Bear in mind that this is from a Politico article, and they offer nothing to quantify their assertion, but I found this idea interesting:
The anti-war stance, the sharp criticism of the war on terrorism, the calls to rein in military spending — all of it is fueling Paul’s support among the young voters who throng his events, and among independents and Democrats.
In a historically dovish state, with a crowded contest uniquely suited to a candidate with a fervent base of support, it’s a model that can work. But beyond Iowa’s borders, in a hawkish party that has traditionally embraced a muscular military role and recently criticized President Barack Obama for his alleged timidity, it’s a different story.
The area I live in (western New York) is on the border between the midwest and the northeast.
My own local teahadists like Lee Greenwood as much as the next group of wingers, but my local Republican Congressmen weren’t that pro-Iraq War as a group. Amo Houghton voted against the war resolution, Jim Walsh joined Democrats in voting for troop draw-downs after the 2006 election, Randy Kuhl (who came into office after the Iraq War started) claimed he doesn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution.
I suspect that Iowa Republicans are far to the right of western New York Republicans on pretty much everything, but I’d be curious to know how much of war-mongerism is regional.
Also too, I don’t find it that surprising that Paul gets so much support from people in the military. I suspect a lot of them don’t like getting sent off to fight in boondoggle wars.
Ian
Grammar nazi!
DougJ
@Ian:
Thanks!
Cris (without an H)
I can’t say I’ve ever understood more than half the lyrics of that song, but I’m pretty sure I never would have figured out “there’s a rose in a fisted glove” on my own.
Cris (without an H)
I hate this use of the word “muscular,” even if it’s an appropriate metaphor. It paints belligerence as sexy. Reminds me of Andre Gregory talking about The Little Prince:
I can definitely imagine some beautiful SS man loving the current roster of GOP candidates. Mitt Romney excepted.
Mike Goetz
Anti-war because we should peacefully engage with the rest of the world and anti-war because fuck the rest of the world are not the same.
It’s a coincidental resonance between two utterly incompatible world views. I wish some of these dullards could understand that.
Hill Dweller
Setting aside the pros and cons of Obama’s foreign policy for a second, the one thing it hasn’t been is timid.
This is example #356 of Republicans complete disregard for reality.
vtr
If you try to imagine one of the GOP contestants you might enjoy having over for burger and beer, you’d probably rule out every one of them except Ron Paul. He’s the only one of them I’d consider having a beer wit. (As opposed to GWB being the only alcoholic I’d,outline to have a beer with.) I’d be careful not to discuss anything like current events, though. He’s the only one of them who seems human. Or even mammalian.
DougJ
@Cris (without an H):
I had to google it. I thought “and the eagle flies with the dove” would be too obvious.
MacKenna
If only Paul’s other stances weren’t so completely warped and destructive to human life…
FlipYrWhig
@vtr: Nah, having a beer with Ron Paul would be opening yourself up to 48 minutes of crazy harangue about how aluminum pull-tabs were originally a commie plot. I could have a beer with Huntsman, who comes across as Kinda Cool For A Boss But Don’t Let Your Guard Down. And compared to the others, that’s WAY ahead.
Glen Tomkins
There’s no good way to quantify any ideas about how the Iowa caucuses will turn out. You really can’t construct any sort of likely voter model without building in all sorts of qualtiative judgments, so polling numbers don’t represent anything much objective, they just reflect the likely voter judgments made on an ad hoc basis.
kindness
Politico sucks. I try to avoid them like Michelle Bachmann.
re: having a beer with any of them….could I shake up the beer really hard & point it at them when I open it?
Mark S.
Ugh, I hate that song. More Carpenters please.
I had no idea that was the line.
Schlemizel
I live in Minneapolis, a large metropolis in the middle of a farm field. Its always been my impression that the divide is much more urban/rural than regional. The exception being the former CSA but those states seem to be a whole other country.
Roger Moore
@FlipYrWhig:
FWIW, I doubt you’d want to have a beer with either Romney or Huntsman, given the Mormons’ attitude toward alcohol. Or maybe it would be a good way of testing to see just how serious they are about their religion.
That said, I think dinner with Romney could be very interesting. It would be a good chance to see how close Romneybot2012 is to passing the Turing test. It looks to me as if his programmers have taken a step backward since Romneybot2008; he resembles a human being even less than he did four years ago.
Cacti
To borrow a war metaphor…
If Ron Paul is perceived as a legit threat, he’ll get carpet bombed with negative ads on his wishy-washy World War II stance.
World War II is sacred to the American mythos.
Zifnab
Even ground zero survivors weren’t banging the war drum like the assholes down in Texas.
catclub
@vtr: Inteesting thought experiment! I would say that newt has the _potential_ to be an amusing gasbag (for instance if you got him started on stories about other republicans who have previously dissed him), but probably is just a boring gasbag. Cain is probably human, given he showed a modicum of shame by ‘quitting’.
Bachmann would be alternately scary and make you nervous that with any sudden move she might start screaming and run away.
eemom
yep, I never actually knew what that line was until I saw this post.
btw, that was a low blow last night with “birds” — exactly how much of an ancient relic of seventies schmaltz are you trying to out me as?
Suffern ACE
Well some region somewhere has to be supremely hawkish. Otherwise, we’re down to Northeast pundits and defense contractor greedies as the explanation as to why we spend so much defending ourselves while trying to occupy those countries we’ve invaded.
ploeg
Don’t be so sure that Iowa Republicans are far to the right across the board. Certainly there is an evangelical streak in Iowa politics, but getting them to agree on most things is like herding cats. And Senator-For-Life Grassley (R) voted against Gulf War I back in the day. And there’s a long-standing isolationist streak in midwestern Republicanism that holds that every dollar that is spent on the military is a dollar that is taken away from important things such as farm subsidies.
Cacti
@Roger Moore:
Huntsman is more of a cultural Mormon and was known to drink the traditional baijiu liquor at diplomatic functions in China.
Mittens on the other hand would probably serve Sprite at State Dinners.
techno
Interesting historical fact. Frank B. Kellogg of the Kellogg-Briand Pact for the renunciation of war (signed 1928) was once a Republican Senator from Rochester Minnesota—a town only about 50 miles from the Iowa border. Not only is Kellogg-Briand still the law of the land, but it was used to prosecute the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg.
It turns out some of the greatest anti-war activists in USA history have been Republicans. Hard to imagine these days with old Gnoot spouting off, huh?
wilfred
I don’t meet many American young people, with the exception of my relatives and colleagues’ visiting kids – my own were raised elsewhere. I have to believe that some of Paul’s support comes from his outsider/anti-establishment reputation in regard to WaLL Street – it’s safe to say that he is the only candidate who won’t be receiving a dime of Wall Street money. In light of OWS and the bleak present facing a lot of young people that has to resonate a little bit.
stinkfoot
I grew up in WNY, too, and all the libertarians I ever knew were very anti-war and anti-corporation. Unlike Paul, however, they viewed the GOP as an instrument for greater government control over people’s private lives driven by irrational religious concerns – manifesting itself in the anti-choice and homophobic movements. And like Benjamin Franklin, they saw a role for government in providing essential services like, say, the fire department or health care.
Maybe if WNY loses more blue collar jobs and the unions that go with them, they’ll get a purer grade of libertarian wingnut.
Citizen_X
@Mike Goetz: Agreed.
= “Let’s continue to talk and try to resolve our conflicts before we stumble into war.”
= “Let’s let our conflicts fester until the hawks take over. Then, bombs away!”
Comrade Mary
Brave, honourable Ron Paul addresses his newsletters on an obscure radio show.
I also suggested the other day that Paul would probably disavow the supporter who thinks that executing gay people would be both Biblical and nifty. I was wrong (so far). He’s scrubbed his site but has not made a statement.
I wonder if Jon Stewart will still be Paul-curious after he comes back from vacation. Or maybe he’ll just invite the good pastor on his show if Paul feels uncharacteristically shy.
Cris (without an H)
Having been one of those dullards, I’m glad this theme has been brought to light so much in the past few days. (Both ABL and Jesse Taylor spelled it out very nicely.)
I spent the ’90s in a community encompassing back-to-the-land post-hippie late boomers, polygamist Mormon fundamentalists, and crotchety Constitutionalist militia freemen. My social set was the first group, but I kept pondering the ways we had political and cultural overlap with the others. (E.g. disdain for corporate personhood and governmental corruption, a general distrust of authority, a love for local production and self-reliance.)
What I had to learn, and what the Paul phenomenon is helping illustrate, is that opposing values can result in coinciding objectives, but that doesn’t change the opposition of those values. Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky would both end the US’s unwavering support of the Israeli government, but their reasons leading to that conclusion are different as night and day.
Mark S.
Let’s make it more interesting: if you were a woman (or if you are one!), which of these clowns would you want to have a beer with? If you’re not in the mood to be groped, Cain and Gingrich would be out. Santorum would probably go hide in the corner with his lustful thoughts. Romney would probably think you were interviewing for the maid position.
ploeg
Slightly OT, but of interest to those who are intested in Bachmann schadenfreude.
Zifnab
@Mike Goetz:
Diplomatic foreign policy is flexible. Germans and Greeks aren’t feeling a lot of love for each other at the height of the Euro-crisis, but give them a few years and they’ll come around. Every country has its isolationists.
I’d much rather be having the conversation about whether or not we should be bringing AIDS drugs to Africa than which African dictatorship we should carpet bomb next. I’ll take isolationist Paul over Bomb’em’flat Cheney any day of the week.
And – in the GOP primary – you have to understand that’s what this comes down to. You don’t see liberals lining up behind Paul because they think he’s the next Theodore Roosevelt. You see them lining up behind him because they are saying “Ah! Finally someone that isn’t so mired in ‘stick it to the liberals’ land that he’ll condone smashing a 12-year-old’s nuts with a hammer because it makes Al Gore cry.”
People like to complain that Barack Obama isn’t liberal enough to be a good Democrat. But he’s still got huge party support. Ron Paul is getting the same kind of liberal love. Yeah, he’s a conservative. Yeah, we disagree on a lot of things. But by god he’s so much better than everyone else around him that it’s just a breath of fresh air.
lacp
@Cris (without an H): Well, the Mittster is the one with the “shoulders you could land a 747 on,” as some pundit or other had it. I’ve always believed that statement covered a rather moist desire to taxi down Mitt’s runway, if you know what I mean and I think that you do.
Mnemosyne
@Cacti:
Since the anti-WWII Paul quote is about how we shouldn’t have intervened to save the Jews, no Republican is going to touch that with a 10-foot-pole. They don’t want anyone, anywhere being able to put “Republican” and “anti-Semitic” into the same sentence, even for a fringe Republican like Paul.
wilfred
Noted commie pinko Robert Scheer has a nice post up about Paul. Scheer write a lot at Truthdig:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/marginalizing-ron-paul_b_1174074.html
Amir Khalid
Someone mentioned this in an earlier thread. What’s up with TPM reporting Kelly Clarkson’s endorsement of Ron Paul? Does she have a reputation for being socially/politically engaged? Is she a serious indicator for what young Americans think? Are we going to hear from Taylor Swift next?
The Moar You Know
@Cacti: My hat’s off to him, then. I somehow managed to get three shots of that shit down before I puked. Barely managed to get outside before I let go. I’ve never had an alcohol that bad in my life before, or since. The taste is seriously just like siphoning gasoline.
FlipYrWhig
@wilfred: I’ve never heard anyone make a point about Ron Paul and Wall Street until you brought it up. The appeal of Paul in particular is that he calls bullshit on things and seems to speak frankly. The appeal of libertarianism to college-age kids is that it gives you an intellectual justification for why you like weed, don’t like cops, and don’t like being told what to do.
Citizen_X
@wilfred:
Ron Paul? The guy who named his son after Ayn Rand? Are you serious?
I’m sure he would avoid helping out Our Wall Street Masters about as much as he’s avoided bringing the Federal pork back to his district–that is, not at all. He’s a hypocrite on top of everything else.
Cris (without an H)
Yeah, well, so were most of the greatest anti-slavery activists.
I only recently learned of the concept of dividing American politics into five (or six) historical “Party Systems.” The “fifth party system” with Democrats representing the New Deal coalition started with FDR, so with that perspective it’s fair to say that the GOP (and DNC) of today does not necessarily resemble the one of 1928.
(After reading Perlstein’s excellent Nixonland analysis, I’m inclined to agree that we’re in a sixth party system, with the coalitions remaining roughly the same but with the GOP having coopted the resentment of the working class.)
srv
Nope. I would bet most of them support him because he follows their textual re-imagining of the Constitution. Particularly the active/retired white crowd.
Plenty of libertarian-leaning folks who will be able to simultaneously rationalize Obama-Lost-Iraq even if they’re not sure we should have been there in the first place.
Comrade Mary
@Amir Khalid: Well, we’ve already heard from Miley Cyrus, who put out a video supporting OWS. No, I am not shitting you. I shit you not. My interaction with you is shit-free.
Mnemosyne
@Zifnab:
Except that it won’t be much of a conversation since Paul’s answer to bringing AIDS drugs to Africa is, “I think the aid is all worthless.” That’s because, as I keep pointing out, Paul is an isolationist who thinks the rest of the world should go fuck themselves.
I realize that isolationism looks attractive in comparison to Cheney’s Big Military Adventurism, but it’s a knee-jerk reaction, not an actual solution.
FlipYrWhig
@srv: Yup. There are instant overlaps between military vets, militia-movement notions of armed liberty, and Paulism.
Cris (without an H)
@Comrade Mary: holy fuckin shit Hanna Montana FTW
Edit: merciful achy breaky heart, that music sucks even if the sentiment rules
rlrr
@FlipYrWhig:
I don’t think anyone will being having a beer with Huntsman
or Romney any time soon…
Veritas
I won’t vote for Ron Paul is if he is the nominee under any circumstances. He’s more dangerous than even Obambi for this country. Luckily for us, he won’t be the nominee. Paultards are retarded.
wenchacha
@DougJ: Damn kids!
But I couldn’t tell you the correct lyrics for Baby Got Back, either. This is why we have generational war.
Amir Khalid
@Comrade Mary:
All of a sudden, I find myself liking Billy Ray’s kid.
Chyron HR
@Veritas:
Isn’t that cute? But, as you’re always reminding us, “Republicans fall in line”.
As though that were something to be proud of.
Paul in KY
@vtr: I think Rick Perry after he’s had a val or two might be more fun than Ron Paul.
merrinc
@wilfred:
Then they really, really aren’t paying attention. Ron Paul truly loves him some free market and that includes the robber barons of Wall Street. No, the young voters are attracted to Paul because they see him as the only candidate who 1) won’t throw them in jail for smoking pot and 2) won’t send them to a foreign land to fight some asinine war. And I really do believe it is that simple.
catclub
@FlipYrWhig: Paul is the stormfront candidate. He just doesn’t want to say so.
Marc
I’d be curious to know how much of it is class-based. I suspect it rises exponentially as the odds of somebody ever serving in the military or sending one of their kids to serve plummets to zero.
FlipYrWhig
@rlrr: Fair enough, but I choose to interpret “have a beer with” as “have a casual social interaction with, libation to be determined.”
Southern Beale
Scans of over 50 Ron Paul Newsletters, now all in one convenient place. The internet’s revenge.
Seriously, Van Jones is fired because he signed a petition asking for congressional hearings looking into whether high level government officials allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur, but Ron Paul writes blatantly racist and crazy crap for over 10 FUCKING YEARS and it’s all, bygones?
FlipYrWhig
@catclub: That’s why I get the heebie-jeebies from attempts to call any of his positions “left.” He’s a right-wing paranoid isolationist libertarian. Left-wing paranoid pacifist libertarians are entitled to flirt with him over areas of incidental overlap, but that doesn’t make him or anything he believes in “left” of anything.
rlrr
@Southern Beale:
IOKIYAR
flukebucket
That’s right. They just want to spend 20 years drinking German beer.
Brandon
What happened to the boycott on Politico links? Is that no longer operative?
On topic, Nate Silver is speculating that Ron Paul’s Iowa poll numbers are likely higher and there are a number of posts coming out recently reminding everyone of the caucus process and how it can favor Paul or another not-Romney candidate, because caucus goes get multiple bites at the apple to choose their candidate and Mitt’s poll numbers seem to have a 25% ceiling.
So what interests me is how much Iowa Paulmentum would be required to breach Mittens NH safe haven. NH seems exactly the kind of place where Ron Paul’s LaRouchian conservatism would have a substantial traction. Which is in line with what DougJ is discussing regarding regional Republican policy differences/ preferences.
If Paul does pull out of Iowa with some momentum, NH could be a repeat of the 1988 GHWB-Dole NH primary and I’d expect Romney, through Rove, to go negative early, often and exceedingly hard on Paul to hopefully try and rile the old man to elicit a Doleish angry “stop lying about my record” type response from Paul.
Sadly, the reality of it all is that Romney aside, none of the clown car fail parade really want to be President. They were all just running for grifter reasons and therefore I suspect that none of them really have the heart to go toe-to-toe with Romney for the nomination. Probably running even a modestly serious campaign is too much work for them, which is why they have been failing at it so spectacularly.
A boy can dream, but unfortunately I see this whole thing fizzling out in NH, before there is any further potential for Romney embarassment in SC or FL. I just don’t see Ron Paul as having the will to go toe-to-toe with Romney. He probably is just looking for a couple more money bombs
Sly
@wilfred:
Ron Paul is too pure in spirit to accept any satanic “fiat money” like dimes.
Also, too, he wants to destroy the modern credit economy entirely. We’re talking a hundred years of commercial and consumer credit flushed down the drain because Ron Paul doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he uses the phrase “business cycle.” So yeah, no money from bankers.
Why anyone would want to support him in his economic lunacy is another question entirely.
David in NY
@Zifnab:
This. It still appalls me.
I worked about five blocks north and east, knew people in the building who escaped, or who came to work late to find their co-workers massacred, or who were children of people killed, and the first person I saw who was concerned about invading some other country was some asshole safely ensconced in Kansas on the TV (once our reception returned). We were just in shock, enormously saddened for those who died, glad to be alive, and very glad that the death toll was no worse than it was; the war-mongers were just looking for an excuse.
wilfred
@ Merrinc:
Yes, he a free market freak, which I don’t like. But so is Obama and the rest of the republican candidates. Paul does oppose Nafta and some of the other trade agreements which killed American manufacturing.
As for Wall Street. If you can explain to me how his opposition to the Fed – which surreptitiously passed an extra 2 trillion to the banks/1% – makes him a Wall Street supporter I’d like to hear it.
Sly
@wilfred:
This is a truly stupid statement.
Paul in KY
@Comrade Mary: She comes from a politically active Democratic family.
Marc
Replying to myself: no, that’s stupid, I can think of plenty of good upper-middle class totebaggers like me who are antiwar. Zifnab’s explanation is a lot more persuasive.
Of course, the neo-confederates will always be enabled by a corps of extremely well-to-do pundits and journalists who feel so guilty that they never served in Vietnam or Iraq that they’ll gladly send somebody else’s kids into combat to make up for it. Balance!
jayackroyd
Stoller has an interesting post that’s relevant here:
http://bit.ly/ul4zVk
Paul in KY
@Marc: Many of us who have served are not too keen on any military adventures.
I think it is those who have never served or their kids have never served who are the most gung-ho to get Americans shot & blown up.
David in NY
@eemom:
Yes indeed. Glad somebody noted this. Took a while before that lame tune faded away, and I blame DougJ for every second …
Legalize
@Veritas:
Please. Like all good “conservatives,” you’ll do as you’re told and vote for the candidate the party leadership tells you to vote for.
Yevgraf
@Zifnab:
The fear of atheistical muslim soc!alist islamofascist terrorism and invasion in every holler, trailer park and exurban gated neighborhood in places as diverse as Monkey’s Eyebrow KY, Dothan AL, Augusta GA, Gallatin TN, Johnstown PA, Plano TX (and many like places) was palpable.
The only way to assuage all that pervasive fear of imminent doom to all that was white, er right, was by largescale warfare with an excessive amount of collateral damage and kneejerk support of every halfwit trailer trash corporal who thought it a good idea to get triggerhappy at occupation checkpoints, as well as to coverup the results of said triggerhappiness.
eemom
@Sly:
why, haven’t you heard? The WHOLE ENTIRE REASON for the republican clown parade is because Obama has out-republicaned the republicans!!
FlipYrWhig
@wilfred: It’s possible to dislike and distrust a Big Government Bank while withholding judgment on the activities of a private enterprise like an investment bank. I don’t see how any libertarian worth his salt could rationalize, say, laws against predatory lending, or tighter regulation of derivatives. He can easily be vehemently opposed to the idea of the Fed giving money to investment banks without being opposed to any other activity undertaken by investment banks.
Some people who don’t like the mixing of church and state feel the way they feel because it’s bad for the church, and some because it’s bad for the state. Same goes for the mixing of government and banking.
srv
@wilfred:
The Galtians who run the show are quite content to manage their puppets via the Fed, but if someone would actually let them do whatever they want and mothball the SEC, that would be like their craziest wet dream ever.
Yes, they’d destroy themselves and us, but they’ll never figure that out in a million years. It’s like free heroin at the corner store.
Mnemosyne
@wilfred:
Ron Paul thinks that all regulations on Wall Street are unconstitutional. He thinks that even the minimal protections given by Dodd-Frank should be rescinded and Wall Street should be allowed to do whatever they want to whomever they want because the free market will fix everything. He thinks the SEC, FDIC, and every other financial regulatory agency should be disbanded. Consumer protections? Gone. Insider trading? No problem.
If that’s not support, I don’t know what is.
JPL
@eemom: Certainly not on social issues and that’s all the evangelicals care about.
eemom
@eemom:
Still waiting for one of our resident Glenn-bots to defend that reeking piece of drek.
Evidently he plays the Brits for even greater fools than he plays those clowns.
It can’t be said often enough: FUCK that asshole. That piece puts an end to every last excuse of his feeble-minded defenders.
srv
@eemom: Obama is the most liberal president since… Nixon.
Schlemizel
@Comrade Mary:
CRAP! That either means my position is wrong or a blind squirrel is feasting on acorn tonight. Given the odds for the squirrel I guess I have to rethink my position.
I mean, its not possible that there are 2 Miley Cyrus in the world, is it?
noodler
Dont forget Bob Dole’s “Demmocrat Wars” quip.
“I figured it up the other day: If we added up the killed and wounded in Democrat wars in this century, it would be about 1.6 million Americans — enough to fill the city of Detroit”.
dedc79
It’s refreshing to see the fading of the Fox News version of patriotism, in which questioning a bad war is akin to stabbing our troops in the back. For most of the 8 years of the Bush administration, that view possessed basically every mainstream media outlet, whether it was tv, print, or internet-based.
As for which party is more pro-military, it used to be a much simpler equation. Republicans were pro-military because they were slightly more in bed with the Northrup Grummans of the world than the Democrats.
Ian
@Zifnab:
New York and San Francisco, the two cities most affected by terrorism and gay marriage, voted overwhelmingly against GWB.
Schlemizel
@eemom:
Thats actually backwards, Obama is a good Republican President because there is no alternative. If the Republican Party were sane Dems would have to move left at least a little or you couldn’t tell the difference.
Sly
@eemom:
Maybe we can make posters that merge the faces of Romney and Obama to create Rombama or Obamney or some other asinine, pseudo-intellectual hipster bullshit that anyone with a functioning brain will look back upon in ten years time with contemptuous disgust.
Satanicpanic
@Comrade Mary: She’s always seemed like a decent person, which is kind of a feat considering.
wrb
I bet Paul has enough additional newsletters, interviews and endorsements stockpiled to continue winning over primary voters.
Devilishly clever, his approach. Saying the stuff the voters on the right want to hear while preserving deniability.
Midnight Marauder
@wilfred:
I like how this clown writes an entire article about Ron Paul’s ideology being marginalized without once addressing the issue of “states’ rights.”
What a farce.
Sly
@srv:
Almost fifty years later and Lyndon Johnson still gets no love.
Mnemosyne
@srv:
And yet you think that says something significant about Obama rather than thinking it says something significant about the 30 years of “Reagan Revolution” that separate Nixon and Obama.
MikeBoyScout
What I want to know is if Ron Paul wants a federally funded parade for the returning Iraqi veterans. And if he does, why has Ron Paul not sponsored legislation for a parade?
This would be a question Rick Perry would have also too, if he could remember it.
wilfred
@ midnight marauder:
That’s a legitimate criticism of Scheer. But since my own politics are to the left of his I’d have to say he wrote what wrote because it is more relevant to his own politics. That’s what everybody does.
People get on Paul because he says what he believes. Fine. But there’s a big difference between believing in things and having the authority to make them reality. If that were not the case then we’d be in a different situation today, no?
What I know for a fact is that the president has the authority to start criminal wars without impunity. I don’t think Paul will. I start from there.
Can Paul wave a magic wand and return us to a loose confederation of semi-autonomous states. I don’t think so.
wrb
@wilfred:
Can he, with a tea party congress, simply simply hand the country over to Wall Street, the Kotches and the rest of the 1% by removing every last thing that constrains them while everyone else is left huddling under coal-blackened skys?
Can and will.
Villago Delenda Est
@Paul in KY:
Just this.
The Moar You Know
@Sly: Not a nice man, but did arguably more for those on the losing end of our society than any other president. His reputation probably wouldn’t be so far in the toilet if he hadn’t bought the hype about Vietnam, but he certainly wasn’t alone in doing so.
Sly
@wilfred:
You might want to start from the point of having no credit system and a massive deflationary spiral that will destroy the value of every asset you own.
But there won’t be DRONES! so I guess the bread lines will be all good.
wilfred
@ Sly:
It’s funny how fair exchanges reduce to some variation of the LBJ paradox – the Great Society in exchange for Vietnam. The terms can be substituted but it usually comes down to an assertion that something good depends on something bad.
I’m done with all that. If that’s the best we can do, we failed. I’m trying to think differently and act accordingly.
srv
@Sly:
I’m pretty sure Nixon was after LBJ, so that would make it a complement.
I wonder how many of the old farts here hated teh LBJ and lurved them their RFK. Always the pragmatists they grew up to be.
Redshift
@catclub: A friend of mine has done video tech work on the Sunday shows, and apparently Newt is actually really pleasant to deal with in person. Unlike most of the bigwigs, he treats the “help” like real people instead of just furniture, and he can be funny. And my friend is female, so I suspect that even women would be okay having a beer with Newt unless they happened to be his “type.” If you steered the conversation away from politics to science fiction and stuff, it could be fun.
She has also had occasion to meet Ron Paul, and her assessment of him was “He is seriously nuts. I’m not joking.”
Personally, I think Santorum would be the most miserable of them to have a beer with. Bachmann might be, or it might be fun to see how much crazy you could set off.
Midnight Marauder
@wilfred:
What I know for a fact is that a Ron Paul presidency would oversee the re-emergence of the states’ rights doctrine, which was tried once and failed in historically spectacular fashion.
I don’t know why so many people (specifically white males, and more specifically young white males) keep trying to steer the conversation in a “Yeah, but…” fashion when this comes up.
If you would vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, then you have no business anywhere near the presidency.
There is nothing else to discuss after that except the magnitude of the disaster that would result from a Ron Paul presidency.
Redshift
@wilfred: I think it’s reasonable not to support a candidate because you like their ideas but you don’t think they have the ability to enact any of them. I think supporting a candidate because you don’t think any of his dangerous ideas enacted is, well, dangerous.
If we didn’t know already, the Bush Administration should have taught us there’s a lot of damage a president can do just by not enforcing laws he disagrees with, or by not taking action on the economy. And that’s exactly where a lot of Paul’s most dangerous positions land, not in passing new laws.
JGabriel
wilfred:
Actually, Wilfred, “people get on Paul” because he publishes entire newsletters purporting to be what he believes, then denies that he ever wrote or read them 20 years later.
.
Marc
@Midnight Marauder:
Yeah, well, there you go. They have the only civil liberties that Paul cares about.
Less snarkily, I would remind any Paul or Paul-curious supporter that we elect the person, not a couple of preferred issues, and that person carries all of their ideological baggage into office with them.
Ian
@srv:
Where do you live and what convienance store is closest to you?
Paul in KY
@Villago Delenda Est: Thank you, sir! Hope you have a great New Year.
srv
@Ian: [would be like] – This handle lives in the Haight. RP would bring it to every convenience store near you.
I’m not sure if it’s the same wilfred, but we used to have one who was from Oakland.
hildebrand
For the younger Paul-curious this is all about dope. No question. Students I know who are dabbling with Paul are enamored of his openness to drug legalization. The moment you start mentioning his gold-buggery, racism, isolationism, etc, they start to have second thoughts. The siren call of legal dope keeps calling to them, though.
protected static
@FlipYrWhig: …and, as much as many will want to deny it, white supremacy. It may be more of the strapping-young-bucks-buying-T-bones, why-can’t-you-Mexicans-speak-English-dammit variety than the KKK/neo-Nazi variety, but it’s there. Racial resentment rather than outright hostility.
Chuck Butcher
The only potential Ron Paul has in any political context regarding the Presidency is mucking up the works for Mittens and the other clowns. He is not going to be leading anything in the Primaries after a bit of time. You could compare his chances to Dennis Kucinich, pretty fairly.
I won’t call Mittens inevitible, but Paul is ridiculous as a power in GOP Primary politics. What could create real havoc would be several of the clowns dropping out and giving the ABMs a smaller field to split in. I refuse to speculate what level of craziness or craveness they’d go for in place of Mitt but it sure ain’t Paul.
Sly
@wilfred:
And what about LBJ’s presidency was a paradox? “Sometimes you have to kill bad people to do good things” is not, in any way, shape, or form, a sentiment that is incongruous with 150 years of American liberalism.
pluege
but I’d be curious to know how much of war-mongerism is regional.
its not regional at all. Map the locations of large military installations and the locations of Lockheed, Northrup-Grumman, and Boeing plants and you’ll know where the war-mongerism emanates from. Follow the money, always.
Nellcote
Is there any other source/poll for aleged military support for Ron Pall other than Ron Pall?
ruemara
Can people please stop telling me that Ron Paul speaks frankly? This is the same douche who is on reason #423 of why he is Not Responsible for the Ron Paul Newsletter. He’s a nutcase, a liar, a bigot and probably evil, based on his worship of Ayn Rand. If I happen to agree with his stated stances on a few issues, it is only because of a coincidence. Just as he and I are both agreed on being bipedal, oxygen is indeed tasty and fire, while pretty, is not good. The man is a farce of true strength of ethics and in general, not worth much except as a CO2 distributor for potted plants in the Capital Building.
@ Southern Beale. I could be misremembering it but, Van Jones never signed that letter. His name was just placed there by the organization but he has always maintained that he did not sign the letter.
Omnes Omnibus
@ruemara: Fire can be good.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Mike Goetz:
Some days I oppose war because I want to peacefully engage with the world. Some days, the rest of the world can go f@ck itself, and that is yet another reason to keep our military out of it. Intellectually, they conflict. Emotionally, not so much.
protected static
@Nellcote: FEC data. Support == donations, and ‘raised the most money from the military’ really means ‘raised under $50000 from people who gave more than $200 and who listed a branch of the military as their employer.’
Paul currently claims about $45K in military donations, Obama about $25K – and they’re the top two recipients of ‘military donations.’ No other presidential candidate comes even close – but we’re talking symbolic amounts of money at best.
Say what you will about Politifact – they fucked up big w/ their “top ‘lie’l fiasco – but the numbers are out there for anyone inclined to look for them. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jul/23/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-members-military-have-given-him-far-/
El Cid
@ruemara: It’s Newt that speaks “frankly” — I can’t imagine anyone using that word more frequently than he.
El Cid
@srv: Yeah, and we saw how electorally successful RFK was! Ha!