His votes that align with progressive values are NOT because of progressive values--he'll vote against anything that expands the power of government regardless.
He believes that allowing for our soldiers (or any American citizen) to be tried for war crimes by the International Criminal Court undermines our national independence. He believes that racism is caused and perpetuated by the Federal Government and nothing else. He believes that the regulation causes unsafe products reaching consumers. His plan for health-care hinges on the patently false premise that deregulating the industry will lower costs and improve coverage. He believes that the establishment clause should be the extent of legislation on the issue.
He is anti-women. He is anti-GLBT. He is anti-minority.
Bush likes to throw around that faux insult as he lets China bring in date rape drug laced toys to poison our toddlers. The fact Paul is an isolationist is really his only good quality.
Paul's fundie stance on women's reproductive rights? Well, he can eat shit and die over that one as far as I'm concerned.
The military outcome would have likely remained the same and WWII probably would have still happened. However, the world recession would have started much sooner and given a trend towards isolationism, the US probably would have suffered greater problems. Given the definitive fascist leanings of US isolationists (Lindberg/Ford) and any increase in power, the US would probably have ended up a fascist dictatorship.
90. When googled, most links are to ronpaulforums.com
You'll forgive me if I prefer to look at his record which shows:
He voted against allowing for gays to adopt in DC. He said the following: (here)
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.
So, looks like he believes that gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt or marry. That sounds to me like he doesn't view members of the GLBT community as having the same rights as everyone else, which since he believes that all people should have equal liberty/rights, means that to Ron Paul, GLBT individuals don't count as people.
14. I've seen them. And I've, also, heard his more recent assertion that he has no intention of sharing
a ticket with the man.
Despite their (and our) ideological differences they seem to have a good deal of personal mutual respect (having known each other for many years), are in agreement over Iraq and are the only candidates on either side of the aisle who are brave enough to speak their minds damn the consequences and I admire that in both of them -- though I'd sooner cut my own tongue out than vote for Ron Paul. I don't find their mutual admiration society of two nearly as offensive as the hoodwinking the repulicrats and democrans are busy with.
18. I must have missed that part where this was a post about Kucinich.
I don't care what he says about sharing a ticket with Mr. Two-First-Names. I started this thread in response to the number of comments and posts made by people who think he's a great guy because he opposes the Iraq War.
19. Ron Paul is currently tied to Kucinich in discussion. If you're not aware of the
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 02:23 AM by bluetrain
reason why, you'd do well to peruse these boards a bit more thoroughly.
The only reason any DEM gives a toss right now about Paul in terms of serious debate is in relation to Kucinich's remarks. And don't pretend you're ignorant of this.
I don't think he's a great guy. I think he's, well, read above. And add your own comments. He's sort of this odd character in Texas. Not really Republican although he runs as a Republican only because Libertarian is sort of misinterpreted in Texas as Libertine. Libertine Ron Paul is not.
I doubt he could carry a race outside of his district so I wonder how on earth anyone believes he could help a national ticket. Still, I would like to know what on earth has possessed Dennis Kucinich.
Clarence Thomas is a Libertarian. One of the more curious aspects of Clarence Thomas is to be found in his opinion on 21.06, the sodomy statute in Texas that the Supreme Court tossed out on the basis of it being unconstitutional, which according to some is what produced the rabid opinion of Antonin Scalia.
He spoke of the right to privacy and intertwined in his words was this curious "all are equal under the law" belief that shocked quite a few. Antonin Scalia took exception to it and predicted we would next legalize bestiality and pedophilia as I recall. He didn't catch what Clarence Thomas was referring to. The Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
I, again, would like to know what on earth has possessed Dennis Kucinich.
If I notice a lot of pro-GOP candidate threads/comments, I very well might post about them too.
Dr. No is the only Republican candidate who I see regular, albeit limited, praise of on this site. (Excepting praise for Fred Thompson being completely inept.)
The threads about whether or not Kucinich would want him as a VP has highlighted the amount of DU'ers who think that Ron Paul is just great because he opposes the Iraq War.
The way I see it, the more times it's said, the more people hear it, the fewer pro-Paul threads/comments, which I see as a good thing.
that you think that we are too stupid to know exactly who Ron Paul is. Just because people like his stance on the constitution, patriot act, and the war doesn't mean anyone wants to vote for him.
where 29% said that they would vote for Ron Paul against Hillary Clinton (and the poll gave people the opportunity to choose 'third party' or 'stay at home'). It may not have been representative; but there were people prepared to consider voting for him against at least one likely Dem nominee.
Having had a quick look: there have been threads here with titles such as "I'm ready for the maverick ticket of Gravel/Paul/Kucinich - are you?"; "I really like the way Ron Paul stands for something"; "Is it time for us Democrats to get behind Ron Paul?"
So there are people here who do need to hear the 'broken record'!
In one sense it doesn't matter as Paul won't get the Republican nomination anyway. But I am concerned that the consideration of Paul may reflect or encourage a readiness for the left to make common cause with the right if it appears populist or anti-Bush or anti-war, and that is truly dangerous: one of the ways in which fascist-type parties have gained power throughout history.
His views come from a sort of hyper-libertarianism that leads to lots of states-rights type stuff. Just because he is against something does not mean he will do anything about it as a president though, he will just leave it to the states who can be assholes all they want in a Paul Presidency.
"He believes that allowing for our soldiers to be tried for war crimes by the International Criminal Court undermines our national independence."
I am generally of this camp as well, I do not support the ICC as is. I believe in international bodies to regulate and maintain peace, but support International Judicial bodies as they stand now.
I have seen his policies on gays and seen the comments on black people, what has he said about women (my google search was not productive)
30. That's because some people imply that this means Paul isn't that bad
No one on DU (I hope) needs convincing that Romney or Giuliani is a bad guy. But some people think that Paul must be OK because he opposes the war. And for why it matters - see the post that states that Buchanan, though personally nasty, is right 'more often than not'. IMO, it's important that left-wingers do not come to accept any aspect of far-right philosophies, even when these happen to be opposed to Bush or the war.
33. You are deeply invested in this "right vs. left" thing aren't you?
it's important that left-wingers do not come to accept any aspect of far-right philosophies
I'm not invested in that, because "right" and "left" are just words, they don't convey meaning in themselves. For instance when Ron Paul voted against the Iraq war, it was correct. When Hillary/Edwards voted for it it was wrong. When Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act is was correct, when Hillary/Edwards voted for it, it was wrong. If you're so worried about the left sticking together, maybe its about time our leaders start voting a little to "the left" of Republican cadidates!!!
'If you're so worried about the left sticking together, maybe its about time our leaders start voting a little to "the left" of Republican cadidates!!!'
Agree. And there's not much you can say on that subject to someone who lived under Tony Blair for ten fucking years. I've voted third-party in our last three elections. 'Left' vs 'Right' for me doesn't mean 'parties'. I could prefer a liberal Tory/Republican to a RW Labourite/ Dem. That's not the point. The point is that for me trampling on the poor and ill is an absolute deal-breaker. So are xenophobia and racism. So is extreme social conservativism. 'Right' and 'left' are not just words; though party labels may be. Paul is not a liberal Republican; he is an evil monster of right-wing philosophy who happens to be right on one issue, for the wrong reasons. I'm not denying that he IS right on that issue, or that it's an important one. However, if we start getting involved with people like him, we are likely to end up having to make compromises with extremely ugly policies. There have to be limits on whom we pick as allies. Would you make deals with Pat Buchanan or LePen or the British Nationalist Party just because they oppose the war?
41. The problem is how broken the old rules have become as far as right and left...
I mean, what WAS Tony Blair anyway??? I guess I'm not qualified to talk about British politics, but the same with American politics: The right used to represent minimal government, the left larger government. (due to more social services and such) But now Bush has totally broken these rules with his huge, invasive, expensive right wing government. Can we apply to him a term that no longer describes him?
Its true that Ron Paul is right wing, in the classic sense of the word. But compared to whatever Bush is, this begins to look downright appealling...And that appeal can be contageous when the classic "left" seems to be missing from the scene as well.
To me its not about the true "left" or even the true "right", its about the true anything: Both of these philosophies seem to have been replaced with something new and frightening on both sides of the isle...
57. What was Blair? You mean apart from being a prat?
I think one can be right vs left on a number of different issues. Four important ones are: war/defence; economic/welfare; civil liberties; and social/ civil rights.
So here are where I'd rate Bush, Blair and Paul:
Bush:
War/defence: Extreme right
Economic/welfare: Right
Civil liberties: Right
Social/civil rights: Right
Blair:
War/defence: Extreme right
Economic/welfare: Centre-right by British standards (i.e. to the left of Thatcher, but to the right of moderate Tories of the past like Macmillan)
Civil liberties: Right
Social/civil rights: Centre-left.
Paul:
War/defence: Left on Iraq war, but right on other aspects of world policies
Economic/welfare: Extreme right (could go no further right)
Civil liberties: Left(?)
Social/civil rights: Extreme right.
So Blair overall is to the left of either Paul or Bush, but to the right of what I'd find acceptable. Paul and Bush are both thoroughly right-wing. Bush is right-wing on more issues; Paul is more extreme on the issues where he is right-wing. I wouldn't give the time of day to either; they're both disgusting. If Bush is more dangerous than Paul, it's simply because he has more power.
I am concerned about 'left/right' here not in a party sense, but in the sense that Paul and other of his ilk may appeal to disaffected progressives in a way that could get them to join a far-right movement without initially realizing that it *is* far-right.
Some of the original fascist organizations/ parties appealed to some left-wingers and lots of apolitical disaffected people at first, and this contributed to their success. And communism was and is of course 'left-wing' in its original impetus, but most Communist states ended up, according to the above classification: "War/defense: Right; Economic/welfare: Left; Civil liberties: Extreme right; Social/civil rights: Right".
I don't think that the particular form of right-wing movement that Paul represents is likely to lead to old-style fascism or other totalitarianism, but it could readily lead to a xenophobic scapegoating of outsiders and to a far-RW economic libertarianism that murders the poor or sick just as surely, if a bit more slowly, as an act of direct violence. It's important that progressives avoid getting involved, directly or indirectly, in such a movement. That's my real concern.
94. This is a good conversation. I was thinking about it today in the car, and I decided...
...That I'm going to stand with you on this one, on the "left".
The problem with many liberals is that we are inclined to see nuance, to see the complexities of a situation, and the simple truth is that this is valid. There are aspects of libertarian politics, which have principles from the right and left, which I agree with. There are aspects I don't agree with. There are conservative principles I agree with.
But in the end, you've got to look at winning, and winning requires we keep a unifed front, that we stand together...this something the Republicans know and excel at doing, and we end up weaker and less unified, not wanting to stand under something as intellectual void as a flag or word like "left".
But in the end, that's precisely what we have to do. So carry on, I basically do agree.
but at the cost of murdering the poor and sick (for that is what RW libertarianism is; compare the life expectancies in countries that do and don't have welfare states and adequate public services)?
At the cost of collaborating in whipping up hate against foreigners and minorities and gays?
At the cost of denying women control over their bodies?
It's not either/or. There are plenty of people who are against the war and are NOT far-RW extremists on virtually everything else. I don't mean that progressives shouldn't welcome Paul's vote against the war in Congress; I mean that progressives should be careful not to join or encourage any sort of movement or ideology that endorses Paul's other beliefs. I wouldn't be so bothered about it, if I didn't think it was a step on a slippery slope to forming links with far-RW nationalist groups and individuals that oppose the war, such as the BNP; LePen; Pat Buchanan; even David Duke; etc. If that happens, and such groups gain respectability, especially in the eyes of people on the 'left', we're sunk!
'Saying someone is "Bad" is puerile'
Do you also think that saying that Bush and Cheney are 'bad' is puerile? OK, I agree that one could use stronger terms!
71. Look, the problem is that supposed "Democrats" are not for ending this fucking war.
That this "bad" person seems to see the fucking morality and do the right thing is an insult to those supposed "Democrats" (actually, non-Democrat members of War Party) who are perpetuating this abhomination.
and quite honestly it's an insult to any left-wing UK-er who has experienced the bitter betrayal at the hands of the so-called left that WE have had, to imply that we might be just concerned about the 'insult' to the Democrats. I'm not a Democrat. I think that America's and the world's survival depend on the election of a Democrat in 2008; but I'm not a party-loyalist to any party in England, let alone America. I just consider that murdering the old and poor and sick is such a crime that anyone who supports it, by condemning a welfare state and public services, is an advocate of pure evil, and should never be given a platform by the left. Not to mention his anti-woman policies; his homophobia; racism; etc. He is far-RW and THAT'S why I hate him! And I think that it is a danger for progressives to make common cause with the far-RW. That is sometimes how fascist movements develop.
With all the anti-war people around, WHY hang around with Paul? Why not draft some consistently liberal, anti-war Dem? E.g. there were 23 senators who voted against the IWR - is none a possible candidate?
35. And there are a few things he is on target about.
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 06:18 AM by mmonk
Reinstating the role of the constitution, rule of law, and checks and balances. The illegality of the Iraq war is another. And I agree with him that the department of Homeland Security needs to be dismantled. If any want to address this post, do so honestly and do not equate where I agree with him as agreeing with libertarianism in any way or his domestic agenda apart from these items and don't use the opportunity for any more character assassination of Dennis Kucinich or any other dishonest personal attacks.
Do you really not know people with these beliefs? I know some Libertarians and while I vehemently disagree with them, I don't have the luxury to condemn them as evil or bad. I live in a "red state." I don't just demonize people with different beliefs.
I know there's one belief Paul holds that I really respect, we shouldn't be controlling the world in a giant empire. He said it plainly in the GOP debate, "They come over here because we're OCCUPYING THEM." That's the plainest truth you can get. I don't want my family that lives in Pakistan being killed by US dollars, as so many Pakistanis have. Or Palestinians being butchered, or Colombians, or the Venezuelan government getting overthrown by the CIA. Almost no one else running has said they'd end the empire. It's a moral duty to do that.
The record is the record. And your post that I replied to stated that he is anti-war. Period. No disclaimers. Don't get all pissy with me...learn to be more clear in saying what you really mean.
And as regards this present dirty little war...I damn sure oppose it. So does Ronnie (though for reasons that should make any sane person's skin crawl). But guess what, there are candidates out there that also opposed this war who aren't right-wing, racist, sexist, homophobic, bigots.
59. You were incorrect in stating he is not anti-war.
That was the point. You like or dislike him, I care not.
I only point out that he is unavaowedly anti-War -- and really against the War Party that spans across the aisle to infect Democrats as well -- and the ending of this fucking war should be their A-Number-One first priority.
77. Because he co-sponsored a bill rescind it in February 2003.
I know you're trying to imply that was some kind of cynical duplicitous reacharound assfuckery or something, but I honestly don't think he's that smart.
Funny thing about corporate candidates, a Ron Paul presidency would be like a gigantic corporate wet dream--more so than * ever was. He would dismantle all regulatory agencies, effectively removing the only safeguards still in place preventing complete corporate take over. Why would he do this? Because he believes that regulation is an affront to liberty.
Oh and his official position on racism, from his own campaign site:
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.
Never mind the fact that if you willingly and openly support a sexist, racist, homophobe, then you must agree with his positions on those issues, which would make you a sexist, racist, homophobe. Since this is a progressive board, I'd like to believe that's not the case. If you don't agree with his sexist, racist, homophobic ways, then you must believe that opposition to the war somehow makes up for the fact that Ron Paul is a sexist, a racist, and a homophobe.
87. He isn't for ending the murder of the Iraqi people.
He's against the Iraq war because it's illegal. If the war had been conducted in a constitutionally prescribed manner, he'd have no problem with the murder of the Iraqi people.
They aren't anti-woman, etc., really. They just think the government shouldn't step in and that the market will function to the disadvantage of sexists and racists. Not saying they're right about that. But they aren't coming from that nasty kind of sexism/racism you get with the fundies. They'd want the government to interfere to enforce their view. The libertarian just wants the government out of it. They are against these kinds of laws on governmental theory, not because they want to harm those groups.
82. Compared to the Democrats that voted for the Iraq war, he's great.
You can't get any worse than that can you? Our Priorities:
1) End the war and U.S. imperialism around the globe. 2) Restore the Constitution, end the Patriot Act, dissolve Homeland Security 3) End corporate welfare, Fair trade, not free trade. 4) Fix our monetary system, and stop printing monopoly money to continue deficit spending.
Ron Paul supports all four issues as does Kucinich. Piority number one is take our country back from teh corporatists who stole it. Democrats and Republicans.
I'll have to assume you didn't read the OP and possess complete ignorance as to his other positions. Why else would a long-time member of a progressive board openly support a racist who feels that the only function of government should be to deny rights to women, minorities, and gays?
Did you happen to support Alan Keyes when he ran for president?
89. What are the most pressing problems of the day?
When you have gangrene, sometimes you have to cut your leg off to save your life. I think we can probably save the leg (social programs), even with Ron Paul, but first we need to get our country back.
Look at it another way. The deficit with our corporate duopoly in office is now $9 trillion, with much more to come to pay for the ultimate price tag of $3.5 trillion for the wars that we're fighting needlessly, and also which our corporate duopoly has given us. All of this money is corporate welfare. It goes to fund the war and hand outs/bail outs for Wall Street. To accomplish this monetary sleight of hand, the dollar has lost value by ~40% in the last five years. With the huge national and private debt, there is no money to fund the social programs of health care and social security. So the Democrats have caused more damage to those programs than Ron Paul could ever do.
These are the most pressing issues. Get rid of the corporate duopoly and the rest will follow. Start by realigning the political landscape into an anti-imperialist/peace party to split and weaken the two corporate parties. Who knows, maybe the Democrats will eventually be Democrats again instead of Republican lites. That is a worthy side goal, but to make that happen, pressure must be exerted to change. Electing a corporate Democrat will probably only delay the change which ultimately mist occur.
Get our country back first and then worry about the rest. It needs some structural work first before we get to the finish work. :)
What you're suggesting is to say to oppressed groups (women, ethnic/religious minorities, LGBT persons, etc.) that they should just wait for the rich, straight white Christian patriarchy to sort out economic matters before addressing issues dealing with ensuring equal rights to ALL people. You should also tell them that in the interim, they may experience a further loss of equality.
But hey, they've been waiting for hundreds/thousands of years to be treated equally, what's a few more?
I don't know Paul very well, but I do know that he is honest about his positions. His social positions are no more conservative than the conservative Republicans running, but his other positions are better than any that the Democrats have, with the exception of Kucinich. Luckily with Kucinich, you get all of the good things of Paul, with none of the bad. So, concentrate on the good positions that Paul has to learn how to get our country back. These are the most important and pressing issues of today. We need our country back now! We can't live if we have no brain or no heart, but we can live if we lose a leg. As it is, we're about to lose a brain or a heart or both, i.e., game over.
Also, protections are in place already for human rights, gay rights. He can't just eliminate something like women's rights, or gay rights. He may be able to appoint a conservative judge like Bush. Regarding Constitutional rights, he will restore these and privacy, end the Patriot Act. He has introduced a bill this month to restore the Constitution. Like we should need a bill to do that! But we do. Read this:
The things he can do is to end the war and the other driving issues of the day I mentioned. Walk first and then run. Take our country back from the corporate Republicans and and Democrats who stole it.
He has his charms, but really, this is DEMOCRATIC Underground. And, no, there isn't going to be a Kucinich/Paul ticket because there isn't going to be a Kucinich ticket. I love Dennis, but he's not going to get the nomination.
He is anti-women. He is anti-GLBT. He is anti-minority.
He is none of these things. My wife's family is very good friends with the Pauls so I take her word over yours.
As I said in the OTHER place you asked me: don't know, don't care.
My wife knew the family well while she was in highschool in the 1990's. Her father, who was active in local politics stayed friends with Ron Paul. Her father was a socialist Jew, so you can pretty much see where that puts the "Ron Paul is a Nazi" allegations.
Her father is dead, she hasn't kept in touch with Paul's daughter, so I can't answer — nor am I interested in answering — to what he's done lately. He's a nice guy; conservative, yes, but really nice. And he doesn't hate any group of people. My wife has nothing but good things to say about him personally, and that's good enough for me.
I really don't understand why people are campaigning to make Paul into such a monster here. His stated political goals should be enough to convince anyone who frequents Democratic Underground that he is not the man we want in the Oval Office. Again: is anyone here really supporting Ron Paul for the Presidency?
I'm getting a little offended at the smearing of a good man. It's what they do. Over on Free Republic today, there are people wondering how Hillary is going to have the hostage-taker killed so that he doesn't spill the beans about how she set it all up. They hate Ron Paul there, too, so open up an account and go to town on Free Republic. Show a little more class here.
If you knowingly accept support from the kluxers, you're radioactive as far as I'm concerned. I don't care how many Jewish friends you claim to have, or how unhateful you claim to be.
For a few years in my misspent youth, I was enamored with the philosophy of libertarianism. Libertarians claims to advocate a consistent political philosophy — free markets and free minds — and thus insist their party is one of true principle. But these days it looks like the libertarian emphasis is mostly on low taxes and deregulation. The other half of the equation is usually ignored.
Consider the current infatuation with Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Paul was the Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential nominee and is much feted by party members today. According to The Washington Post, Paul is a huge hit on the web. The paper reports, “Republican strategists point out that libertarians, who make up a small but vocal portion of the Republican base, intrinsically gravitate toward the Web’s anything-goes, leave-me-alone nature.”
That’s nice. It’s too bad Paul isn’t really a libertarian because he doesn’t advocate the government leaving people alone. He is, in fact, just another paleocon more at home in the Pat Buchanan wing of the GOP. Big deal.
Paul holds caveman views on most social issues. He elevates state power over liberty in most cases. Consider:
* Libertarians say that a person’s reproductive rights should be sacrosanct. No decision could be more personal, more private. So Paul supports legal abortion, right? Wrong. Paul’s Web site says, “The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.” It goes on to list the numerous bills Paul has introduced designed to curb or outlaw legal abortion.
* Libertarians believe in open borders. They support no curbs on immigration and condemn fence-building as a solution. This is Paul’s view, correct? Nope. From Paul’s Web site: “The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all.” His six-point plan calls for ending “birthright citizenship” – a move that would require a constitutional amendment.
* Libertarians assert that what you believe about religion is your own business and say government should not meddle in theological matters. Where does Paul stand? He has repeatedly co-sponsored moronic constitutional amendments pushed by the Religious Right that would give government officials the right to impose religious worship on children through the public schools and on adults through the display of religious iconography in courthouses, city halls, state assemblies and other public facilities.
* Libertarians maintain that an individual’s sex life should be of no concern of the government. They oppose laws that seek to reduce gays to second-class citizenship. Paul’s view? He says he does not support amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but he has backed legislation that would strip federal courts of the ability to hear challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. In 1999, Paul voted for a mean-spirited provision designed to deny same-sex couples in the Washington, D.C., the right to adopt children.
Paul’s frequent support for “court stripping” as a remedy to perceived social ills should give libertarians pause. A central tenet of libertarianism is that a citizen should have some recourse when his rights are violated by the state. Paul would take that away by denying courts the right to hear entire classes of cases. Does anyone in the Libertarian Party care?
One of the reasons I grew weary of libertarianism (aside from the fact that its economic policy is cruel and simplistic) was the smug arrogance of so many of its adherents. They were forever blathering on about how unprincipled the two main parties are and derided anyone who supports them as foolish. Libertarian support for Paul — an old-fashioned paleocon from the Buchanan school who is hostile to half of the libertarian agenda — proves that the “party of principle” has a hypocrisy problem as well.
It’s always nice to see another conservative oppose the war in Iraq. I suppose that accounts for some of Paul’s popularity right now. But at the end of the day, most of Paul’s ideas aren’t interesting, worthwhile or ground-breaking. He does not deserve all of this attention.
The Lone Star Times has revealed that the Ron Paul campaign has received at least one contribution from neo-Nazi leader Don Black, who heads an internet-based group called Stormfront. (Read the Lone Star Times piece here)
I've been looking at neo-Nazi support for Ron Paul and found that there's quite a bit. It seems that one of Rep. Paul's top internet organizers in Tennessee is a neo-Nazi leader named Will Williams (aka "White Will"). Williams was the southern coordinator for William Pierce's National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S. (for more on Williams' role in the National Alliance Pary see "Beyond A Dead Man’s Deeds: The National Alliance After William Pierce", page 7 , for general info on the National Alliance Party, read here) For those fortunate enough not to know, Pierce was the author of The Turner Diaries, the bible of American neo-Nazis and inspiration for this country's worst case of home-grown terrorism, the Oklahoma City bombing (read here).
Williams claims to have spent 30 years as a racist activist, and reportedly was personally responsible for providing security services to William Pierce. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, in 1993, Williams targeted children for recruitment to the National Alliance, authoring and distributing a racist comic book called "The Saga of ... WHITE WILL" which featured a violent attack by the hero against a Jewish youngster (read here). In 1998, Williams organized what he advertised as a "European Culture Festival" in Cleveland, featuring Irish and Slavic folk music and dancers. Attendees found themselves at a "white power" rally with speeches by William Pierce, Tom Metzger, founder of White Aryan Resistence ("WAR") and other racist leaders (read here). In December 2000, he spoke to a younger racist audience at a concert of racist rock bands organized by the National Alliance and Erich Gliebe's Resistance Records in California. (read here and here) Alliance, specializes in the recruitment of young people. He is perhaps the world's leading promoter of racist rock music and computer games, and is one of the chief promoters of the racist girl group Prussian Blue. (read here)] In March, 2001, Williams participated in a racist anti-immigration rally on the steps of the Hall County, Ga. courthouse, along with his friend and National Alliance Party associate, Chester Doles, listed variously as former Grand Dragon and Former Imperial Wizard of the KKK (read here and here and here) . In July, 2001, Williams participated in a violent rally at the German embassy in Washington, D.C. in support of German neo-Nazis (read here).
Williams now spends less time recruiting young people to be Nazis via comic books and rock music, and more time recruiting them to support Ron Paul via several meetup groups in Tennessee (read here), although he may be using these meetups to do both. He also posts anti-Semitic messages on Ron Paul message boards (read here), sometimes eliciting requests that he keep his neo-Nazi views quiet while continuing to organize for Paul, or in one case a joke concerning remaining "non-interventionist" with respect to William's ravings (read here). "White Will" Williams has also been actively campaigning for Ron Paul via racist websites as noted here, on the Huffington Post. (That piece, titled "To His Dismay, Ron Paul Becoming Magnet For White Supremacists", was a whitewash of the racist connections of the Paul campaign, ignoring Williams' role as an internet organizer for Paul.)
Other National Alliance Party leaders or former leaders are actively promoting the Ron Paul campaign on neo-Nazi websites. One such is Ron Doggett, currently of a group called Viginia EURO, a local branch of a national group started by David Duke (read here and here, photos here ). (Pro-Paul forum postings by Dogget here ) Here's what Doggett posted on one racist website:
Getting his name out there and showing support is important in any campaign. Everyone should do their part, getting those yard signs like Glenn suggested is one small way to help. I've got a Ron Paul for Pres. sign for the world to see at the base of my flag pole, the pole has a 4x6 Confederate flag atop it. Ron Paul bumper stickers on our cars and I wear my Ron Paul t-shirt anytime we go out to places with a lot of folks. A good number of my neighbors who know about my politics have asked me about Paul and have said they'd vote for him in the primary know that they know he's a good one.
Directly above this post was one authored by a user calling himself "BurnJewBurn". This user's slogan, appearing on everything he posts, reads "nothing says lovin' like a jew in the oven".
For those with the stomach to read more of that sort of material, here, with my warning, is the "Ron Paul Internet Army" forum of a neo-Nazi website to which Doggett posts:
Racist podcaster Hal Turner has recently taken a break from issuing death threats to politicians in order to endorse Ron Paul. And then there's David Duke himself, who's devoted webpage after webpage to material supportive of the Paul campaign, without formally endorsing Paul. You could say that's soft money from the hard right.
The Ron Paul campaign disavows racism, of course, but for some reason, they can't keep the racists away. Maybe it has something to do with Rep. Paul's seeming opposition to all federal civil rights laws. Or his vote against providing funding to re-open investigations of murdered of civil rights workers. His racist comments about fleet-footed black muggers (or, as Paul has claimed, the comments he first defended, then took several years to realize he hadn't made and disavowed) haven't hurt, nor has his association with the John Birch Society, acceptance of support from the Christian Identity movement and advocacy for conspiracy theories. His isolationism, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and disdain for Israel and its supporters just might help explain his appeal to racists.
Maybe the racists' support for Paul has something to do with his advocacy of states' rights, which he frequently mischaracterizes as individual rights. He apparently appeals to a constituency which has forgotten the horror of what states' rights meant to non-white individuals in many states. As should be clear by now, Paul also appeals to some who DO remember and support a return to segregation and the other forms of racial oppression justified in the name of states' rights.
Let's remember that Rep. Paul voted against renewing the Voting Rights Act. He had the nerve to state in a speech to Congress that relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, civil rights laws. (read here) He also made the following statement in a speech he gave to Congress in opposition of a bill to commemorate the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
"(T)he forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty...The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties."
In other words, Paul values the right to discriminate more than the right not be discriminated against. What a sorry state of affairs that this disgraceful conduct can still occur in our Congress over forty years after the first major civil rights legislation passed. This outrage is compounded when Rep. Paul portrays himself as a champion of the Constitution, and this message is promoted by the ignorant and ignored by the indifferent.
So while I blame the racists and neo-Nazis for being who they are, I am more concerned about those who should know the history of civil rights but still allow Paul to spread his deceptions. He does not belong among the top candidates in a major party and his candidacy gives a boost to an otherwise declining racist movement in this country.
No-chance Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich-- having already indicated a certain detachment from reality with his UFO sighting-- has moved a bit farther into fantasy land by suggesting that no-chance Republican candidate Ron Paul could be his vice-presidential running mate.
"I'm thinking about Ron Paul" as a running mate, Kucinich told a crowd of about 70 supporters at a house party here, one of numerous stops throughout New Hampshire over the Thanksgiving weekend. A Kucinich-Paul administration could bring people together "to balance the energies in this country," Kucinich said.
Balance the energies? Gulp. That sounds like something out of the playbook of Shirley MacLaine, who wrote that Kucinich's close encounter occurred at her home in Washington state and that "e said he felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind."
But what interests me most about Kucinich's proposal is the further evidence it provides of convergence between elements of the anti-war Left (represented by Kucinich) and the isolationist Right (represented by Paul).
It's a convergence that goes back almost 70 years to the America First Committee, which (until Pearl Harbor) campaigned to keep the US out of World War II. America First had the support of people from all parts of the political spectrum, including the racist, antisemitic Charles Lindbergh and the socialist Norman Thomas.
These days the convergence finds a home at Justin Raimondo's Antiwar.com and Alexander Cockburn's Counterpunch, which frequently publishes articles by and favorable to Ron Paul. Cockburn-- generally regarded as a leftist-- can't find a bad word to say about the Texas congressman.
What makes this interesting is that Paul (while having an admirable commitment to civil liberties) is one of the most rightwing members of Congress when it comes to bread-and-butter economic issues-- you know, the issues that actually affect tens of millions of low-income and working Americans on a daily basis. He is an opponent of the minimum wage, federal health and safety regulations and laws protecting workers' rights to organize unions. An extended look at his overwhelmingly reactionary voting record is here-- including his weird obsession with gold as the basis of a sound economic policy. Kucinich, to his credit, has a much more progressive record on these issues an an Ohio congressman. In fact of all the candidates, he's the only one to advocate a single-payer system of national health insurance-- which I also support.
So although a Kucinich-Paul ticket won't happen (and a Paul spokesman had enough sense to shoot down the idea), it's a sign of these strange political times that Kucinich would be unembarrassed to mention it.
(Hat tip: Joshua Scholar.)
Update: One revealing convergence between Kucinich and Paul: When the House of Representatives voted in October on a resolution condemning repression of labor rights in Iran, and calling for the release of imprisoned union leaders Mahmoud Salehi and Mansour Osanloo, Kucinich simply voted "present" and Paul voted "nay." Every other member who was present (418 of them) voted "aye."
Posted by Gene at November 30, 2007 05:25 PM | TrackBack
However he has more than a few supporters and I believe for valid reasons. I'm calling it as I see it, sorry.
Read this article from all places the LA Times. Also read all 33 comments. Happy reading.
"But after that, they defy categories. A quick survey of the Pasadena group found Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Constitution Party followers uniting behind some or all of the Paul libertarian agenda -- ending the war in Iraq, abolishing gun control laws, legalizing marijuana and dismantling big hunks of the U.S. government, especially the IRS and Federal Reserve system."
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
