hat scares me is that the Murkin electorate might actually select Paul...Ron Paul is the broken clock of Right-Wing political extremism. Unlike the rest of that feculent set, he's right twice a day...

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

will he buy TV ads with it? where? what will they say? will he do something else? will the media allow him to have exposure, even bought and paid for exposure?

$4.2m isn't that much, and paulites strike me as very word of mouth, anti establishment types. they are vocal, but are they numerous? can paul cut thru the fog of TV, and pierce the mind of the low information voter?

if nothing else, i find this run by paul interesting, from a scientific/historical position.

They aren't directly comparable, of course, since the Dodd thing was a spontaneous outpouring, and this is planned.

(You also have to ask: Do I want a "small government conservative" in charge of the country if the economy collapses? The answer is no...)

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

there's overlap, no doubt. but paulites come in many forms, including those unfamiliar with political blogwars and communities.

as you say lb, we're not organizers, and there isn't another dean to inspire the populists. between those two facts, the 150K comes into focus.

Ron Paul is anti-choice, so it will be a cold day in hell before I'll even look at him as a candidate. You gotta wonder what kind of Libertarian wants to keep the government out of people's business but will still keep it on women's bodies.

He's also a racist and he accepted contributions from White Supremacist-Stormfront founder Don Black.

Not really my kind of candidate.

Last night Ron Paul's TV ads started appearing on Boston television, aimed at the New Hampshire electorate of course. Very simple, very clear. He'll remove the troops immediately from abroad and bring them home leaving us all with enough money to do what we need to do domestically. He's never voted for an unbalanced budget and never will.

I'm beginning to suspect that Iowa and NH may leave a Republican field consisting of Giuliani or Romney (not both) plus Huckabee and Paul. I suspect that Huckabee will be the Republican nominee when the dust clears and he is probably the most dangerous of all the current Repugnant candidates as he is the one who comes across as closest to sane.

Paul, if he gets enough support, might consider a third party run. He's done it before as a Libertarian. He's playing the Perot role in this election so far.

just like the other ones... how to serve a Ron Paul:

In a mixing bowl: combine one cup of Pat Buchanan and one cup of Grover Norguist, whip to a high peak. Mix equal parts church and state and whisk until thouroughly blended. Pour mixture into the chilled bleached skull of a trade unionist and garnish with red white and blue sprinkles and a shiny gold coin. Serve with White Nationalist Crackers (supply-sider up), and a thick slice of Strict Constructionist Cheese. Makes an excellent accompanyment to any hot homemade Chicago Boys Dirty War Chili. (very popular in Latin America back in the 70's)

*

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

Dat'd make an orc puke...

yeah, i guess its a little on the bitter end. In that case - for those with a more saccharin tooth - just change "supply-side up" to sunny side up, and add a tablespoon of Ronald Reagan Corn Syrup to the recipe (that should help the medicine go down).

*

Checking uteruses for blastocysts at the state borders, yet? I suppose its only a matter of time! Stock up on surgical gloves now! Coathangers, too!

UPDATE Then again, maybe that comment above was so deeply ironic that my irony meter couldn't detect it.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

if a woman doesn't have sovereignty over her own body she is not free. If a woman isn't free--does not have a say regarding the management of her body--what are all those grown-up fetuses getting killed in Iraq for? As distasteful as life is a whole lot of responsibility comes with being a human being: does anyone have the right to compel a woman to birth that which she does not wish to? Be the fetus a result of a rape or an "accident" or Zeus got drunk and did her in the honeymoon suite at Olympia Inn, is it really anyone's choice but hers (and those she chooses to share her choice with)?

Fetus trumps the Vessel, the Holy Chalice, the Womb-woman? Who will raise the forced childbirth babies? Who will pay for them? Will you and I? Who will play with those children, feed them, comfort them, love them? Or does the law stop at merely compelling the woman to bring to term that which she may not wish to? Is life hard and sad--yes. Is it our job to make it harder and sadder?

++++

There is a complete absense of comprehension about what Ron Paul really thinks here and in the comments at every more or less liberal and conservative blog. I can't help it if you simply don't agree with his worldview (hey, lots of people don't agree with yours either and it is irritating as hell when they misunderstand and badmouth it at the same time). If you really understood what he's saying, or at least attempted in good faith to think about what it means, you wouldn't find it so appalling.

Without a federal department of education there would still exist state departments of education and public schools... and without a federal income tax, there would be a heck of a lot more income for the states to tax to keep their schools running, if they should choose to do it. It would mean no strings attached and no extra layer of management pissing away fortunes. No one size fits all, no worries about conservatives taking over and dictating bad rules that apply to everyone and that no one can change for years. Yes there is a tradeoff in that poorer states lose the extra tax revenue. This is the nature of reality. There are no utopias. In my opinion the cost of allowing such a monolithic and unaccountable beast as the federal government to tax and dictate how we go about our affairs, and by implication granting that people with which we do not agree ideologically may actually end up dictating to everyone, is too high. In a decentralized system there's no reason some people can't move to states that educate more in line with their preferences. In a centralized system everyone is helpless. 70% of the country is opposed to the war, and there is nothing we can do about it! And they're planning another one in contempt of all of us. This is the risk of centralization.

The same thing holds for abortion. Why do you say he wants to unilaterally eliminate it? Why do you imagine he is anti-choice in the sense that he's going to impose federal anti-abortion laws? You should know better than that, or you shouldn't be talking about it at all. His attitude is so respectable and commonsensical in this area. If you really want the federal government to have control over the legality of abortion, then you have to perpetually fret about it and fight for the power to make sure those laws are protected. When you lose a federal fight, EVERYONE loses. The stakes are so much higher when we give away that kind of power to a bigger, farther away, more draconian government.

You probably think decentralization is less than ideal. I think EVERYTHING is less than ideal. The point is that Ron Paul doesn't think the scary things you attribute to him. Look, libs and cons are never going to agree. I think they both shoot themselves in the foot by trying to maintain control of a universal system to which everyone is subject and which does not respond to heavy majorities. I see party politics as essentially a religious war with naive expectations from both sides about what they can accomplish if only they can finally get the power, and bad faith contempt for everyone who doesn't hallow the sacred ideals of the party. I don't know, just like everyone else doesn't know, what the ultimate consequences of more freedom would be, but I do know there are unintended consequences in signing it away, even for good things like education.

and you should spew your misogynistic crap somewhere else.
The proof is here:
Submitted by Ron Paul 2008 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-11-06 21:45.

and while I'm very competent in the kitchen (and the bedroom, unlike you, you dumb ignorant bull) I'm also extremely well versed in other activities.

Like kicking your worthless ass up into the vacuum between your ears, should the opportunity arise.

So spew your crap elsewhere, because when you spew it here you annoy me, you pussy whipped anal leakage stain, you.

Furthermore, you're a good argument for retroactive abortion. Why the hell aren't you fighting the war on terra in Iraq, scumbucket?

5th grader's?
Go to the blog his campaign runs and look at what he stands for.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

Anti-choice, anti-immigrant, anti-gay Ron Paul does not speak for me.

He is a Republican, and I do not want him running anything.

Anybody who thinks you can have an America without federal taxes is an utter fool or a lying bastard.

I know what I know Ron Paul is, and it isn't an utter fool.

Anyone who honestly believes his multimillion dollar haul this week came from blue collar types, however, probably is being fooled.

Ron Paul is a Dominionist of the Confederate school, bought and paid for.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Silent critic writes:

The same thing holds for abortion. Why do you say he wants to unilaterally eliminate it? Why do you imagine he is anti-choice in the sense that he’s going to impose federal anti-abortion laws? You should know better than that, or you shouldn’t be talking about it at all. His attitude is so respectable and commonsensical in this area.

So, I go to Ron Paul's site, and I find this:

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

Sounds like the federal level to me. Unilateral, too. And here's the rest of his "common sense" position:

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

Look, silent critic--I can understand why you'd want to fuzz over Paul's position in favor of forced pregancy; many people find his position totally immoral, and as a result it's very unpopular. This is only normal.

But did you have to outright lie about it? That's a little crude, I must say.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

That would be an interesting data point...

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

More than enough reason to both reject him as any kind of a candidate for any position of national responsibility. In Congress, he's a wacky back-bencher. Mostly Harmless. Fine. Wacky Dominionist/Social Darwinist/Libertarianist fucknozzles deserve representation, too. Tom Harmann sezit best: You can't govern if you don't believe in Government.

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

Or actual quotes. Let's try for a little value add in that regard as well, shall we?

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

We are better than that. Let's argue on merits, not get personal.

"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

Sorry for the delay, some of us have to work for a living, as much as we prefer fomenting revolution in cyberspace!

Evidence? Circumstantial, and weak, but abundant.

So I had to work harder for it.

Although these days he's not making a lot of noise, apparently he is recruiting among Christian fundamentalists. Even as I look that site has been scrubbed; the cached version is here, and as you can see, somewhat different.

I decided to look at some of the links on that page the caching process seemed to have broken. Luckily, the site's name was given, though its link didn't work. I found this "statement of faith:"

...I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called "population control." Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn...

Admittedly, Christianity does not a Dominionist make, Dominionists do tend to advertise themselves as anti-abortion Christian fundamentalists. It does seem that he's being quiet about this. In fact, his "faith" is something you have to look for unless you're one of the "chosen".

But there are some interesting connections between Gary North and Ron Paul, as well as Morton Blackwell's Leadership Institute, which has invited Paul to speak in the past. It also appears he's on their advisory board.

Is he a stealth Dominionist? I'd say so. Blackwell's trained everyone from Grover Norquist to Karl Rove, and would be unlikely to let anyone who's not advise him about anything.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

... are personal attacks OK (as with any and all other attacks (until the language is sufficiently honed and propagated)). The tools that come to hand...

For example, saying "Mickey Kaus fucks goats" is a personal attack.

On the other hand, saying "Mickey Kaus fucks goats, and here's the link" is still a personal attack, but at least there's some evidence (at least potentially. Oddly, Mickey Kaus has still not denied that he fucks goats)).

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

We read his discourse, interpret (being Althusserian, I also interpellate), and decode his message. Ah the wonders of textual criticism, n'est pas? No one believes any longer that the 'literal' connotation of a particular iteration exhausts its meaning. So, if I attach the label "social Darwinist" to my critique of Ron Paul, it is because I have read "into" Paul's message/biography/posturings and extracted the meaning intended to portray precisely that appeal.
Or have I missed something?

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

I dunno if Paul is a dominionist (or more specifically a Christian Reconstructionist) strictly speaking. But hes very good at avoiding being pinned down in these kinds of cases.

Below is a link to an interview Paul gave to Michael Anthony Peroutka and John Lofton (The Constitution Party) at The American View. Paul certainly marches right up to the front of line in this interview. But he is careful not to step to far over in most cases...listen carefully to what he is saying (and carefully avoiding saying). This is real dog whistle stuff and Paul knows it.

Peroutka summarizes the interview (Sept, 19, 2007) here:
www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=926...

The following statement has been issued by Michael Anthony Peroutka, the Presidential candidate of the Constitution Party in 2004. He is also co-founder, with his brother Steve, of “Institute On The Constitution.” And he is co-host, with John Lofton, of “The American View” radio show.

I endorse Rep. Ron Paul for President. And I endorse him not because he is the lesser of two evils. A Christian can never endorse any kind of evil. I endorse Rep. Paul because — from a Christian/Biblical and Constitutional perspective – he is, by far, the best candidate running for President.

— Rep. Paul believes, correctly, that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God and thus it is not the role of God-ordained civil government, at any level, to feed, house, clothe or educate anybody.

— Rep. Paul takes his oath to God as a Congressman seriously and believes, correctly, that the Constitution is the highest man-made law in our land, that it severely restricts what the Federal Government can legally do, and it must be obeyed. This is why, as he states on his campaign web site, he has: never voted to raise taxes; never voted for an unbalanced budget; never voted for a Federal restriction on gun ownership; never voted to raise Congressional pay; never taken a government-paid junket; and has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

Peroutka's summary is accurate. The link to the radio interview is here (enjoy the music!):
www.theamericanview.com/dictator/media/8...

The American View is a far right Constitution Party / Christian Reconstructionist / Lofton (TAV editor and 2004 Constitution Party prez candidate John Lofton) / Peroutka forum and features the writings of Rushdoony and Gary DeMar, Larry Pratt, ... and many others.
This is from TAV's "Mission Statement":

To those who will accuse of us of desiring and trying to bring about “a Christian America,” we unashamedly plead guilty though the accusation is far too modest and somewhat muddled. To be sure, we desire a Christian America, and a Christian world, a Christian galaxy and a Christian universe. And, over time, by His grace, we hope to demonstrate that all these things already belong to the Lord Jesus Christ because He created them all and they are His property. This is why all knees must bow to the Lord and all tongues confess that He is the Lord — because He is!
www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=2&P...

Lofton summarizes the Ron Paul interview here:
www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=916...

Excerpts From Our Exclusive Ron Paul Interview
By John Lofton

— God, the Bible and civil government. Paul agrees it is not the role of civil government, at any level — Federal, state or local — to feed, house, clothe or educate anybody and that this would also be un-Constitutional. He believes Scripture is God’s Word and thus inerrant and infallible. He says: “Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.” He believes our country came together by God’s Providence “just as, Providentially, it may end, by God’s Will.”

— Abortion. Yes, Paul thinks abortion is murder but there is a difference between taking a so-called “morning after pill” and a person committing “the horrible murder when you see someone lying in the floor and someone takes a gun and puts it to their head. I don’t equate those and don’t expect the law or juries to treat them exactly alike.” He says, however, he lacks the wisdom to say what the penalty ought to be for abortionists or those getting abortions.

Paul says he doesn’t know if he “accepts completely” that God has decreed the death penalty for murder though he believes all States have the right to impose capital punishment. He is “so skeptical” of the Federal Government’s judgment that he doesn’t like the idea of the Feds pretending they know whose life they are going to take.

...more (continues) see link above.

*

[rimshot, laughter]

What you've missed, Woody, is that your "reading" needs to be backed up, exposed, made transparent, not simply asserted on the basis of some presumed authority. After a lot of work, the reading turns into a meme and propagates. But the work needs to be done. For example, back in the day, I believe I'm the person who tagged Bush with the sobriquet "aWol." (If I didn't invent it, I was very early.) Which is cute, but was effective because we also had a corpus of posts to point to that backed the name up with... evidence and reasoning. The various glossary items after AWOL show this. They are all terms of abuse invented for Bush. The one that stuck is the one with a narrative behind it that the community collectively created.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

That would be 'a Paul-Ann'!

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

Ron Paul, Dec. 2003. excerpt from "The War on Religion"

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

You get the picture (dog whistle stuff: the "war" on Christmas... etc)The rest is here: www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

*

Dog whistle words in column A, real meaning in column B....

If "the many yielding to the fragile sensibilities of the few" isn't pure projection....

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

dave neiwert has a new post up on topic (and on Greenwald's somewhat misinformed observations of Paul).

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron...

lots of links too!

*

The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society

What's creepy here is that nowhere in the Constitution does any such assumption or decree exist vis a vis largely Christian society and to stick one's elbows out to make everybody get out of the way for Jesus is antithetical to everything that the Constitution stands for.

Last add: personally, I love the war on Xmas. My grandpa lost two ornaments and a candy cane in the Pacific Theater. He smeared mistletoe in the face of an attacker and lived to sing about it! Talk about your heroes!

++++

said something like this:

We have to cut our empire back in order to save our economy here.

Eh? Some fucking Democratic strategist--sorry for the Contradiction in terms--should start stealing Ron Paul's clothes....

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Sarah: Listen to this audio of Ron Paul defending the equal rights of Gays. Sure he probably isn't "pro-gay" but don't bash the guy on subjects you don't know about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE (Ron Paul on Homosexuality)

On the Anti-Choice issue, realize that he is an Ob/Gyn so his opinion isn't out of complete ignorance. He has in fact witnessed first hand botched abortions.

We claim it's immoral.

More, most people disagree with Paul, and rightly so. And so what if he's an OB/GYN? It's the woman's body every time, and never his. It's her decision all the way.

We also show, above, that while Paul advocates try to claim he wants to leave forced pregancy up to the states, he's advocated prohibiting abortion at the Federal level.

So I'd say Paul's got some 'splainin' to do. Not that politician's don't fuzz over past unpopular decisions all the time, of course.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

n/t

Sarah's absolutely correct.

Libertarians shouldn't just listen to each other's hopes and words about what this guy is and stands for.

Look at where RP's really been, who he's really supported, and what he's really done.

This guy is a Dominionist Trojan Horse, stalking the progressive vote on the high plains of cyberspace.

He's no more a genuine supporter of individual rights than Dear Leader is a "compassionate conservative".

These people lie. What's it going to take to get people to stop living dreams and live in the reality-based world?

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Despite the Paultards, I sure wish I could here somebody else say this:

All empires end, end badly, for economic reasons, because you can’t afford them.

We can’t owe foreigners $2.7 trillion and think we can keep paying them interest and keep borrowing money. They’ll quit doing it, and that’s why the dollar is weakening.

If we want to tide some people over here, the only way we can take care of the people who are sick and dependent on government programs is by cutting somewhere else. And I say we have to cut our empire back in order to save our economy here.

My goal is just to have a transition period so you don’t have a collapse of the economy and a breakdown of the political system, which happens if you don’t deal with this. And this is what’s happened so many times over history.

Now, the transition period Paul is talking about is... To what, exactly? Exactly.

But statements like the above we ought to be using to smash the Overton Window. Eh?

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

yet.

But I guarandamnteeya, if we hit the Iranians with a war, we'll be in over our heads before you can say "aw, sh!t."

Never before in our nation's history have we had not one but two ongoing wars AND an economic collapse at home.

Where's the next FDR? 'Cause I'm tellin' you, it ain't HRC.

Ah, but according to Dear Leader, the economy has never been better, and over half of the public wants to git thar Iran on.

ChuShu, DiFi, and the Village believe him.

But you are right, Sarah, and we will certainly find ourselves in interesting times.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

If we want to tide some people over here, the only way we can take care of the people who are sick and dependent on government programs is by cutting somewhere else.

except that Paul says he doesn't believe that government programs should be used to take care of people who are sick or need tiding over.

John Lofton summarizes]:

Paul agrees it is not the role of civil government, at any level — Federal, state or local — to feed, house, clothe or educate anybody and that this would also be un-Constitutional.

listen for yourself:
www.theamericanview.com/dictator/media/8...

*

that perhaps I get giddy.

Nevertheless, that idea is now in play. Isn't it better for us to "take what we like and leave the rest" on this? (Because if we don't the Village going to discredit everything he says--including the idea that America's imperial role could just possibly be a problem. Ditto the idea of Constitutional government. I mean, it would be bad if we ended up with Hillary I as the second contested monarch of the United States because the Village tagged restoring Constitutional government as crazy talk by the Paultards, would it not?)

Meanwhile, Bernanke--translating the bankerese--just said run for your lives. I'm sure that going back on the gold standard will fix that, however.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

busy, busy, busy by the same constant, relentless stream of attacks from the Right that characterized the Clenis' reign. Isn't that pretty much a foregone conclusion?

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

that perhaps I get giddy.

nevertheless, its still a good idea to read the ingedients label on the back of the Kool Ade packet.

*