Posted on 09/26/2007 11:45:25 AM PDT by traviskicks
The other day I was driving past a very busy Intersection in my neck of the woods and I noticed a Ron Paul Revolution sign had gone up. There were a couple more on the toll way that some farmer had put up. These were put there on private property by people that most likely were not paid to do so. That’s the way Ron Paul supporters are. They don’t have to be asked to do something for their candidate. They don’t have to be told to go out and campaign. They simply do what they can, or what they think needs to be done. Most are extremely enthusiastic about Ron Paul, and some would say they are too enthusiastic. Perhaps they are right and in some cases Ron Paul supporters get a little overbearing in their zeal, but that is to be expected. After all, when was the last time we saw an honest politician in this country? When was the last time a politician spoke of adhering to the constitution? Oh sure, they’ve always been there, lurking on the outside of the establishment, staring through the windows of the halls of power at two major parties like bums passing a mansion and longing for just a taste of the good life as the Democrats and Republicans pass laws making it harder and harder for them to ever get elected. This is the first time in a long time a major party candidate has come out with a message of hope and freedom and of smaller, limited, less intrusive government. It is a message that he backs up with his voting record. It is this message that has gotten his supporters so excited. Many of Ron Paul’s supporters might not have supported anyone in this campaign had Ron Paul decided not to run. No other candidate, either Republican or Democrat, espouses the principles Ron Paul supports. All the other candidates support big government programs and proclaim big government is the answer to everything that ails our society. Those of us who realize this is not true and who simply want to be left to decide for ourselves what paths we will take in our lives have found a champion in Ron Paul. His candidacy has given many of us someone to vote for rather than someone to vote against. His candidacy has given many of us something to vote for other than the lesser of two evils.
Yet the enthusiasm and excitement expressed by Ron Paul’s supporters seems to have spawned a community of fellows vehemently opposed to Ron Paul. As I go through posts and read through blogs, it seems to me that many of these people are frightened by something. There’s something about their insistence, their passion about the "evil" of Ron Paul and the seemingly supernatural power of his “few” supporters to be able to hijack opinion polls, phone polls, and dominate Internet blogs, there’s something about the demeanor of these folks that suggests to my mind that they are terrified. There’s something even more disturbing about the way the mass media ignores or portrays him. All this has caused me to wonder, what are these Ron Paul detractors so frightened of? I have spent some time in the blogosphere in an effort to ascertain the answer to this question and to assuage their fear. Of course, I don’t expect to be able to convince everyone that there is nothing to fear from a Ron Paul victory, there are people who no matter how hard you argue, no matter how much reason you apply to the argument, will simply refuse to listen. They will not give up their beliefs. I hope to reach those who are on the fence, who are intrigued by Ron Paul’s ideas but are worried about all the negative rhetoric spewed forth by those afraid of real change.
One of the first things I notice about Ron Paul detractors is how often they call Ron Paul and his supporters names. To be fair, I’ve also seen Ron Paul supporters calling his detractors names, which I also think is wrong. As Ron Paul supporters, we should be able to recognize name calling for the juvenile practice it is and avoid that tactic. I know that’s hard to do when the mud starts flying. I realize that when someone insults you it is a natural tendency to insult them back, but we need to remember that name calling accomplishes nothing and serves only to inflame the emotions of those involved. We should let Ron Paul’s detractors show their true colors with their cutesy, middle school barbs like Paultards and Ronbots. Let them label us “crazy”, “conspiracy theorists” and whatever else they want to label us as. So what? Take a deep breath and let the name calling roll off your shoulders. It is more important to get Ron Paul’s message of personal responsibility and smaller, less intrusive government out there. It is time for us to grow up. It is time for us to reclaim out freedoms, to demand them back, and in the process get our lives back, free from government intervention.
Still, some Ron Paul detractors do talk about the issues. They have addressed their fears and stated why they are against Ron Paul. I’d like to address some of these. One of the big ones is that he’s against abortion. This is true, Ron Paul is against abortion. More specifically, he believes it should not be a constitutional issue and that the individual states should be able to decide abortion laws. He is, after all, an ob/gyn and as such has his own personal opinion on the miracle of life. Still, this is an issue where he and I actually disagree. I see abortion as a decision that should be left to the woman and her doctor and perhaps her family. Government should not be involved. But all this is beside the point. In my opinion, this country has far, far more important issues to worry about. And those who worry about women losing the right to an abortion, fear not. President Bush is also against abortions and he was not able to make them illegal in this country even with a Republican congress and a supreme court leaning his way.
Some detractors have expressed fear that Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is not so. Sure, he wants to bring our troops home from around the world. This is something he would actually have the power to do, should he become president. He wants to end our wars of aggression and bring the troops back home to protect our borders. Isn’t that what the military is for? Do we have to police the world? I don’t believe we should. I say it’s time we stopped trying to dictate to the world how to run their countries and remove the threat of force our military poses. I say it's time we stopped nation building. Just because he wants to bring the soldiers home does not mean he is an isolationist. He would still want to do business with the rest of the world. The difference is, he would not be doing business at the point of a gun, rather we would all be interacting on a voluntary basis. Sure, competition would increase, but fear not. I have faith in the American people. I think we can take on competition and come out ahead. We don’t need to force our will upon others in order to remain on top of the heap. We can lead by example and show the world that free markets are the way to improve the quality of everyone’s life. I believe that left to our own devices our ideas and innovations will help improve the world for all mankind.
I read one detractor claim that Ron Paul is racist. When I see the label “racist” used, I instantly question the author’s motive. When one uses such a name it seems to be an attempt to evoke emotion in the reader and cause one to instantly ostracize the subject on the basis that this person has an opinion that is so onerous as to be socially unacceptable. Now, I don’t know Ron Paul personally, so I can’t say for certain whether he is or isn’t a racist, but I can say that I seriously doubt it. Apparently, the claim that he is a racist came from some sort of newsletter that he sent out where one of his people made an unseemly comment that some interpreted as racist. Ron Paul apologized for the comment and fired the offending staffer. I would bet that just about everyone has said something at some point in time that could be considered racist. This does not make the person racist. As it is, Ron Paul has himself addressed this issue. Some of his thoughts on racism can be found here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
I believe that fear is unfounded.
Some detractors have expressed fear that Ron Paul’s stance on taxes and the Federal Reserve will lead to economic collapse. First off, why should a privately owned organization have a monopoly on our money when the constitution explicitly gives the House of Representatives the power “To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.” Why should our tax dollars go to pay the interest on trillions of dollars in loans when congress can order the creation of treasury notes interest free? Personally, I’m tired of seeing the value of the dollar shrink to nothing and I’d rather have a steady, stable currency that keeps its value as we had for hundreds of years before this fiat banking system took hold around the world. There might be a short period of adjustment in the economy if Ron Paul was able to implement such a change, but sound fiscal policy and the power of free, open markets would soon right the ship. Then there are those who would ask “What about the poor?” when income taxes are done away with. Well, not having to pay taxes will certainly give you more money in your pocket. You could give the extra money you’d have to some worthy charity that helps the poor. Private enterprises taking care of charity can certainly do a better job than any government organization or plan for wealth redistribution. Again, I have faith in the American people. We are, after all, perhaps the most generous nation in the world. You should not fear changing our money system, for sometimes change is for the best and often times it comes whether you plan it or not. It’s best if that change can be controlled rather than suddenly thrust upon us.
I could go on, but I think I’ve covered the basics. Try to remember, we are in the process of selecting a president here, not a dictator or a decider. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is for a smaller government with the voting record to prove it. All the other candidates are for increasing the size of government and government’s power and control over you. Ron Paul is against the war in Iraq, and any war of aggression. He is in favor of bringing our troops home to protect our borders. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against the Military Commissions Act. He does not believe we should engage in entangling alliances. He believes we should maintain our national sovereignty. And, should the citizens of the United States elect him as our next president, we would be sending a clear message to our politicians that we understand what freedom is and what it means and that we want to keep our freedoms and liberties rather than letting them die under the oppressive boots of a police state. We would also be sending a message that we appreciate honesty and openness in government and we will no longer tolerate the corruption that has plagued our government for decades now. Ron Paul should frighten no one, except maybe the establishment which has been feeding at the pig trough of political power for far too long.
Of course you’re right, he has no authority to do that as president.
However, he does have authority to veto everything coming across his desk until congress does it. If he wins the presidency (unlikely or not), congress often works to accomplish what he president ran and won on (as they value their jobs). Paul has talked about the fact that despite his seemingly ‘radical agenda’, he would move slowly and measured and not seek to abolish all these bloated and useless agencies, Dept of Edu, Dept of Enviro, HUD etc... all at once, but rather dismantle it piece by piece in the most feasible way.
That's not even a poll, it's gambling odds.
Ron Paul in the 5th at wherever.
No, he has the authority to veto everything coming across his desk till Congress overides, then he spends the money or gets impeached.
The headline assumes more than it can prove. I’m not afraid of Ron Paul, for I don’t believe that he politically significant. The attempt of the article’s writer is to create a sense that Ron Paul is a victim and that he is significant. He is important enough to be feared and hated. That is simply not based upon fact. Most people think that he is kooky. That is not the same thing has being hated or feared.
Well I can agree, there certainly is a childish aspect to it, certainly there are better ways to campaign for a candidate.
What I posted before wasn’t an online poll.
My follow up would then be, why is he making eliminating these things one of his platforms if he doesn’t have the Constitutional power to do so? Why doesn’t he say what you are saying, he will veto everything until he gets his way?
..and if he does go into veto mode, what will happen with funding of services such as military, border patrol, police, fire, all of those things that all Conservatives agree are vital?
This is one of the reasons I don’t criticize President Bush on not vetoing more. Because the USSC finding the line item veto Unconstitutional, the Congress (both sides) has used this to expand their earmarks so they attach both good and bad to bills. For example, to veto a spending bill that is full of pork you also will cut off funding troops in a war zone or border patrol agents keeping illegals out.
Yikes...isn’t online gambling illegal as well?
www.gambling911.com is one of his bigest supporters.
I’ll answer your question. Example, the CIA was established under the National Security Act of 1947. However the Central Intelligence Group was a prior entity established by Truman (by EO in 1946). The National Security Act of 1947 was just the next step. Wouldn’t the President have the capability to sign an Executive Order demoting certain departments? Or are you of the understanding the only use for Executive Orders is only more centralization of power?
My personal view of the easiest way to eliminate departments is to
A) not nominate Cabinet positions for those departments
B) veto budgets that have funding for those departments
I’m not sure the Constitution would require President Paul (nice ring to it don’t you think ;)) to put Secretaries in all the positions but Congress would probably claim otherwise. So put Secretaries in those positions that would work to put themselves out of work, laying out plans over a 5-10 year period to wind those departments down.
Hopefully in the meantime, Paul’s liberty message would catch on at the Congressional level, spawning more than a few challengers to Congressional seats and putting more people that believe in liberty and freedom in Congress than we currently have.
snicker
Maybe I'm frightened for my defenseless chickens and sheep which are outside and Ron Paul is rumored to be in the neighborhood.
Perhaps we should consider a balanced ticket...... Paul/Kochinich
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (H.R. 4411, Leach-Goodlatte) was passed by the House, the Senate and signed by the President on October 13, 2006.
See #74, I looked it up and it is illegal as of Oct 2006.
What a joke! This guy will be lucky to break out of single digits in the primary.
But it's all about neocons and war you know.
The dopers, they're concerned about the war too, nothing to do with dope.
To an extent I think it's what sells. I watched Man of the Year the other day (not a Robin Williams fan and I didn't agree with his 'programs') but there was a point early on where he was advised he had to 'step out' and appear different. I'm the sort I've listened to politicians for years and face it they're boring. I still listen, but which is going to catch the ear of John Q Public more? That you'll veto everything across your desk (vague) or you'll eliminate whole departments (specific)? The message is the same, you're going to get rid of whole departments. But one is catchy, the other is political speak that doesn't separate you from the crowd.
.and if he does go into veto mode, what will happen with funding of services such as military, border patrol, police, fire, all of those things that all Conservatives agree are vital?
The problem with shutting the government down in '94 or '95 was Republicans didn't have the backbone to carry through with it. But in effect it would have done the same thing wouldn't it? BTW, police and fire are at best state issues and there are several private fire departments that have popped up of late. The 'people' are returning to the original intent under the Constitution without the help of Washington DC already
And what will it say to the public? The news can't hide 'The President vetoed another bill' for very long. Yes you'll get some up in arms but you explain it right and you'll get a public that's calling their Congressional representation telling them to work with the President to cut government.
Second, in many cases, he is for returning the power of these organizations back to the States, such as the DOE. If he doesn’t fill cabinet positions to run/oversee those, then what will happen in the void? Who in Congress will move to make laws to remove federal power if the voice for this is no longer in Congress?
You pose the ‘inspirational type approach’ to Congress changing based on the figurehead of Paul, but what or how exactly will he do this? You are looking at at least two years before the next major election after (if) he is elected (in theory), but the seats up for grabs there in the House wouldn’t be enough to swing, it would actually be at his four year point. What would happen between day one and year four?
I will disclose that my thinking on this. Paul is making a lot of promises that he cannot fulfill in the office of President. All of the main items he stands for that many of us (Conservatives) agree on- ie, fiscal issues, have the Constitutional authority in Congress, not the executive. The main point of disagreement with Paul is on his CIC role. This is the main Constitutional granted power of the Executive. So he is asking us to move us out of the position where he influences items we agree with him on, and into a position where he influences items we disagree with him on.
I fully believe that Paul knows that the promises he is making about taxes, spending, etc, really are Congressional powers, but he is serving a role. He is preaching to the anti-establishment. Be it ultra small government Conservatives, virtually no government libertarians, or no government anarchists. He is pulling the same thing every politician does, he is saying what people want to hear, not what he has the true power or intention to do anything about.
But that’s just my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.