Help! I'm being attacked by Paulies....
Several times now, I've been invited by women I barely know through some loose associations to check out Ron Paul. They send me links to meetup and his campaign site and ask my opinion on his ideas. These are women I don't want to offend so I answer as diplomatically as possible - not even close to the blunt brutality of my soccermom posts that I recognize often lack tact and the finesse required to maintain relationships. Despite my best efforts, these ladies have all gotten annoyed because I didn't heartily endorse Mr. Paul and jump headfirst into the bandwagon. I don't think I'm going out on a limb here to suggest that Paul's followers are less than rational.
So... here in the corner of cyberspace where I unload my opinions, I am posting what I think of Ron Paul. If you find yourself in agreement, feel free to cut and paste the response I didn't send (yes, my replies were even more wishy washy and weak in hopes of protecting relationships).
Dear (insert Ron Paul groupie's name here),
As for what I think - well, most of what he says is extremely appealing. A return to basic constitutional ideas would be more than welcome, although to be honest, I don't believe that Paul's message is practical. Perhaps I'm too much of a cynic but I don't foresee a President convincing Congress to dial back the spending, cut taxes (remember the Bush cuts were approved only on a provisional basis) and cut programs. Too many people in Washington and locally have their hands in our pockets to turn back the clock to an earlier style American political system.
People tend to look at the President as the real mover and shaker in DC but that is a media myth. Because he is a single man we focus attention on him but an executive officer is only as effective as the Congress that backs him and the judges that sustain the Congressionally initiated legislation. Even if the GOP won the Congress back and Paul was elected - a good portion of the Senate and House would have to agree that the fed has grown too powerful and should be neutered with substantial job losses and department dissolutions. They'd have to risk offending constituents, businesses and special interest groups who have ever-extended hands and often exchange votes for entitlements. These changes would have to survive the thousands of lawsuits brought before the court by recently unemployed federal workers and constituents claiming to be suddenly disenfranchised by the disappearance of one program or another.
The stars are aligned in such a fashion, my friend, and I believe that if Paul were elected his power would be limited to the veto because he'd have no Congressional support.
I feel similarly about Paul's foreign policy message. It is unbelievably naive. Even in Jefferson's day, when the nation followed an isolationist policy we were drawn into the Barbary wars to defend our national financial interests. In a world that is shrinking due to technological advances, withdrawing is even less of an option. We have porous borders and satellites beaming communist and terrorist doctrine throughout the heartland. Our isolationist days are over. Besides, consider how the world would react if we just picked up our toys and came home. Those same folks who desperately want us to mind our own business are the first in line to cash the U.S. taxpayer funded welfare checks that our government doles out annually. Do you really believe that the world will leave us alone when we stop handing out the money? The U.N harrasses us presently because they don't believe we pay enough! See how much you like paying higher prices because trade agreements have been discarded in the wake of a Pauline administration abandoning the international payoffs. Until you have traveled the world and seen firsthand the love-hate relationship most nations have with these United States, tune out the anti-war rhetoric and take the word of someone who has literally drunken from the cholera infested waters of the third world - you don't have a clue. Continuing to pay out while abdicating the right to act in accord with our self-interest is no option either. It would make America the biggest patsy on the world stage and amounts to international extortion. You want to see blowback?
I suppose what it boils down to is that I do agree with Paul - the system is broken. But I don't see him altering it and I'd rather have someone who can effectively negotiate the system and make gradual changes than one who promises the world but I know won't be able to deliver. The only way to accomplish Paul's vision is through revolutionary tactics.
Ron Paul's message appeals to every true conservative - to every true American - he is articulating our fondest hopes and dreams, a return to a simpler time less encumbered by overreaching federalism. Unfortunately, no matter how desperately I want to believe Paul is a voice crying in the wilderness, I just can't see a return to the promised land any time soon.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Dick— 2007/10/28 @ 01:22 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/10/28 @ 06:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dick— 2007/10/28 @ 06:23 PM — (Reply)
Can you remember a time when principles mattered? When one's actions were guided by what was right, and not merely by what was "realistic"? America was once the land of dreams. Now those dreams must be run through the filter of practicality.
I'm tired of people so beaten down by the system that they've actually convinced themselves that nothing can be changed about it. I'm sad that the biggest criticism against Ron Paul's candidacy is that "it makes sense, so it'd never work. It's not practical. It'd come up against too much engrained resistance."
Cate, if you find yourself so trapped within the system that you actually can't support a Paul candidacy simply because it runs against the engrained interests- you might as well be a Democrat. History has never been written by the bureaucrats, and if you think there would be hordes of lawsuits by entrenched civil servants, let me ask you whatever happened with the air traffic controllers when Reagan locked them out?
I can't support Paul yet, because there's no way I can associate myself with the hypocritical blood-sucking horde that otherwise call themselves Republicans. But if he happened to earn your party's nomination, or ran as an independant, he would have my vote over any of the Democrats out there.
He is the ONLY candidate with principles out there. And I'm sorry if that fact is the major reason you can't support him, Cate. It speaks to how the myth of the system has so engrained itself. If your main beef was his foreign policy stances (and I can see it being a major issue for you), that would be understandable, and acceptable.
Comment by Michael— 2007/10/28 @ 08:10 PM — (Reply)
Colbert '08!!!!
Comment by Michael— 2007/10/28 @ 08:13 PM — (Reply)
Of course, I have major issues with Paul's isolationism. But being the pragmatist that I am, I can't help but believe Paul would be a lame duck from day one. Tell me how voting for an ineffectual mouthpiece is more principled than voting for someone who gradually advances the principles I support?
Comment by Cate— 2007/10/29 @ 07:50 AM — (Reply)
But he's running as a Republican. Yes, he is on the fringe of the Republican mainstream, but then again, there was a time when a former actor/governor of California was viewed as being on the fringe of the mainstream party.
I think you greatly underestimate the partisan games in Washington, and as a Republican, I do believe you would see a significant shift among the Republican legislators to come in line with the person the nation has chosen. I go back to Reagan, who was greatly underestimated when he ran. Or W.Bush. I don't think anyone could have anticipated the impact he has had (I'll leave the question of "for good" or "for worse" to elsewhere). Suddenly, Republican legislators, who were bomblasting the Clintons for the dreaded "nation-building" programs in Bosnia or Somalia, were clamoring for "spreading democracy" to the Middle East.
Voting pragmatically means that nothing ever changes, because the politicians see that they don't NEED to change. It propogates the system, a system that is fundamentally broken. It rewards the milque-toast sycophants who work within the system, and penalizes anyone who wants to fix the system itself.
To use your party's past, it's a question of Ford vs. Reagan. Do you remember how it was suggested that Ford be given the vice-presidential role, so that the elder statesman Ford could guide the naive, idealistist Reagan through the bureaucratic maze of Washington, and the complex dynamics of real politik with the Soviets?
I doubt even his harshest critic could say that Reagan was a lame-duck presidency.
I'm not saying that Paul is, or even could be, the next Reagan. But I firmly believe that it's foolish to underestimate the power of the Presidency to guide his party.
Up here, we had our fringe candidate take reins, when Jesse Ventura won the governorship. But his administration didn't work well, because he had no party base to call upon. Republicans and Democrats alike worked against the governor.
I think having the (R) next to Paul's name, would affect the situation a lot more than you might believe.
Comment by Michael— 2007/10/29 @ 09:24 AM — (Reply)
Paul actually winning your party's nomination would mean I would have to break my 22 year streak of NEVER having voted for a Republican.
Imagine- a Republican I can't automatically loathe. And I know a lot of Democrats who think the same way. Wouldn't it be amazing to have a president for BOTH parties?
Comment by Michael— 2007/10/29 @ 09:38 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/10/29 @ 10:23 AM — (Reply)
If this conversation were more than theoretical and Paul stood a reasonable chance of winning the general election, I would point you in the direction of all the conservative virtual hangouts where most think he is irrelevant. He can not take the primaries.
It is embarrassingly telling that at the end of his campaign videos, there is a screen directing people to his website whose tagline is : Show America that a vote for Ron Paul is not wasted. Geez, who was the genius who came up with that revealing promo? It's an admission that Paul and his people know they are fighting a losing battle.
As for your references to "nation building", you are rewriting history my friend. GWB also condemned nation building - it wasn't the president behind whom Congress united, it was the wreckage of the twin towers.
Comment by Cate— 2007/10/29 @ 12:38 PM — (Reply)
What is true is that he is virtually unnominatable as a Republican. The Bible-thumpers don't believe he's militant enough, the corporate-greedies hate his anti-free-trade stance, the militarists derail his foreign policy as isolationist, and most of all, the party regulars dislike his deviance from strict party platform.
What I dislike is the continuing argument that he is unelectable- largely based on the consensus opinion that he is unelectable. It's a classic case of informational cascade. Rather than discussing issues, policy or (god forbid!) actual ideas, we are discussing what that person thinks... which is merely an echo of what that other person thinks... and because those two people think it, all these other people are inclined to think it as well. Bull-hockey, repeated often enough, becomes "common knowledge."
Comment by Michael— 2007/10/30 @ 07:07 AM — (Reply)
You list the religious right, non-isolationists, corporations, etc. These are big groups with fundamental differences of opinion, fundamental political power and just plain FUNDS ;-) I agree that the issues he is highlighting with his 'back to the Constitution' campaign should be front and center but I also recognize the substantial mountain he has to climb and it's not an irrational response to "informational cascade" to dismiss him.
Some points I won't elaborate on but you know me well enough to get where I'm going...
1- Informational cascade wins and loses elections all the time. You can't pity Paul if people don't give him a fair shake - when you come into a race you assume the risk of being out-propagandized.
2- Dismissing Paul based on electability is not automatically a result of informational cascade - for some sure, perhaps for many this is true but not for all - some of us actually watch the endorsements, analyze the policy statements and read the tea leaves. Even after his one day windfall, I just don't think he can get enough backing.
I think you are oversimplifying on the 2nd point and whining on the 1st ;-) Paul may be the only statesman among politicians but politicians are the ones who get elected.
When was the last time we elected a senator over a governor? An elderly looking president over a more youthful one? When people want change they don't vote for someone who works in Washington. I'm not suggesting these are valid ways to vote but they are factors - I actually knew a woman who voted for Bill Clinton because she thought he was handsome... (and I thought 'Great I just wasted my vote nullifying the ballot of this nit-wit.')
Enough rambling - I'm off to tend the needs of a tired and cranky 2 year old. Later, my friend.
Comment by Cate— 2007/11/08 @ 02:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/11/07 @ 05:06 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/11/08 @ 12:00 PM — (Reply)
I like what he says about the border....
Comment by aza spade— 2007/10/29 @ 08:46 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/10/29 @ 11:52 AM — (Reply)
Let me assure you that if he wins the primary, he'll have my vote.
Cate
Comment by Cate— 2007/10/29 @ 12:40 PM — (Reply)
One subtitle sums up my feelings about Paul's candidacy: "The Perfect as the enemy of the Good". Damned idealism will leave us all crying in our supper as we watch him stubbornly refuse to compromise on issues that would lead us in a better if not perfect direction.
Comment by Cate— 2007/10/29 @ 02:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/10/30 @ 07:19 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/10/30 @ 07:50 AM — (Reply)
To suggest that endorsing Paul's principles requires an endorsement of his method of achieving them is akin to saying that anyone who is for racial equality must accept genocide as a means to achieve it.
The fact that Ron Paul refuses to vote affirmatively for incremental measures means he effectively votes for no measures. How is that progress toward the commendable goal of smaller government and more individual rights? I'd prefer two steps forward one step back to standing still.
Comment by Cate— 2007/10/30 @ 10:48 AM — (Reply)
It's like saying someone should vote for drinking battery acid, since it's clearly less damaging than the sulfuric acid we're drinking now. Vote for battery acid this go round, hoping that next time we can move it down to gastric acid... then maybe to citric acid. Of course, recognize that, assuming that it passes, this merely means that next time, the opposition will be recommending hydrochloric acid instead- because our nation is handling the muratic just fine.
You would accept no compromise on the issue of abortion, Cate, despite the national will for at least some sort of middle-ground on the topic. You deride activist judges who read more into the Constitution than was intended.
Why is idealistic Constitutional principles from a legislator any less admirable?
Comment by Michael— 2007/10/30 @ 01:01 PM — (Reply)
And Michael, there is middle ground on abortion - in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the mother's health, there should be legal provisions. What it shouldn't be is a birth control option.
O/T Since you brought this issue up, I will say something that might astound you. I didn't always believe abortion should be illegal. It was a serious struggle for me to decide whether the blatant immorality of it - the absolute depravity of this act - should be a matter for legislators to decide.
Where the pro-choice movement lost me was when they started demanding that we pretend babies weren't real at 24 weeks or 23 weeks or 20 weeks. You get the point. To suggest that the choice is inherently individual was a reasonable argument but then to pretend it was not vile just to make the 'pill' easier to swallow - to refuse to acknowledge the existing life - that is unreasonable.
When those lines became further drawn by pro-choice movement refusing to recognize two deaths in the homicide of a preg woman for example - this argument lost even more credibility. Then it became more about not recognizing a living fetus than recognizing a woman's right to choose.
I futher lost faith in the rationality of the libertarian approach when it became clear that there was a measurable causality between abortion tolerance and the devaluing of human life throughout our society. At some point, the needs of the many have to outweigh the weight gain and nausea of the one.
Again, I was revolted when the pro-choice voices demanded the right of a teacher to take a child across state lines to get an abortion without so much as parental notification was demanded as part and parcel of "a woman's right to choose". When Planned Parenthood (now indicted on multiple counts in Kansas) colluded with victims of statutory rape and child abuse to protect their abusers, and that was equated to a woman's free will, I felt even more alienated from their position.
Do you really think it's the pro-lifers who are the militants, here? They've only lost ground from day one with the lies and half truths floated by abortion defenders - falisfying and inflating numbers and percentages to make it seem as though nearly every child of the 60s had a coat hanger or back alley abortion.
If anything, these people undermined the validity of their own original argument with all of these addendums designed to further push the envelope. Now we read about the possibility of designer babies and suffer through the sob (pardon my dry eyes) stories of women who want so much of life that they forgo their prime fertility years, use abortion as birth control and then decide at 42 that their insurance companies should pay for in vitro because they 'missed out'.
I never supported the pro-choice movement because of my personal abhorrence of the practice of abortion BUT I sat on the fence for a long time about the legal aspect and I did have a lot of questions before I finally settled firmly and comfortably in the pro-life camp.
Back on topic: Let me ask you this: If nudging the law through from sulphuric acid to citric acid could be done in 20 years but campaigning for an acid-free society wouldn't bring results for 50, what course would you choose?
Comment by Cate— 2007/10/30 @ 06:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dick— 2007/10/30 @ 04:03 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Darkstream— 2007/11/03 @ 12:52 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dick— 2007/11/03 @ 12:54 PM — (Reply)
Ron Paul spoke about it last night. The media doesn't want to cover this man because he doesn't represent the media owners best interest - - just ours!
http://infowars.com/articles/nwo/north_american_union_already_starting_replace_usa.htm
Comment by Darkstream— 2007/11/03 @ 01:05 PM — (Reply)
Welcome back. We missed you around here!
Comment by Cate— 2007/11/04 @ 01:36 PM — (Reply)
thanks, Cate - glad to see your still here.
Comment by Darkstream— 2007/11/06 @ 05:59 PM — (Reply)
bla, bla, bla. Whether Fred, Mitt, Rudy, Huckabee, Paul, Ringo, George, or Nixon's frozen dead body, I'm voting against the Socialist anti-American commies on the left. Any democrap in the White House guarantees further invasion and conquest closer and sooner. BTW, so much damage by abortion and political correctness has already been done to the country my dad wore the WWII uniform to preserve, no one can plug the holes in the dam. A man like Mitt or Fred can possibly keep the flood at bay for another generation in spite of leftist radical commie power mongers.
I'd better quit before I tell y'all how I really feel.
Comment by Jane— 2007/11/06 @ 05:45 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/11/06 @ 06:56 PM — (Reply)
Ooooo, good dissing, Ernie!! Sorry about your comprehension skills. Let's see if I can lower the bar here.
Democrats are the Socialist party. They, most vocally, Hillary, wants to create a dependency tantamount to the USSR. The attempt to shut up Rush Limbaugh with that socialist letter to Clear Channel is an example.
The liberal 60's hollow eyed druggies selfish whiners, some of whom are on Capitol Hill -- that's where they pass useless resolutions, Ernie -- managed to convince a liberal supreme court (how convenient) to systematically dismember, fry, and suck the brains out of over 40 million helpless babies who would have otherwise voted and paid taxes.
Socialists (I think by now I CLEARLY refer to the former DemocraT party as socialist communists) on Capitol Hill (that's in Washington, DC) plus some lapdog RINOs (that's "Republican In Name Only, clear?) continue to refuse to prevent the ongoing flood of illegal aliens composed of rapists, gang members, drunks, as well as Jose and Maria whose goal is to drop anchor babies and suck on the welfare system, and, don't forget the Iranian terrorist graduates trained by Hugo Chavez to appear Mexican, in overwhelming numbers. Flood? Dam? Get it? Clear?
To close clearly: The only thing that matters in the Republican candidates is can we win? Is the candidate capable of winning against the Socialist Nanny (as in make us all dependent on government).
Let's see if I held your hand long enough to comprehend the statement that I would vote for Nixon's frozen dead body for the sole purpose of pulling a vote away from a strong possibility of a communist regime.
Comment by Jane— 2007/11/07 @ 05:01 AM — (Reply)
The liberal 60's druggie selfish whiners became the sex-obsessed selfish sluts of the 70's, the money-grubbing selfish corporate whores of the 80's, the whiny self-righteous "new Republicans" of the 90's, and now are about to bleed the Social Security system dry from their retirement.
Rail against the Democrats all you like, but don't blame us for the Baby Boom- that generation has ran amock across all parties and ideologies. But you are right- the selfishness of their generation has ruined this country and made a mockery of their parents' generation.
Comment by Michael— 2007/11/07 @ 11:07 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/11/07 @ 05:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/11/08 @ 11:49 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/11/08 @ 05:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/11/08 @ 05:19 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/11/09 @ 06:46 AM — (Reply)
In my book, if you weren't a teenager by the summer of love, you really aren't a baby boomer. That would confine the group between '46 and '56 or so.
By the standard numbers, I have 4 boomer siblings and a boomer husband - NONE of whom fit the description.
On a tangent, 20 years was a very reasonable definition for "generation" before the 20th century but the acceleration of modernization has made that time frame much too long to be useful. Can you fathom a child born in 1980 and one born in 2000 having much in common in terms of cultural experiences?
Comment by Cate— 2007/11/10 @ 02:17 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2007/11/10 @ 04:20 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/11/07 @ 04:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/11/07 @ 05:16 AM — (Reply)
Michael, I must not have been clear. The hollow eyed burned out hippies was a direct reference to Barbara Boxer and what's her name, oh, what is her name? she's the shrill one with the gavel in the congress. As for the evil corporate rich, they just happen to be the ones who sign the nations' paychecks. I've been laid off for lack of work before. I prefer expansion, investment, and job growth. Oh, wow, I just described the economy that's resulted from cutting taxes for literally everybody including the upper income earners. I get to go to work tomorrow and check my stocks when I get home. Btw, they've nearly doubled in a year's time.
Regarding Exxon specifically, they get a whopping 8 cents per gallon for their investments, research, employing millions of people and expenses, and the state and feds get a combined 38.5 cents off the same gallon for sitting on their fat butts and using it to feed Jose and Maria as they pop more anchor babies.
Furthermore, that 8 cents that goes to the evil oil company is gross profit, not net. If you don't appreciate the difference, you shouldn't criticize it.
Here's a couple of new phrases for you: Limo Liberal and Lear Jet Liberal.
If Ron Paul stays out of my wallet, well, like I said before, it won't matter. I'm voting against the opposition this time.
Comment by Jane— 2007/11/07 @ 04:17 PM — (Reply)
Political affiliations aside, I'm not likely to jump up in defense of Boxer, Feinstein or Pelosi any time soon. The one good thing I can say about all three, is that they prove that women can be just as weasley as their male counterparts.
------------------
I'd love to know your investment scheme, since the S&P 500 has only gone up 7.5% in the past year. The Dow's a little better at 10%, and the NASDAQ seems to be rolling at 15%... but nearly 100% is impressive investing on your part.
--------------
As for gas taxes, the feds and states don't use that money to feed your offensive stereotypes. They use the money to build and repair the highways that you're burning the gasoline driving on. Yes, there are pork barrel projects, like the famous Bridge to Nowhere. By the way, you can thank a Republican Congress, attempting to placate a Republican senator from Alaska for that particular one. Both parties and nearly every congressman is guilty of pork barrel politics, except maybe Paul. There have also been the occasional political dodges, like from 93 through 97, when money was shunted off in order to "balance the budget." But most (if admittedly not all) of that money goes to fixing the same roads you're driving on.
Should the federal tax be taken away and returned to the states? Maybe. But the Interstate system has been pretty darn useful. It'd be a shame to see that go to pot.
------------------
As for the oil companies, I do understand the difference between gross and net, which made it impossible for me to swallow your "8 cents a gallon" line without researching it on my own.
A California state review of data ought to demonstrate that this "8 cents a gallon" is propoganda that you've mistakenly swallowed somewhere. "Refinery costs and profits" (industry definition of 'gross profit') has been at least 30 cents a gallon this past year, and upwards of two dollars or more!
And this is just for refineries. Most of the big oil companies (BP, Chevron, ExxonMobile, etc.) not only own the refineries, they own the crude oil production as well. One can legitimately add in at least a portion of 1-2 dollar cost of crude oil into equations for them as well.
Don't trust California? The US DoE shows gross refining margins of $24 a barrel 2nd quarter last year, $31 a barrel 2nd quarter this year. With 42 gallons to a barrel, basic math shows you that "8 cents a barrel gross profit" is an absurd assertion.
Go to this chart, and you'll see that gross profit for refining hasn't been remotely close to "8 cents a gallon" (=$3 a barrel) for 20 years!
But, since you can appreciate the difference between gross and net, can I at least criticize your erroneous defense of Big Oil?
Comment by Michael— 2007/11/08 @ 01:54 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/11/07 @ 04:28 PM — (Reply)