The American Conservative Paul for President

by **Stephanie** Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:49 pm

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/feature.html

Paul for President

The presidential fields of both parties have narrowed, and the arguments about how we should move forward are now familiar. TAC believes that only one candidate has put forth a diagnosis of America’s current ills and has a vision to turn the country off its misguided course. That is Congressman Ron Paul, whom we endorse for the Republican nomination.

On the key issue of foreign policy, the differences between the other Republican contenders can be measured in microdots. All remain enthusiastic supporters of the invasion of Iraq and of maintaining a presence there for years to come. All speak as if it is America’s right and duty to station its armed forces over much of the world. All have embraced neoconservative paranoia about the “threat” posed by Iran, setting the table for another war. All, that is, except Dr. Paul.

He is the one candidate who sees how the realities of world power have shifted since the 1990s, the one who recognizes that the time of unilateral American hegemony is over—and can’t be maintained even if it was in our interest to do so. He alone understands that the ever expanding federal government is a far greater threat to American liberty than some tinpot dictator in the Caucasus. By speaking about the benefits of smaller government and limited executive power, he has introduced a generation of young Americans to a more traditional and true style of conservatism—to the movement and the country’s benefit.

Ron Paul is a libertarian, and his stances are very much derived from that minor party tradition. To many, his ruminations about sound money seem academic—if oddly prescient. He was sounding the alarm about dollar devaluation long before the current panic and broke with libertarian orthodoxy to oppose injurious free-trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA. Conservatives also find common cause with his 30-year pro-life voting record and commitment to ending birthright citizenship.

Paul came by his congressional nickname—“Dr. No”—honestly. Anyone combing through his lengthy record will find many lone stands and idealistic statements that ignore the maxim that politics is the art of the possible. We are under no illusion that he has much chance of winning the GOP nomination this election cycle.

Nevertheless we urge a vote for him. This campaign sends a signal to both parties that a significant number of Americans value their country’s great Constitution, that many conservatives reject wiretaps, waterboarding, and senseless wars. There is far more realism in Paul’s analysis than can be found in those Republicans who believe that Washington’s policy of borrowing billions from China to pay for the occupation of a growing number of countries is desirable, much less sustainable.

Ron Paul has been a breath of fresh air in an otherwise desultory Republican campaign. Long may he run.

by SFCraig Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:14 pm

So, are you comfortable in what is mostly considered "liberal" territory?

I mean, check out Noam Chomsky:

http://www.amazon.com/Hegemony-Survival-Americas-Dominance-American/dp/0805074007

I've gotten an earful at the old forums for daring to criticize "America", instead of one party or another. And ultimately, it is "America's" fault.

Where else have I heard "hegemony" before......Marx, was it?

by **Stephanie** Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:35 pm

I'm an enigma, I know.

Craig, we've just met so I'm going to tell you a little something about me that I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of the others already know.

When I first became acquainted with Dr. Paul 3 or so years ago it was almost by accident. I was involved with school issues in my native RI and worked very hard fighting something called the SALT Survey. Dr. Paul had introduced legislation that would prevent the use of federal funds for mandatory mental health screenings of public school children. SALT is such a beast.

So I clicked the link someone mailed me and it directed me to his House website and I read what he had to say about that issue. I was quite pleased and as time went by I had cause to return to his website a second time on the same issue. Only this time I took a look around.

I almost had to pinch myself! OMG He thought like I did on foreign policy! HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!!!! Not only that, he shared my views on homeschooling, parental rights, and a host of other issues. I thought I was dreaming.

As far as the notion that members of the GOP seek world domination, I think there are some members who do. There are some members who want all kinds of things but they don't define me or my party. I look to the history of the GOP and the ideals the great leaders of my party have stood for throughout history.

So rather than continuing to confuse Republicans, something I am proud to be, with "neo-cons", something I most certainly am not, perhaps you should do a bit of research on my party. Read about Taft, Goldwater, and even to a degree President Reagan. Remember that Richard Nixon was elected on the promise to withdraw from Vietnam and that GWB campaigned with the promise of a humble foreign policy.

Pubbies like me may currently be in the minority, but that wasn't always the case and our numbers are growing. We still have the wisdom of Jefferson and Taft and Goldwater to turn to for inspiration. Now we have a new leader, Ron Paul, who is leading us into the 21st century and restoring hope to our party and promising Republicans a future of liberty and prosperity.

The Republicans and Democrats have become two sides of the same coin. If my party continues on the path it has been on for the past 20 or so years people like me will leave. I'm not sure if I'll turn independent. I don't see myself in alignment with the Libertarian Party on a number of issues very important to me, like abortion. I'm not a religious person, the Constitution Party seems to be far too interested in their god for me to be comfortable with them. So maybe people like me will have to begin a new party, but for right now, we're fighting to get our party back from those who have distorted it practically beyond recognition.

by Aaron Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:45 pm

SFCraig wrote:So, are you comfortable in what is mostly considered "liberal" territory?

I mean, check out Noam Chomsky:

http://www.amazon.com/Hegemony-Survival-Americas-Dominance-American/dp/0805074007

I've gotten an earful at the old forums for daring to criticize "America", instead of one party or another. And ultimately, it is "America's" fault.

Where else have I heard "hegemony" before......Marx, was it?

If by America you mean the people then you have an argument.

If you mean America the country, founded on the principals of the Constitution of the United States, then you couldn't be further from the truth.

So which is it?

by SFCraig Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:52 pm

Steph: see my other posts regarding the lineage of the Republicans and Democrats.

Aaron: You can separate the two, but they are symbiotic. If one "loves America", but despises it's policies, leaders, system and citizenry, all that's left is an old document. An inspiring document, to be sure, but like a tree falling in the forest, does it matter if the citizenry doesn't "hear" it fall?

by Aaron Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:54 pm

SFCraig wrote:Steph: see my other posts regarding the lineage of the Republicans and Democrats.

Aaron: You can separate the two, but they are symbiotic. If one "loves America", but despises it's policies, leaders, system and citizenry, all that's left is an old document. An inspiring document, to be sure, but like a tree falling in the forest, does it matter if the citizenry doesn't "hear" it fall?

There's nothing wrong with the document Craig, just with the people that have prostituted if for the past ~150 years for their hearts desires, liberals and neo-cons alike.

I'm not of a mind that everyone has given up listening and still oppose those that prostitute it.

by SFCraig Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:05 pm

The document's fine, Aaron, but it needs to be a living, breathing document. It's only as important as the people view it to be. Most have never read it; most get their news filtered through the moneyed interests.

Some of the citizenry on the right believe that money is free speech, and that corporations have the same rights as individuals. I wonder who convinced them of that?

If the citizenry, through stupidity or through deliberate manipulation buy the crap that's been spoonfed to them, what hope is there? Do you think the population will have an epiphany and demand adherence to the constitution?

So, other than some lofty ideals that no longer exist (and probably never really did), what is it that you like about America?

by Aaron Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:16 am

SFCraig wrote:The document's fine, Aaron, but it needs to be a living, breathing document. It's only as important as the people view it to be. Most have never read it; most get their news filtered through the moneyed interests.

Some of the citizenry on the right believe that money is free speech, and that corporations have the same rights as individuals. I wonder who convinced them of that?

If the citizenry, through stupidity or through deliberate manipulation buy the crap that's been spoonfed to them, what hope is there? Do you think the population will have an epiphany and demand adherence to the constitution?

So, other than some lofty ideals that no longer exist (and probably never really did), what is it that you like about America?

Freedom.

by SFCraig Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:45 am

And I'm a fan of "Liberty", and "The American Way of Life!" Smile

What do you mean by "Freedom"? Freedom to marry (denied to gays), Freedom to use drugs (denied to indigenous peoples in their religious ceremonies, denied to the fatally ill), freedom from intrusion (denied by the Patriot Act)?

by **Stephanie** Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:54 am

SFCraig wrote:And I'm a fan of "Liberty", and "The American Way of Life!"

What do you mean by "Freedom"? Freedom to marry (denied to gays), Freedom to use drugs (denied to indigenous peoples in their religious ceremonies, denied to the fatally ill), freedom from intrusion (denied by the Patriot Act)?

Craig I really do have to run but I must comment...

You sound like a Ron Paul supporter here. Very Happy

by SFCraig Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:14 am

I said we're not that far apart. Smile

That said, don't fall in love with a politician; they'll break your heart every time.

by Aaron Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:33 am

SFCraig wrote:And I'm a fan of "Liberty", and "The American Way of Life!"

What do you mean by "Freedom"? Freedom to marry (denied to gays), Freedom to use drugs (denied to indigenous peoples in their religious ceremonies, denied to the fatally ill), freedom from intrusion (denied by the Patriot Act)?

Freedom to live, bought and paid for with the blood of Americans.

Homosexuals now possess many rights they didn't have even 25 years ago. Marriage is troubling as I believe they should have that right. But they are partly to blame. Legislation has been proposed that would grant homosexual partners the same rights marriage grants to a man and woman under the label 'civil unions'. That were strongly opposed to that legislation.

Drugs, I believe, are a bit more complicated then what the pro drug community make out. Anyone I've ever seen involved in drugs, nothing good comes of it. It's another debate, one I won't be involved in.

As for the Patriot act, I agree, it's a horrendous document. Democrats renewed it. Take it up with your party first.

There’s a vast difference in being critical of today’s politicians, laws and society as you see it and being critical of the greatest country in the history of humankind.

You say the constitution should be a ‘living’ document? What do you mean by that, that it should conform to meet the needs of today’s world. That it’s too constrictive or constraining or is out of date? If it’s out of date, amend it. There is a process for that.

I submit that it is as near a perfect document as one can find. The fault is not in our document on which this country was founded but in our current leaders of this great country. That is where change is needed, and I submit it is not just in the expectative branch.

by SFCraig Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:51 am

Freedom to live, bought and paid for with the blood of Americans.

I'm not being a jerk here, but who doesn't have that?

That were strongly opposed to that legislation.

Gays were not opposed, it was the family values crowd. To be honest, I don't know of any gay people out here who actually WANT to be married. I think the issue was raised by Rove et al. to get conservatives to the polls.

Drugs, I believe, are a bit more complicated

I'm not advocating recreational drug use, but people die in pain that could be alleviated by medical marijuana. Where is their freedom?

As for the Patriot act, I agree, it's a horrendous document. Democrats renewed it. Take it up with your party first.

That's a bit revisionist: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/07/patriot.act/

I'm glad to see you agree with Barbra Lee, Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich!

by Cato Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:18 pm

SFCraig wrote:And I'm a fan of "Liberty", and "The American Way of Life!"

So am I. However, I don't think we have the right whip the rest of the world into accepting the American way of life, which is what both parties seem to now support.

SFCraig wrote:What do you mean by "Freedom"? Freedom to marry (denied to gays), Freedom to use drugs (denied to indigenous peoples in their religious ceremonies, denied to the fatally ill), freedom from intrusion (denied by the Patriot Act)?

Freedom means that one does as it seem proper for them to do, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. One should have the freedom to live their life as they see fit. The government has no business being anyone's nanny or protector, nor does that government have any right to inflict the moral beliefs of one group onto another. For example, I am strongly opposed to gay marriage, however, I have no business demanding that the government prevent gays from marrying nor does the govenrment have any business inflicting my view on others. Nor, does the government have any business demanding of me that I accept gay marriage.

by Aaron Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:36 pm

SFCraig wrote:Gays were not opposed, it was the family values crowd. To be honest, I don't know of any gay people out here who actually WANT to be married. I think the issue was raised by Rove et al. to get conservatives to the polls.

In 2004 Kerry pushed civil unions. He was shot down by the gay community becasue yes they were opposed to it.

SFCraig wrote:I'm not advocating recreational drug use, but people die in pain that could be alleviated by medical marijuana. Where is their freedom?

Are you saying there are no other approved drugs that would alleviate that pain? As I said, it's a bit more complicated.

SFCraig wrote:
That's a bit revisionist: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/07/patriot.act/

I'm glad to see you agree with Barbra Lee, Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich!

Nothing revisionist about it. The bill would not have passed were it not for the support of democrats.

by SFCraig Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:14 pm

In 2004 Kerry pushed civil unions. He was shot down by the gay community becasue yes they were opposed to it.

Proof?

Are you telling me the gay community had a choice of Civil Unions or Marriage?

Are you saying there are no other approved drugs that would alleviate that pain? As I said, it's a bit more complicated.
Yep.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070315/ai_n18716657

"The court also found the Constitution's guarantee of due process of law doesn't embrace the right to make a life-shaping decision, on a doctor's advice, to use medical marijuana to avoid intolerable pain and preserve life when all other prescribed medications have failed."

SFCraig wrote:
That's a bit revisionist: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/07/patriot.act/

I'm glad to see you agree with Barbra Lee, Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich!

Nothing revisionist about it. The bill would not have passed were it not for the support of democrats.

But it wouldn't have been written or pushed if not for the GOP, no? That's twisted logic if you don't blame the author more than the opposition.

by Aaron Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:12 pm

I'm telling you the gay community labeled Kerry's efforts in regards to civil unions as a sell out in 2004. As I'm not gay, it wasn't a priority issue for me so I didn't follow it closely enought to recall the fag rags that denounced the bill, but I recall very vividly him stating he was for civil unions in a debate and the uproar it created the following week. In all honesty, while I think it's wrong to not allow queers the same rights as straight people, it's not a cause that I'm going to lose any sleep over.

As for the Patriot act, I know how horrible a bill it is. When it was passed by 90+ Senators in 2001/02 I was against it then. But you want to blame it on republicans and that's just a big lie. Without the support of democrats it wouldn't have been renewed in 2006. That is my point.

by SFCraig Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:24 am

Aaron wrote:I'm telling you the gay community labeled Kerry's efforts in regards to civil unions as a sell out in 2004. As I'm not gay, it wasn't a priority issue for me so I didn't follow it closely enought to recall the fag rags that denounced the bill, but I recall very vividly him stating he was for civil unions in a debate and the uproar it created the following week. In all honesty, while I think it's wrong to not allow queers the same rights as straight people, it's not a cause that I'm going to lose any sleep over.

As for the Patriot act, I know how horrible a bill it is. When it was passed by 90+ Senators in 2001/02 I was against it then. But you want to blame it on republicans and that's just a big lie. Without the support of democrats it wouldn't have been renewed in 2006. That is my point.

Fag rags? Man, with poetry like that...you sure you're not gay?

Anyway, I'll let you slide on the gay marriage issue, but your logic is confusing. Bush is the author of the document, the right-wing jingoists want war and a reduction in civil liberties and vow to punish the Dems at the polls. The Dems acquiesce.

And the Dems are to blame? Cowardly, yes (some of them), but to blame? Let me guess...you voted for Bush in both elections, you hate the results...so you blame the Democrats?

by Aaron Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:47 am

Why is it that Republicans can block passage of a bill while they are in the minority but Democrats couldn't do the same thing in March, 2006 which was when the Patriot act was re-authorized?

by SFCraig Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:03 am

the GOP is organized better, votes as a bloc (or as mindless automatons).

It's effective politics to be sure.

Two quotes about the Dems summarize it:

"I don't belong to any organized political party...I'm a Democrat!"

and

"Never underestimate the Dems' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!"

by Aaron Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:07 am

Then how is it not, at least partially, democrats fault?

by **ohio county** Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:53 am

Two quotes about the Dems summarize it:

"I don't belong to any organized political party...I'm a Democrat!"

and

"Never underestimate the Dems' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!"

And the existence of the superdelegates, unelected insiders who can swing the nomination put the lie to it.

by SFCraig Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:00 pm

O.C.: They're mostly elected--or were elected, but yeah.

To Aaron: Yes, partially, to be sure. Anyone with voting power is partially to blame, including the US voting public.

Of course one needs to consider balance of power between branches, and the will of the public.

I'm proud to say that my Congresswoman was adamantly against the war from the beginning. It is important to note that in the Bay Area, being against a war is not a politically "courageous" vote either, though.

Know what I mean?

by SamCogar Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:03 am

SFCraig wrote:O.C.: They're mostly elected--or were elected, but yeah.

Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.

The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, retired congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt, and all Democratic National Committee members, some of whom are appointed by party chairman Howard Dean.

The Republicans do not have a similar super-delegate system.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

The Leaders in the Democrat Party know that the people they represent are not smart enough to choose the person "who should be President".

,

by SFCraig Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:25 am

Right, but to say that a Democratic Governor or President is "unelected" is inaccurate. They are elected, but their vote is weighed more heavily as delegates.

Then again, the Dems have proportional awards, whereas the GOP is winner-take-all. That, like our Electoral system is unfair.

Hell, in California we get 55 electors for 35 million people. Montana gets 3 votes for 300 thousand people. Write your congressman and make the system fair!

by Sponsored content

The American Conservative Paul for President

The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

Re: The American Conservative Paul for President