavior and justifiably castigate both of them. However I think that unlike zealous ideologues or sell-outs that infect conservatism today, both do have their country's interests at heart sufficiently enough we can also repeatedly point to where they rejected conservative principles and instead promoted more moderate or even liberal positions that were/are far superior to what conservatism promote(s)(ed).
Please remember that just because I think Reagan was a successful President and like to consider Buchanan's arguments, I'm still a fierce advocate that conservatism is an ungovernable political ideology and should be rejected. I find it every bit as fatally flawed as monarchism, communism, fascism, pure libertarianism, and radical socialism.
I happen to put Ron Paul in Reagan and Buchanan's category as well. I'd never vote for the guy, but when we look at the current state of conservatism, he does have the ability to break through their thick cocoon and reveal the hypocrisy of many of their positions, especially their false fealty to the Constitution on civil rights and other liberty rights. Their pretty good at avoiding liberal arguments that counter their claim they support founding ideals; so having Paul reveal their hypocrisy in their prescence is something I do appreciate encountering.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 23, 2010 10:09 AM
Michael Heath: Please enlighten me as to what "more moderate or even liberal positions" Pat Buchanan has ever taken. The fact that he opposed NAFTA and some on the left did too doesn't make that a liberal position.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | February 23, 2010 10:20 AM
JusticeLeague @ 57:
Given Buchanan has not been a national politician (Senator, President, or VP), I was referring more to Reagan when it came to executing policies contra to conservative principles. Buchanan never had that opportunity; instead my thinking of Buchanan is that his approach to thinking is more liberal than conservative except on some notable platform planks where he's as bad or worse than other conservatives. I watch him regularly on MSNBC and he's one of the few conservatives I've encountered who doesn't depend on rhetorical or logical fallacies, or denialism, to make his case.
Pat Buchanan distinguishes himself amongst nearly conservatives by taking positions separate from the herd and not running from those, but vociferously defending them.
Certainly isolationism is a legacy of conservatism. However modern-day conservatives are far more prone to take positions contra to conservative values if that's what their leaders promote. But that is not kosher with Mr. Buchanan who loudly defends his principles.
Mr. Buchanan is far more liberal in his thinking, i.e., he considers a fairly good framing of history, what experts say, and respectfully considers arguments contra to his own and then argues accordingly. This is common amongst liberals, very rare amongst conservatives. Disagreements are rarely aired in public to the degree it will change voting patterns, Buchanan is more than willing to stir up dirt and in fact wrote an excellent book castigating Bush, and not just for Bush being 'no true Scotsman'.
I would argue the common approach to conservative thinking is a primary reason I reject conservatism given their defective approach to thinking and its expected failures. I don't think Mr. Buchanan shares this approach except on certain topics where it appears he does do the denial dance similar to many conservatives (e.g., "Christian Nation" revisionism, science, environment). However, I do like the fact that Buchanan, like non-conservatives, is willing to engage in debates on the merits of his argument while being respectful and acknowledging the merits of his opponents and putting his arguments within the context of his opponents best points. This approach is almost non-existent among nearly all conservatives though common amongst non-conservatives.
So when it came time for conservatives to fall in line on Bush's economic policies and entry into war, Buchanan's almost lone-wolf criticisms of Bush wasn't merely based on his positions being consistent with the legacy of paleo-conservatism, but also based on a liberal approach to thinking that allowed him to reject his authority figures - a very non-conservative behavior attribute.
And his NAFTA position was contra to conservative political ambitions, both ideologically and politically. Yes there were populists and liberals who also objected, but we should remember they were primarily the same populist grounds.
Buchanan is also a proponent of government progressivism when dealing with business, self-identifying with Alexander Hamilton (one of my heroes), who argued for government to partner with business to achieve economic growth.
Buchanan, like Ron Paul, has argued that the roots of al Qaeda's motivations are in line with what both the State Dept. and the CIA have published. That is a complete contradiction to Bush's and all the 2008 Presidential candidates with the exception of Ron Paul, but consistent with the Democratic position. In fact once again it differentiates the Buchanan's approach to thinking from conservatism.
While Buchanan advocates our supporting Israel, it's not based on knee-jerk support of them like we get from nearly all other conservatives in power, but considerate of the Palestinians. This sort of nuance is non-existent within nearly all of Conservatism (except for Condi Rice and W. Bush later in his term, though Bush didn't have an appetite for diplomacy so it was more of an abstract preference than actionable policy position).
I went to this Wikipedia site to find if I'd miss anything and found the following:
Buchanan has also willfully leveraged his magazine, American Conservative, to attack mistreatment of animals. So much so he's received and award from PETA.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 23, 2010 11:04 AM
As far as Bush's "fealty to his financial base" I don't think he really did investors any favors.
That was due to sheer incompetence and malicious religious thinking, not lack of fealty.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 23, 2010 11:09 AM
Certainly isolationism is a legacy of conservatism. However modern-day conservatives are far more prone to take positions contra to conservative values if that's what their leaders promote. But that is not kosher with Mr. Buchanan who loudly defends his principles.
Buchanan has openly said he would not have intervened to fight the Nazis in Europe, but would instead have allowed Hitler and Stalin to "wipe each other out," in a protracted continent-wide war, without regard to the tens of millions of lives that would have been lost in addition to the body count they actually did suffer. In other words, he pretends to argue an old conservative position sensibly, in part because he really hasn't learned shit from the experience of WWII and still "thinks" isolationism is a good idea. His "liberalism" of thought is as phony as Ron Paul's "libertarianism."
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 23, 2010 11:16 AM
Michael Heath #58
You're really reaching. Buchanan is a paid commentator on MSNBC, so his willingness to denate is different from someone who is invited on as a shill for one of the political parties. During the Cold War, he supported cozying up to every unsavory dictator and Contra group on the planet as long as they were or pretended to be anti-communist. Then as soon as the Soviet Union fell, he became an isolationist.
It's hard for me to see his position on the Middle East as not being tainted by anti-Semitism, especially since I can't think of any other oppressed group he supports anywhere in the world, besides the Palestinians. Those elderly Jewish voters in Florida in 2000 really didn't intend to vote for Buchanan, I assure you.
As far as animal rights, I don't see those as falling into liberal vs conservative. I hate to mention the H person, but a certain evil German leader was an animal lover. And while I support the Humane Society and do dog rescue, I think PETA is by and large batshit crazy.
As far as the original point on sincerity, you can't devine someone's intentions nor can I. We can only judge their actions and, to a limited extent, their words. I would much prefer good actions with a crass motive than bad actions with the highest of sentiments behind it.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | February 23, 2010 11:50 AM
Demo,
You live in a dream world. What subject are you talking about? The Locke thing was never addressed by anyone and all I here is a victory claim. Pathetic.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 23, 2010 1:23 PM
I find it quite amusing how much Ron Paul scares people.
I find it quite boring how people like you call us "scared" of your guy every time we mention him. Dream on, Paultards.
I think Ron Paul supporters puss most republicans off because they challenge their beliefs with historical data and constitutional interest.
If Ron Paul's supporters piss the Republicans off so much, then why do they let him run for office AS A REPUBLICAN?
You only need to look back to Eisenhower to find Ron Pauls type of conservatism.
Eisenhower was an isolationist who supported the gold standard?
Oh, and did "Ron Paul's type of conservatism" include McCarthyism? 'Cause Eisenhower's sure did -- he didn't stand up to it until WAY late in the game.
@ Miko, #43:
I've always wondered who these alleged anti-government business interests are.
Businesspersons and anti-gummint loonies who oppose worker-safety, truth-in-advertizing, environmental, and all other forms of government regulation. Libertards have been pandering to this depraved indifference toward human welfare at least since 1980.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 23, 2010 2:27 PM
Jay B, #53: The problem is most people don't realise how misled they are.
If so many people are misled without realizing it, how can you be sure you're not one of them?
Posted by: Chiroptera | February 23, 2010 2:46 PM
Chrioptera: Because bloggers who write commentary from their mothers' basements have +4 defenses against collectivist mind-control. It's something we're all born with, but when you go out in the real world and open your mind to facts, your protections erode, leaving you more susceptible.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 23, 2010 2:59 PM
King of Ireland:
Which subject? Any that I've seen you rage about.
Posted by: democommie | February 24, 2010 10:27 AM