Ron Paul’s Diem Mirabilis

National Review Online ^ | 12/03/2010 | Daniel Foster

[Deb]

I’ll give it a try. I’m trying to figure out what I can sprinkle on it. Something mind-altering could make him saner.

[NativeNewYorker]

Thanks. I didn’t know that.

[November 2010]

Orwellian. He voted against censure but voted for censure and voted for a tax increase by voting against a tax increase. Ingsoc doublespeak.

[TigersEye]

I don’t particularly like Ron Paul. He says some really crazy things. I guess you saw a shark and had to jump it though.

[OldDeckHand]

"I guess you saw a shark and had to jump it though."

Again, if you think that means something, don't let me stop you.

[TigersEye]

If that's what you think, don't let me stop you. ALL HAIL RON PAUL, DEFENDER OF AMERICAN FREEDOMS. I get it. You love Paul.

And I won't stop you while you're making your most lucid posts.

[BlackElk]

PaleoPaulie was joined in his vote for tax hikes by Weepy Walter Jones of North Carolina and Duncan of Tennessee, both of whom, if I recall, are PaleoPaulie's partners in pacifism in the GOP House caucus.

Candor requires that I disclose that, if and only if all the other tax cuts could be preserved only by chucking the 4.5% cut on top bracket income, I would say vote for the compromise. Of course, I don't believe that Congress will not extend all of the tax cuts and so those three do not get a pass under the actual circumstances prevailing.

That the paleosurrenderman lies while posing for various holy pictures as though he were conservative goes without saying.

[elpadre]

so what’s new????

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

This working together sense the Paultards have trouble doing when they think internet polls can give their hero a nomination rating higher than he is due -- we have the figures when he was the Libertarian Party nominee against Reagan.

Get your facts straight. Paul was the Libertarian Candidate in 1988. He ran against Bush41.

[eleni121]

I agree with the comments at the end of that article NOT with Newt. Assange is an Australian “opportunist” and the creep who leaked the docs may be up for treason.

And why do we honor the NY SLimes when they leak things but now we seek to punish these guys.

After all, lots of what is coming out is damaging the left. Keep it coming I say. This govt needs to be brought to its heels. The State Dept needs to be thoroughly scrubbed and heads there roll.

[BlackElk]

I cannot stand the hare-brained idiocy, among other things, of Ron Paul but I will agree that he should be given the opportunity to chair an investigation of the Federal Reserve given this week’s revelations about the secret $3 trillion currency printing party of Bernanke and Company to empower Santa Dubya and Santa Obamao to obscenely fund their establishment elitist pals in American business (GE, NBC, etc.), and the investment banks of New York and Europe at the expense of what little viability remains in American currency. OTOH, given PaleoPaulie’s well-earned reputation as an absolute loose cannon on deck, his leash should be verrrrrry short to confine him to Federal Reserve issues only and prevent him crossing over into the rest of his beliefs which are essentially delusional and dishonest. Any misbehavior by PaleoPaulie in chairing a Federal Reserve investigation and he should be hounded from public life and promptly be replaced in the investigation. Big opportunity. Big responsibility. That rare area wherein Paleopaulie has some actual expertise. Failure is not an option.

[jerry557]

I do.

60% of the Republican party has rejected Romney. But here is the problem, he has about 30-40% of the GOP who like him and would support him. And if half the Tea Party supports Palin and then a significant number of the libertarian wing goes to Ron Paul, that could be just enough for Romney to squeak out the nomination.

That’s exactly what happened in 2008. McCain won most of those states in the primaries with only about 35-40% of the GOP vote. That RINO vote is tough to beat when it is united.

I dont care what anyone says, that 2012 primary will be very, very ugly. There will be a fight over candidates and a fight over agenda. Keep in mind that the RINOs especially HATE Palin. They are going to try and sabotage her. You know this...

[zeugma]

Dude, you're letting facts get in the way of a perfectly good smear. Stop it.

[The Liberty Activist]

Old Deck Hand, you are most disingenuous and naive if you don’t think its better to vote for keeping some taxes instead of keeping none.

If you want to argue that Paul voted for a TAX INCREASE because this bill only kept tax cuts for the middle class,

then are you willing to argue with a straight face that the Republicans who voted AGAINST this bill don’t really favor the TAX CUTS for the Middle Class?

From the American Spectator (hardly Paul fans):

“But if you also favor retaining the tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers, are you supporting tax hikes if you vote first for the stand-alone middle-class tax cut bill? Especially when the Democratic majority leader publicly admits the partial tax cut has no chance of becoming law and all three Republicans voted for the original full tax cuts and say they favor their retention? Paul in particular has defended the tax cuts for the wealthy for some time:

I’m in favor of cutting everybody’s taxes - rich, poor, and otherwise. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by forty dollars a month, or allows a wealthy business owner to save millions in capital gains, the net effect is beneficial. Both either spend, save, or invest the extra dollars, which helps all of us infinitely more than if those dollars were sent to the black hole known as the federal Treasury. The single mother desperately needs those extra dollars, and that’s why we should reduce or eliminate her payroll taxes. As for the wealthy business owner and whether he “needs” the extra dollars, I’ll simply relate the old adage of the man who said “I’ve never had my paycheck signed by a poor man.”

The most problematic provision of the bill Paul and company voted for is Section 102, which explicitly excludes “high income individuals” from the tax cuts and defines who doesn’t qualify. Left alone, that would be a tax increase on those individuals come January. But the legislation also explicitly continues the tax cuts for everyone else. Could you argue with a straight face that the Republicans who voted against this bill don’t really favor the tax cuts for the middle class?

Also, Ryan Ellis of the anti-tax increase Americans for Tax Reform comments below:

“In our opinion, Cong. Paul did not vote for a tax hike. The bill Congress voted on yesterday is a tax cut relative to 2011 law, which assumes everyone’s taxes go up. By preventing some people’s taxes from going up, this would score out as a tax cut.”

[speciallybland]

Actually, this is wrong. Peter King (NY) and Don Young (AK) were the only two Republicans to vote against censure once it came up for a vote. Paul, however, did support before the censure vote reducing the penalty from censure to reprimand.

[November 2010]

I agree with you 100%. He’s a loose cannon. Chain him down and point him at the Fed. They are out of control and this is the time to do it.

[November 2010]

Heh, I had a rabbit once that I named Elwood P. Dowd! Elwood for short of course. Norwegian giant. He died attacking a German Shepard.

[OldDeckHand]

"Old Deck Hand, you are most disingenuous and naive if you don’t think its better to vote for keeping some taxes instead of keeping none."

Or, I'm not an idiot and understand that if you vote to raise taxes on anyone YOU'RE VOTING TO RAISE TAXES.

The only way Republicans are going to get things done, is to stand as a united front against the Dems. They did that, except for a few idiots, like Ron Paul.

Increased taxes on the job creators will mean increased unemployment. We can't handle more unemployment. Republican leadership understands this, but "rogue contrarian" Ron Paul doesn't

And I'm the "naive" one?

[BlackElk]

Yeah, like you said!