< donning flame retardant suit >
Posted on 12/17/2009 9:55:34 PM PST by rabscuttle385
People often mistake being named Time’s “Person of the Year” as an honor, but that men as sinister as Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and Rudy Giuliani have all been given the title suggests otherwise. According to Time, the award is primarily a recognition of influence and by that measure the 2009 selection of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke makes sense. Explains Time, the Fed is “an independent government agency that conducts monetary policy, which means it sets short-term interest rates - which means it has immense influence over inflation, unemployment, the strength of the dollar and the strength of your wallet.” Powerful and influential indeed.
But using Time’s reasoning, the same award could have been given to Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker or any other chairman in the history of the Fed. It is amusing that if simply being in charge of the powerful institution warrants such recognition, a Fed Chairman has now received it during a time of serious economic downturn and Bernanke likely won the award because his celebrity had been elevated due to the economy going south. It’s sort of like giving special recognition to Tiger Woods for making so many headlines recently, while ignoring that it is his personal recklessness and infidelity that has contributed most to his career and marriage going south.
So instead of giving props to Fed chairman who’ve screwed up the economy, why not praise someone who’s spent his entire career opposing the central bank, not to mention being ahead of the curve-often alone–on some of the most pressing political issues of our day? In terms of elevated profile and increased influence, it’s hard to imagine a better candidate worth recognizing as “Person of the Year” than Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
For starters, Paul agrees with Time that Bernanke should be “Person of the Year,” because he truly is “the most powerful man in the world.” Paul notes that Bernanke can “create a trillion dollars in secret without any monitoring of the Congress, so there’s no transparency, and I think he’s more powerful than the president.” And yet for years, decades even, Paul was virtually alone on Capitol Hill in calling to rein in the Fed. Today, the once “extreme” notion of auditing the Federal Reserve has become mainstream amongst Republicans and more than a few Democrats, due in no-small-part to Paul’s lead. Reports the Houston Chronicle:
“As odd as it may seem, (Paul) has become one of the most influential Republicans in a capital city dominated by liberal Democrats… The subject that has brought him to prominence is the same issue that subjected him to ridicule from establishment Republicans for years: his long-standing opposition to the nation’s monetary system and the Federal Reserve Board that prints money and controls its supply. ‘On economic matters, he was seen as a way outside the mainstream,’ University of Houston political scientist Richard Murray said. ‘His views were somewhat 19th century in the view of a lot of economists.’ Well, they say history repeats itself, and suddenly Paul’s “19th-century” thinking seems appealing to those suffering through the first economic meltdown of the 21st century.”
While many now embrace Paul’s “fringe” thinking on the Fed, many Americans have also migrated closer to the Congressman’s thinking on foreign policy. When during the George W. Bush years, the Republican Party exchanged its traditional limited government rhetoric to advocate for war, Paul vocally opposed nation building in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq, ventures he believed were unjustified, unwinnable and too costly. When running for president in 2008, many saw Paul as simply the antiwar Republican, a seemingly oddball position at the time, particularly amongst a field of GOP candidates whose platforms consisted mainly of trying to outdo each other in their enthusiasm for war.
And yet as Obama continues with an almost identical foreign policy agenda as Bush, polls show that many Americans-including many Republicans-are now war weary and skeptical as to what the US endgame might be in the Middle East. Many are realizing there probably is no real “end” or no true “victory” in Afghanistan or Iraq. And many now realize that Paul had been right all along.
Given the anxiety over economic downturn and costly military overstretch, it is not farfetched to say that popular American opinion is likely now closer to Paul’s thinking on those two major issues than that of either major party nominee for president in 2008 and particularly President Obama, whose poll numbers continue to plummet. Says the Houston Chronicle “it’s not that Paul has gone mainstream. Rather, the mainstream has gone Paul-ite.”
Not bad for a guy who just two years ago was considered persona non grata by his own party. And not bad for a man who continues to change hearts and minds, not because of any grand strategy or particular political savvy, but mostly because against overwhelming odds–he’s refused to change one bit.
< donning flame retardant suit >
Okay, he’d be better than Obama: but that ain’t saying much.
Ron Paul is the new Pat Paulson.
Ho, hum!!!!!
The man is the only Constitutionalist in Congress and has to date lived up to his promise that he would “never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution” and still a majority of Freepers consider him crazy. Just goes to show how far the “Conservative Right” has moved towards the center.
Ron Paul got railroaded because Rush and Hannity didn’t like his stance on Iraq.
He was the most conservative candidate in the last election and the attacks came from the right.
Rush and Hannity wouldn’t allow themselves to be wrong on Iraq. Therefore, anyone that didn’t support us going into Iraq had to be labeled looney by them.
In 1913 these United States were recolonized into the British Empire through the enactment of the federal reserve Act.
.........Ah, because Rush and Sean WEREN’T wrong on Iraq. As far as Ron Paul goes, how’s that “truther” aspect coming along for him? Please.
The man is the only Constitutionalist in Congress and has to date lived up to his promise that he would “never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution” and still a majority of Freepers consider him crazy. Just goes to show how far the “Conservative Right” has moved towards the center.
*************************************
Agreed.
I’m guessing Ron Paul was/is anti-war, not because he is a wimp, but because like the Federal Reserve itself, the war’s main purpose, like all the pork and wasteful spending, is to drain our treasury.
Towards the center?
Nah...more like towards the left.
Just look at the most recent Republican administration, the first to face a throughly Republican-controlled Congress since Coolidge.
Except, unlike Coolidge, who actually reduced the size of the Federal government and its debt and spending, the most recent Republican administration engaged in "compassionate conservatism" and outspent all its predecessors.
The fact of the matter is that...
No Republican since Coolidge has ever reduced the size of the Federal government and its spending and debt.
Reagan tried but faced a barely Republican-controlled Senate and a Democrat-controlled House.
And unless we find another Coolidge or another Reagan and pair him/her with throughly libertarian conservatives, and quickly, then we're screwed.
"In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule."Link
"Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!"
~~~ Jim Robinson, Sept, 30, 2007
Ditto, Jim.
Ron Paul's libertarian beliefs on foreign policy and international affairs are naive and dangerous, and no different then the liberal Democratic Party agenda. Paul voted against the 2002 Iraq war resolution and has continually opposed both the Iraq and Afghan wars. He opposed the Patriot Act and enhanced interrogation and voted against funding for our troops fighting the Islamofacists. Also, Paul supports bringing ALL US troops home and blames America for 911.
Paul is not only loony, he belongs in a straight jacket and heavily medicated. A first class crackpot!
It's tough these days to figure out who hates the libertarian right more; socialists or the fiscally (un)conservative neocons.
Most of them should come home. Why do we have bases in England, France, Germany, etc? Can you give 1 good reason to leave those open?
and blames America for 911.
That's not a fair assessment of what he has said. Paul believes, and he is correct, that our foreign policy will have some blow back. We can't go around the world, do what we want to other countries, and act like everyone will like us.
I also love the way he drives the RINO nutjobs here are FR even more nuts. Every positive comment about Ron Paul lures those cretins out from their holes. That lets me know whose comments are less than worthless.
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.