Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Life may not be exactly pleasant, but it is at least not dull. Heave yourself into Hell today, and you may miss, tomorrow or next day, another Scopes trial, or another War to End War, or perchance a rich and buxom widow with all her first husband's clothes. There are always more Hardings hatching. I advocate hanging on as long as possible.”     H. L. Mencken

August 31, 2007

Ron Paul Gets Some Respect

by Doug Mataconis

From The Wall Street Journal:

As polls track the public’s disaffection, political strategists are on alert for a third-party movement. Paulites insist their man can win the Republican nomination, though he has gone from zero to just 2% in polls. If he can’t, their fervor suggests they would push him to run independently. But having run as a Libertarian in 1988, when he took just 0.47% of the vote, Mr. Paul has discouraged such speculation.

The Web “is redefining what a grass-roots campaign looks like,” says Mr. Morey, the computer engineer. More than other candidates’ fans, Paul supporters take matters into their own hands, planning events and raising money in a decentralized process that parallels Mr. Paul’s vision of what government should be. Aside from his own Web site, there are free-lancers’ DailyPaul.com and RonPaulLibrary.org (“the world’s largest collection of writings by Ron Paul”), among others, MySpace “friends” groups and YouTube video-sharing.

It has meant $3 million to Mr. Paul, making him fourth among eight Republicans in fund raising and first among the five dark horses in cash on hand. But the netroots’ bottom-up energy poses challenges, too, for a campaign trying to channel if not control it. “We’re running a campaign, and we’d like to think we know what we’re doing,” says deputy campaign manager Joe Seehusen. “And then there’s this thing called the Internet, and that has a life of its own.”

There’s just one thing missing from the Journal’s article, and that’s any significant coverage of the ideas that Ron Paul talks about. In more than one sense, I would submit that those ideas are more important than the success of his campaign. This, however, seems consistent with the fact that support for the campaign itself seems to be mirroring the personality-based support for the campaigns of men like Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 and Ross Perot in 1992, neither of which succeeded in winning and neither of which succeeded in creating any lasting movement.

As nice as it would be to live in a world where it was possible, given the odds, Ron Paul isn’t going to be President. At the rate things are going, we’ll be lucky if the person taking the Oath of Office on January 20, 2009 is someone who actually believes in the free market.

But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t things that can be done to advance freedom. I addressed some of them in my open letter to Ron Paul’s supporters back in July, but I’m sure that someone else can come up with even more ideas.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/08/31/ron-paul-gets-some-respect/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

27 Comments

  1. I have to disagree that the Ron Paul campaign reflects a a mere cult of personality; rather I think it reflects a growing political reality of loss of voter identity among both political parties. Don’t look now, but independents are now roughly the same size as either political party. The decline in party identification has been particularly precipitous with respect to the GOP, which I attribute mainly to the extrication of the libertarian wing.

    I agree with Brink Lindsey that this base of independents is largely libertarian–not capital L, LP Libertarian per se, but receptive generally to a libertarian message. It’s demographic is young. This is exactly what Ron Paul is tapping into.

    Currently, I think we have a left progressive party in the Democrats and a right progressive party in the Republicans and a 3rd of the electorate turned off by both.

    Comment by Kaligula — September 1, 2007 @ 12:36 am
  2. Personality based support?

    Who do you think Paul is, Bill Clinton? Do you really think all of his supporters are in love with the often stoic, rather uncomfortable, abrasive Mr. Paul? Do you think they want him to be president because they want a 70 year old obstetrician with a knack for failing to accomplish anything in Congress aside from make loud noise?

    No, Paul is about the ideas. Paul is about our desire to point Washington in another direction, a direction the Constitution called us to go in. Paul represents the embodiment of frustration that those of us that believe in freedom and free markets and peace want to go in. Mr. Mataconis, I’m afraid you’ve completely misjudged the momentum. If you ask a Paul supporter what they want, they will all tell you the ideas and if you presented a candidate that was as popular as the frontrunners that matched those ideas, I believe even Paul himself would bow out to support such a man. We cannot control how the media presents Paul, but we can say that we are behind the idea that the constitution is rule of law and freedom is supposed to be the rule for which exceptions are written, not the other way around.

    When you have no other options left to pursue, you pursue the option left you as best you can and hope.

    Thank you for your continuing comments on Mr. Paul

    Comment by Greg — September 1, 2007 @ 12:54 am
  3. Ron Paul can win the election!…I hate when people use absolutes.

    Comment by Ira Kaur — September 1, 2007 @ 1:11 am
  4. “As nice as it would be to live in a world where it was possible, given the odds, Ron Paul isn’t going to be President.”

    More negative, anti-Paul spin from Mataconis. We’ve come to expect it from him.

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 1, 2007 @ 3:55 am
  5. People:

    Mataconis and the liberty papers is a waste of time.

    If Doug’s views were presented on paper they would line the cage of my daughters bunny rabbits.

    Doug, has offered nothing but doubt, and a collection of negative vile intentions and does so 99% of the time.

    Spend your time with another blog or site, post signs and donate to Ron Paul.

    One thing is for sure Doug states he supports Ron Paul but tell me this if you had to have Doug cover the rear in times of war could you trust him?

    Comment by Darel99 — September 1, 2007 @ 6:11 am
  6. Buckwheat,

    You call it spin, I call it realism.

    Either way, its my opinion.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — September 1, 2007 @ 6:38 am
  7. Darel,

    I haven’t said one negative thing about the Congressman personally. Frankly, from what I know, I think it would be hard to find anything negative say.

    What I have been is realistic about the chances for success of a campaign that has yet to get above 3% in any poll. You can disagree with my interpretation, but you can’t deny that simple fact.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — September 1, 2007 @ 6:39 am
  8. Doug is realistic about Ron Paul’s chances but he’s wrong about the campaign being more about Rep. Paul’s personality than it is about issues. RP has all the charisma of white bread. Have you ever watched him at a debate when he’s not speaking? He looks like a tired old man. To put it mindly he’s less than a forceful speaker. I can’t believe that Doug seriuosly compared him to Teddy Rosevelt and Ross Perot! When you think of powerful personalities do you really put Ron Paul in the same class as Teddy Rosevelt and Ross Perot??! He’d have an outside chance of victory he had the personality of Rosevelt or Perot. But what he’s does have is that he’s right on the issues! He understands the mess that the politicians have gotten us into and understands that the best way to clean up the mess is to return to constitutional government.

    Comment by Bob — September 1, 2007 @ 6:59 am
  9. “given the odds, Ron Paul isn’t going to be President’

    What basis to have for that statement? The MSM constantly refers to polls which come in at less than 2%. But these are telephone polls of screened target groups. Polls with real people who come out to vote are not even mentioned. Ron Paul IS WINNING by this measure based on all the straw polls since Iowa.
    See: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014932.html
    And: http://ok4ronpaul.ashlux.com/wiki/index.php?title=2008_Presidential_GOP_straw_poll_results

    Comment by Brian Horsfield — September 1, 2007 @ 7:51 am
  10. In 30 years of Republican politics I’ve never seen a candidate with supporters like Ron Paul. The national polls have him at around 3%, his unfavorables beat his favorables by a 29 to 18 margin, compared to the big guys he has little money, compared to the big guys he has little name recognition, and his stand on the big issue (Iraq)doesn’t poll well with the party faithful or the general population. (Most people, even those against the war don’t want to just walk out of Iraq.) But that doesn’t stop some of his supporters from believing that he’s going to win. Straw polls are nice but the only one that’s really contested is Iowa and RP finished 5th. Do any of you true believers want to make a wager on the primaries or the general election? If you are I’m interested. Maybe, something could be set up so the loser makes a donation to the winner’s favorite charity.
    Yes, I support Ron Paul but I do so with my eyes open. Losing is alot easier to take if you know its coming. Better you know now than you’re so surprised and hurt by it later that you give up on the liberty movement.

    Comment by Bob — September 1, 2007 @ 8:11 am
  11. Win our lose the fact of our support of Ron Paul is a clear indication that he is the sort of person we want as a politician. An honest man that speaks the truth and tells it like he sees it. We want honest and principled men and women to enter politics and we will vote for them if they are clearly for the constitution and for the reduction of government and an end to the invasive and wrong personal income tax on our labor.

    Comment by JD — September 1, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
  12. “You call it spin, I call it realism.”

    I also call it concern trolling, which is what it is.

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 1, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
  13. Doug,

    In your bio post at the Liberty Papers, you write:

    All I know is that the evidence is clear that Western Civilization is in a fight for its own survival right now. Following the naive foreign policy advocated by the Libertarian Party and its pacifist allies is, quite frankly, a prescription for suicide.

    Is this the reason you consistently mention that Ron Paul “can’t win”, and suggest he move to a third party?

    If so, it would make sense to me. If one sees Ron Paul as advocating a naïve foreign policy which threatens Western Civilization, I can see how he would root for the candidate to continue to have “no chance of winning”, and move to a hopefully-untenable third party bid.

    Regardless of whether that is your motivation or not, might I submit that the contemporary policies of international intervention may be exactly what threatens our security the most? In 911 we weren’t attacked by a nation-state. We weren’t attacked by Muslims from Indonesia, India, or Pakistan (all countries with top Muslim populations). We were attacked by a group of individuals who claim that their motivation was, in part, our bases in their holy land.

    And when facing attack by individuals not aligned with a nation-state, the constitution provides for letters of Marque and Reprisal, rather than war. This way, we target just the individuals claiming responsibility.

    But enough about war, foreign policy, and the constitution.

    I see implicit in many of your posts, a concern that Paul may upset a Republican victory by his presence. Whether he actually wins the nomination, and is marginalized by the Hilary’s promises of a pony for everyone, or he loses the bid, but not before undermining support for the Republican chameleon of the week, do you see him as a Ralph Nader for Republicans?

    May I ask which candidate you would support in favor of Dr. Paul? Which one you think “could win”? And would voting for that candidate (if only to foil Hilary’s chances) really give you, me, and the country the kind of executive we should have?

    Doesn’t a strategy of voting against an evil, while abandoning the best good, doom you to exactly what we have now: a dangerous mediocrity that tramples our rights unheeded and pushes us further into being an international pariah?

    Comment by Akston — September 1, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
  14. Statistics Can Be Bent To Any End.

    I call it “Brown Dog Syndrome”

    By either happenstance or malicious intent the data becomes incomplete and thus reveals a result that is inconsistent with reality.

    To illustrate:

    A being, utterly new to this planet, ( Stated for the definition of no prior knowledge ) wanders around an comes across several “Brown Dogs”. Since this is all that as been revealed to them they Naturally Conclude That => All Dogs Are Brown. This is a very logical result based upon the given information. However, With Knowledge of the Greater Dataset, This Is An Obvious Wrong Conclusion.

    To base your being “Realistic” on something that is so obviously tied with what your data set includes is to me Unwise. Statistical Realism Is In The Eye Of The Poller.

    Ron Paul should not be looked at in the light of “No Chance”. To Say so is to say that all of the Founders Principles Were Irrelevant !!!

    The Message Is More Important Than The Man !!!

    Country Before Party,

    Brad Evans

    Comment by Brad Evans — September 1, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
  15. Thank you for the article and the comments. I’m one of those Americans who have lost all faith in our shady politicians over the last 40 years. When Dr Ron Paul wins the nomination to lead this country, you know for a fact he would be allowed to expound on all issues pertinent to the Constitution and his honesty and intelligence will shine thru and be heard. He deserves respect even now as a Texas long term Congressman but the press and many of his collegues either ignore him or treat him with disrepect by their silence. I find this appalling. I realize now that the press and most who run DCLAND, do not want any changes that would take away their perks. I do not want any part of the down fall of AMERICA….WE need RON PAUL, for GOD’S SAKE we need him…My heart has not ached with faith for America in such a long time

    Comment by M Chance — September 1, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
  16. Akston,

    The idea that America can solve all its foreign policy problems by simply withdrawing from the world, which is what the isolationism that Ron Paul sometimes talks about seems to suggest, is, quite honestly, incredibly naive.

    I don’t support the War in Iraq.

    But I do support the War against al Qaeda and anyone else dedicated to the idea of killing American citizens.

    If you want to criticize me for that, feel free.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — September 1, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
  17. Doug,

    Personally, though, I think isolationism’s not a bad thing. The ONLY legitimate military action we’ve got going overseas right now is the war on al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. Pull us militarily out of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Korea, the Philippines, and the Middle East (plus keep our noses out of the Israel-Palestine debacle) I doubt you’ll see much of a rise in acts of terrorism against us. In any case we won’t be giving them an incentive to attack us. Al-Qaeda’s in Iraq now, but frankly I think the only reason they’ve got a foothold there is because a) we removed Saddam, who kept them out, and b) they offer a useful temporary ally to groups who want us to pull our support for the Iraqi government (which we should). The Iraqi Sunnis are not predisposed towards al-Qaeda’s ideology and if we remove ourselves from the equation I think they’ll get a lot less attractive. Plus, all the neighboring countries around Iraq hate al-Qaeda too and there’s no way they’d tolerate an al-Qaeda led caliphate like Bush is suggesting. They’d have no popular appeal for it anyway. Let the Middle Easterners police their own neighborhood…they’re better equipped to do that anyway.

    And Ron Paul’s not advocating total isolationism, like a lot of the xenophobes want. He still supports open trade and diplomacy. In fact, he’d probably try to open trade with Iran, which is more of an incentive for them to get along with us than Bush’s saber-rattling. He’s just talking about military isolationism except in cases of self-defense.

    Comment by UCrawford — September 1, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
  18. Doug,

    To take your latter points first:

    I don’t support the War in Iraq.

    But I do support the War against al Qaeda and anyone else dedicated to the idea of killing American citizens.

    I am in complete agreement with you here, with the small exception that I wouldn’t call the action against al-Qaeda a “war”. I’d reserve that term for wars against nation-states, wars which are declared by the congress and can include a win condition. Usually, this is the surrender by the leadership of the opposing nation. But no matter what we call it, I would agree with you, and favor a relentless pursuit of the bastards who attacked our country. Dr. Paul has stated his agreement with that pursuit on many occasions.

    The idea that America can solve all its foreign policy problems by simply withdrawing from the world, which is what the isolationism that Ron Paul sometimes talks about seems to suggest, is, quite honestly, incredibly naive.

    While I can appreciate that this may be the message you (and perhaps others) hear, I think it’s important to be clear about Dr. Paul’s Position on War and Foreign Policy. In it, he states that “we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.”

    We all know the definitions of the term, but let me post a quick reminder (from the American Heritage Dictionary):

    i•so•la•tion•ism n. A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.

    After reading Dr. Paul’s Position on War and Foreign Policy, I really can’t see a match for that term. Can you? He espouses all manner of contact with other nations, just not preemptive military contact. Do we have a better connection with Vietnam now than we did in 1970?

    I guess it really does hinge on one’s view of America’s presence in the world. Are we to be a “superpower”, enforcing our ideas of government around the world, by use of our military might? Would we react well if China chose that same road? Or, are we to be the bedrock, safe, trading partner of people around the world, strong in our defense, stable in our currency, ruthless in retribution to attack?

    Can you help me find a good rationale for America to support a worldwide standing army to enforce our will, and defend our ally-of-the-month, while drawing our country into an endless succession of such conflicts? Will the whole world then pay for this beneficent effort of ours? How many people around the world will see it as beneficent?

    If the choice of non-intervention, free trade, and only using our military might to defend ourselves from attack is naïve, I truly want to hear a better solution. I really do.

    Comment by Akston — September 2, 2007 @ 2:51 am
  19. Askton,

    One other point:

    I see implicit in many of your posts, a concern that Paul may upset a Republican victory by his presence. Whether he actually wins the nomination, and is marginalized by the Hilary’s promises of a pony for everyone, or he loses the bid, but not before undermining support for the Republican chameleon of the week, do you see him as a Ralph Nader for Republicans?

    First, as this stand right now I don’t think the Republicans are in good shape to win in `08 regardless of who the nominees are. The Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress have so thoroughly screwed things up that it will be difficult for any candidate to overcome the publics disdain for anything Republican.

    May I ask which candidate you would support in favor of Dr. Paul? Which one you think “could win”? And would voting for that candidate (if only to foil Hilary’s chances) really give you, me, and the country the kind of executive we should have?

    Frankly, I don’t know that there is one. It certainly wouldn’t be Rudy McRomney.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — September 2, 2007 @ 7:56 am
  20. Categorizing Ron Paul as isolationist is disingenuous, since isolationism requires removing oneself from international economic transactions, a la Japan 1641-1853.

    Ron Paul is not an isolationist, and does want to go after Al Queada, and would go after anyone who did indeed threaten our national security, albeit in a constitutional way.

    Paul is simply what Washington-Jefferson-Madison were: non-interventionist. Meddling in foreign affairs has been a major source of our troubles for the past 100 years. Whenever we meddle in other countries’ business by supporting what we perceive to be the “lesser” of two evils, we are bitten by consequences down the road.

    And whenever American voters cast their lot for the lesser of two evils, they still get evil. Maybe it’s time we stop doing that, and vote for the good Doctor instead.

    Comment by Dave — September 2, 2007 @ 9:54 am
  21. Predicitions are wishes pretending to be wisdom. Those predicting that Ron Paul can’t win are the same ones who, fearing that he can win, are busy telling lies about his positions and about his supporters.

    Comment by John Howard — September 2, 2007 @ 10:41 am
  22. Doug,

    I think we probably agree on far more issues than we differ. To respond to some of your points:

    I don’t support the War in Iraq.

    But I do support the War against al Qaeda and anyone else dedicated to the idea of killing American citizens.

    I am in complete agreement with you here, with the small exception that I wouldn’t call the action against al-Qaeda a “war”. I’d reserve that term for wars against nation-states, wars which are declared by the congress and include a win condition. Usually, this is the surrender by the leadership of the opposing nation. If we don’t limit the use of that term, we get “wars” on tactics (terrorism), wars on inanimate objects (drugs), etc. None of these ever have an end point.

    But no matter what we call it, I would agree with you, and favor a relentless pursuit of the bastards who attacked our country. Dr. Paul has stated his agreement with that pursuit on many occasions.

    The idea that America can solve all its foreign policy problems by simply withdrawing from the world, which is what the isolationism that Ron Paul sometimes talks about seems to suggest, is, quite honestly, incredibly naive.

    While I can appreciate that this is the message people might hear, I think it’s important to be clear about Dr. Paul’s Position on War and Foreign Policy. In it, he states that “we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.”

    After reading Dr. Paul’s position, I really don’t see it as isolationist. Do you? He espouses all manner of contact with other nations, just not preemptive military contact.

    This is not only a philosophical stance I can support, but also a very workable solution. Do we have a better connection with Vietnam now than we did in 1970?

    There will always be an Axis of Evil, a Communist threat, or some other boogie man to use as a sales pitch for transferring more power from the citizens who are constitutionally supposed to run their own lives, to a small central group who will “keep us safe”. All these monsters in the closet eventually collapse of their own weight, once they extend too far for their ruling bodies to control. Do we want to become one of these countries ourselves, as a result of fighting every one we see?

    Sure, we should respond to threats. That’s one of the government’s primary jobs. But a different philosophy of government is not a threat to us. It’s just a threat to the people of those nations who are misguided enough to support such regimes. Do we want to be that misguided as well?

    First, as this stand right now I don’t think the Republicans are in good shape to win in `08 regardless of who the nominees are. The Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress have so thoroughly screwed things up that it will be difficult for any candidate to overcome the publics disdain for anything Republican.

    I have to agree with you here as well. I see Hilary Clinton as the most likely candidate on the democratic side. Her strategy of delivering America from the abyss that the welfare/warfare state is creating is to offer more government. She’s championing more pretty-sounding socialist answers domestically and a continuance of the interventionist policies that got us here.

    Against Hilary, we’re offered Rudy McRomney, or any number of true third party candidates who have philosophies none of us agree with.

    So.

    Who should we vote for?

    I won’t be voting for comrade Clinton. I don’t want the U.S. to follow the glorious road blazed by the erstwhile Soviet Union (hard to believe people still are fooled by that nonsense). And Rudy McRomney all sound like a large helping of exactly the same recipe we’re choking on now.

    Only Ron Paul brings me any inspiration or hope. His message of classic American freedom and prosperity is the only one I see that follows the ideals which made America great.

    Comment by Akston — September 2, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
  23. Sometimes, I believe, war is warranted when you must defend yourself. But, I think from what I have read and seen on the news we have our own war right here in the United States. That being the war between the ideals of the people and their government. The founders warned us to be distrustful of government; but people believed the lies of the politicians and now we no longer know who to trust or what to believe. the founders warned us of the importance of an honest, independent, and unbiased press. Now centralized media is full of propaganda, distortions and omissions. Men in government who choose to lie to the American People, are men who would, in my own opinion, not even if blink if America were to fall to her demise. It’s already happening because people choose to ignore people who lie like Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi. If you look into the backgrounds of these people you will find some very disturbing things. The republicans and the democrats are two halves of the same coin. Ron Paul at least, in his 20 years of service has been consistent in voting with the constitution. The founders warned us to obey the constitution because power corrupts. Now, the government can spy on you at will under the guise of fighting terrorism. They warned us of the dangers of foreign entanglements; now thousands of young american men and women die and suffer in foreign lands while government plans a military draft. They have to plan a draft because volunteerism is to the point of non existence. Why is that? Maybe because the young men and women who live here don’t want to have to worry about war at each and every turn because someone like Bush doesn’t like the way some other countries run their own government. Well let them run their countries their way and let us stick to our own structured government. The one country where the world used to look to for peace, properity, and soveriegnty. Yes war is warranted when it is fought out of self defense, but it is not warranted against other nations who have done no harm to us. China is carrying the united states debt because we can no longer afford to pay it ourselves. The founders warned us to keep our nation soveriegn and independent Now we submit to UN and Nafta authority as the southern border is deliberately left open and unprotected. Bush and big government planned BEHIND THE BACKS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NAFTA. He had to do that behind our backs because he knew the American people would not want it. I sure don’t want another president like that. Do you?

    Comment by Valeria — September 2, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
  24. Ron Paul is ALL HAT AND NO CATTLE! Yes Ron Paul voted against going to Iraq but Ron Paul has not even proposed legislation to recall the troops. If you think that is not true please post the date and legislation that he proposed removal of our troops from Iraq since I can not find it. He could at least propose legislation and hold a press conference with like minded congress people. That might even get him media attention and embarrass the rest of the candidates running for President that claim to be against the war as well.

    In regards to who has authority to bring our troops back, Read the War Powers Resolution H. J. Res. 542 of 1973 and “Use of Force” H.J.Res 114 of 2002. It says Congress can bring them home at anytime no matter what the President wants. Stop blaming the President and start holding Congress to task Ron. Introduce legislation to stop the war RON, that’s what we pay you for.

    Here is a quote from Ron Paul on the floor of Congress introducing his fake anti-war legislation: “Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. It does not cut off funds for the troops. Nor does this bill set a timetable for our withdrawal” WHY NOT RON, I thought you wanted to end the war?

    http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=757

    Comment by David — September 2, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
  25. David, you could start with this HR 2605 in the 110th congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

    HR 2605 would sunset the original Authorization to use force 6 months from date of passage allowing the President ample time for an orderly withdraw.

    Last action:
    6/7/2007:
    Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

    Comment by Philly Dave — September 2, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
  26. I just realized we are talking about the same piece of legislation.

    What is your problem with this?

    It would eliminate the President’s authorization for leaving troops in Iraq. It would force War proponents to re-authorize which would be political suicide. Why is that fake?

    It is an attempt to provide legislation that is politically viable. Every time congress has an up or down vote on funding Paul votes it down. All those yes votes are the people who have to be convinced to come over.

    Comment by Philly Dave — September 2, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
  27. Blah blah blah! Playing by the rules of the constitution only make it easier for tyrants to take control by trusting others to be forthright and honest. The media has us in a brainwashed state because we are lazy and care more about American Idol while our liberties and freedoms are stolen. The individual in American society is bombarded by one way communication of the powerful gamut of the writen media, audio and/or video media propeling us into hell in a hand-basket.

    The modern American citizen needs to actually THINK AND ACT about the consequence of being lazy and brainwashed, then and only then, can freedom and prosperity develope.

    http://www.dubaimegaprojects.com/burj_dubai.html

    Explore what happens when you are not exposed to a taxing nanny state and brainwashing media. It’s Paul or fall America!

    Comment by pist off pete — September 3, 2007 @ 11:24 am

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML