All I want for Christmas is for Democrats to stop making Ron Paul look good

Hey, what’s that in our stocking? It’s Ron Paul! Oh joy – we got The Truth® for Christmas!

Ahem. So those of you who thought Ron Paul was going to go away once the big boys got serious have probably been surprised by his staying power so far. He’s polling in the high single digits (something Ronald Reagan Fred Thompson can’t say) and one pollster thinks his actual numbers are in the double digits. He says he’s raised $19M this quarter. His supporters are insane courageously enthusiastic, and he seems to be showing strength among some groups that you wouldn’t expect – progressives, younger voters, etc.

And of course, he’s left the rest of the pack for dead in the highly scientific S&R reader poll, where at the moment of this writing he has over twice as many votes as the rest of the GOP candidates put together (unless you count “other”).

Election watchers in both parties are trying to better understand Paul’s appeal and what it means for their candidates’ chances. Based on what I’m reading lately, I’m not sure which party is more concerned about a potential 3rd-party run by the representative from TX-14. Probably the GOP, although some Dem strategists are paying closer attention than you’d expect. In fact, I’ve even seen some very smart progressive analysts working through early primary scenarios whereby Paul becomes a legit power past South Carolina.

A good part of Paul’s popularity seems as obvious as the reasons why both parties should be nervous. To put it simply – which is how we Americans like our issues – Ron Paul is right about some very important things. He’s balls-to-the-wall against our little misadventure in Iraq. He likewise opposes hostilities against the region’s other Ira, Iran. And he managed to see the Patriot Act for the blatant assault on our liberties that it is. He’s distressed by our nation’s move toward a “soft” fascism (although I’m damned if I can find much in his actual voting record that’s consistent with his concern that “corporations [are] running the show” and “big government [is] in bed with big business”; more on this below). There are others, but these are the high spots for a lot of his supporters, I suspect.

There are also a number of issues where Paul is wrong. Way wrong. Tragically wrong. And if you find my use of the word “wrong” arrogant, then let me see if I can put it more objectively: Ron Paul holds positions on many issues that likely run counter to the beliefs of many of his supporters. It’s this segment of voters – disaffected progressives and moderates who’ve had enough of the GOP – that I’d like to address. Short version: I feel your pain, but I fear you’re letting your pain lead you into barking idiocy short-sightedness and counterproductive anti-thinking.

For instance, what about that nasty racism issue that won’t seem to go away? Let’s look at some of his own words:

The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

We should note that Paul later attempted to back off of these words a bit by explaining that he didn’t say them, they were the product of the people who wrote his newsletter for him. So that absolves him of responsibility and guilt, I guess.

But then there’s this bit, attributed to the American National Socialist Workers Party Web site:

Comrades:

I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn’t see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul’s extensive involvement in white nationalism.

Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Is Ron Paul a racist? I don’t know what lurks in the man’s heart, but I don’t think it unreasonable to suggest that he’s given us ample reason to wonder, do you? He’s certainly abandoned any presumption of innocence in an electoral context.

This is hardly the only point where an educated, thoughtful, progressive-minded voter might pause to reflect on Congressman Paul. For instance:

  • He’s ardently anti-choice, which makes me question whether he’s even a real Libertarian. He has managed to concoct a rationalization around the rights of fetuses, but it strikes me as labored (and his invocation of Terri Schiavo doesn’t help here, either)..
  • He’s earned a 76% rating from the Christian Coalition. I hate to get too ad hominem, but this is an organization that makes a point of opposing all things socially progressive.
  • He voted NO on allowing embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) This doesn’t tell you all you need to know, but it tells you a lot that it’s helpful to know.
  • Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.
  • Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007) Because, you know, he’s worried about corporatism.
  • Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) Because he’s terribly concerned about politicians being in bed with the big money.
  • Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
  • Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
  • Voted NO on increasing the minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007) You can really begin to sense his rage at exploitative big business here, can’t you?
  • Voted NO on “network neutrality.” (Jun 2006)
  • Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)
  • He supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. Because there’s nowhere left in America where you can go to pray, I guess.
  • YES on “protecting” the Pledge of Allegiance.
  • YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools.
  • He’s rated at 5% by the League of Conservation Voters, indicating a strongly anti-environment record.
  • NO on raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and incentives for alternative fuels.
  • NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Source)

Now, I get that no candidate is perfect. Very few people are lucky enough to have a candidate on the ballot for any office who agrees with him or her 100% of the time. We all have to decide which candidate comes closest to representing our views on the issues that matter most to us. I’m no different from Paul’s supporters on this. If I vote for Edwards, I’ll do so because his views on critical class issues outweigh his views on gays and the fact that, apology notwithstanding, he was once dumb enough to fall for Dubya’s lying and warmongering. If I vote for Obama I’ll have to find a way past the fact that he’s way too willing to issue high-sounding pronouncements from a safe distance while actual leaders are back doing the dirty work of standing up for the Constitution. If I vote for Hillary I’ll have to overlook just about everygoddamnedthing and hold my nose while I vote for bad over evil. If I vote for Huckabee or Giuliani I’ll have to find a way to deal with the fact that somebody lobotomized me in my sleep.

Yes, there are a number of issues where Paul isn’t just right, he’s probably the most right of all the candidates. And yes, I understand how your rage over two or three major issues can dominate your thinking.

But backing Paul, when we consider the full range of issues? That isn’t cutting off your nose to spite your face. It’s stuffing your entire body into a wood chipper to spite your face. The truth is that once you get past Iraq and the Patriot Act, he’s worse than the Busheviks on most other issues.

  • He’s iffy on race – at best.
  • His Fundie Right anti-abortion leanings are so strong they’re the one thing that compels him to abandon Libertarian dogma. In fact, he’s been known to express a baffling degree of Christian paranoia.

    “We hear bleats about homophobia, but it is actually religiophobia that afflicts America. The government is starting with the fringe, but it won’t stop there. All Christians have much to fear.”

    Right. Because since only 85%+ of Americans and an even higher percentage of our political leaders are Christians, there’s a real risk that the 10% Satanic/Liberal minority is going to overrun the place any day now.

  • He’s a corporatist’s wet dream and an environmentalist’s worst nightmare.
  • He places the rights of stem cells that are never going to be used to conceive a fetus above those of actual human beings with serious illnesses.

America has more than one or two problems. And nothing creates more and worse problems than a lot of one-issue voting. So for those of my fellow citizens who are in love with Ron Paul, I ask you to step back, take a deep breath, and think about the fact that it does us little good to get out of Iraq if the cost is further annihilating the home front. Please, think about the big picture.

And for our other presidential candidates, especially the Democrats who are allegedly about progress, all I want for Christmas is for you to stop making a pro-corporatist, anti-environment, anti-choice Jesuscrat with a disturbing record on race look viable.

I don’t think that’s asking too much. Do you?

Advertisements

71 thoughts on “All I want for Christmas is for Democrats to stop making Ron Paul look good”

  1. Great re-hash of the “same old”! Someone (many) seem to be legitimately scared and grasping at old stories in a last ditch effort to try to disuade those who might be in the middle.. Do some research. You haven’t said anything new or that hasn’t already been discussed and answered “ad nauseum”.

  2. Thanks for a great posting on Ron Paul.

    First off, I want to say you are completly correct about Paul’s shortcomings on freedom of reproductive choice. He is dead wrong on that issue.

    However, your comment’s on Pauls race issue only present one side of the issue. Paul is not a racist. How do you know? By the following:

    1) His utter rejection of policies that systematically disadvantage minorities such as the war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentences. Typically racist politicians advocate strong “law and order” policies knowing they will disadvantage minorities.

    2) Through his thorough rejection of racism and white supremacy. Ron has denounced both racism and white supremascist organizations both in his writings and on the campaign trail. The newsletter statements did occur in his newsletter, but were NOT made by him. He later fired the staffer who wrote those statements.

    Thank you again for writing about Paul, but its important to look at the whole picture.

    Best,

    James

  3. Elizabeth: I’m not sure how logic and argumentation work on your planet, but here on Earth when a massive body of research is offered and is then goes unrefuted, “hey, you already said that” is not taken by informed citizens as an acceptable rebuttal.

    If you have something meaningful to say on the points above, let’s hear it. Otherwise all you’re doing is proving that you’re not amenable to reason. No, that’s not going to SURPRISE anyone, but it’s still not moving the discussion forward.

  4. Damn, Sam. I was just going to write a post along these very lines and you beat me to it. Well played, and well put.

    Paul is no savior and no hero. He may be right on a lot of things, but he’s wrong on a heck of a lot more. And if comments like Elizabeth’s are any indication, his supporters are more than willing to tune out the reality of his atrocious voting record and dubious alliances as long as he says what they want to hear.

    Just like any other politician, really.

  5. Pingback: www.buzzflash.net
  6. Anybody with religious background and support is scary in ANY politician.
    We DO need a shake up, and short of revolution (you know, like they have elsewhere in the world where the people are ruled by an upper class of tyrants) which will never happen, Ron Paul could be the match that lights the fuse to allow DC and its cronies to implode on themselves. President is NOT congress. With him in the White House, NOTHING would get accomplished. Kind of status Quo these days. But all the more fun to watch.

  7. Dennis: While I’m not sure how much I agree with you on some of this, you’re probably right about the entertainment value of a Paul presidency. Still, after seven years of a chimp in the White House I’m willing to forego entertainment for actual competence.

  8. Your blantant misrepresentation of facts(in the form of short bulletpoints without any sufficient explanation for how they apply to his policies) does nothing except make your look like you’re grasping at straws.

  9. And your predictable inability to refute EVEN ONE of the many DOCUMENTED FACTS in this piece is distressingly typical of Ron’s supporters. You’ll all say that I’m misrepresenting – which is apparently your word for “quoting” – and you’ll say these points have been adequately refuted (but I can’t find an adequate refutation, nor will any of you provide one). You’ll tell me to go look at his REAL record, which suggests that we can’t really conclude anything about the man from how he’s voted, what he’s on the record saying, or what direct photographic evidence tells us.

    In short, you don’t provide an actual argument because you CAN’T.

    In any case, this post isn’t for you or about you. It’s for another segment entirely – one that has an open mind and is capable of evaluating actual facts.

    Shoo.

  10. People didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left them. Combined Kucinch and Gravel probably would still amount to 1%. 1% WTF!!!! Between Pelosi and Reid stating quite clearly that there would be no cesation of the war because they hoped to use it to ensure further victory for the Democratic Party in 2008 — 1,500 additional dead soldiers — and no impeachment hearings for crimes too numerous to bother with apparently.

    I applaud your efforts to bash Ron Paul. I want you to keep it up. I want you to obsess on Ron Paul every waking minute. I want you to dream about Ron Paul. Just keep spelling his name right.

  11. I laugh at Ron Paul Supporters. He’s built a LaRouche type of cult, and his supporters have overrun so many blogs. I get a lot of Ron Paul spam on my own blog….do Y’all get it here?

    Also, I wish each and everyone of you a happy holiday season.

    Jeff

  12. Dr. Paul believes that abortion should be a states rights issue without interference from the Feds.

    He voted against stem cell research on financial grounds.

    He IS in favor of ending the war on drugs, which is clearly tyranny mostly on minority populations. Is that racist?

    He’s opposed to affirmative action because it is clearly time for a truly color blind america and you can’t have that if you are handing out preferences based on skin color.

    He was never at the meetings in VA and this whole story line is a smear that has gotten repeated.

    He is in favor of ending the Fed and returning the U.S. to hard money. This is as anti corporatism as any idea any poitico can have. Period. It is also an attempt to end the inflation that has robbed Americans of their purchasing power.

    He’s the only candidate from either party calling for an immediate end to the war in Iraq. The only one calling for a dramatic shrinking of our world wide military complex. He’s trying to keep America from bankrupting itself. Is this the action of a corporate shill????

    And, yes, he’s wrong about abortion. But he would not hold supreme court apointees to a litimus test on the issue.

  13. I was actually leaning toward Mr. Paul at one point…mainly because of his anti war stance. Keeping an open mind, I have found information about who he is to make me do some retooling of that lean. I have a problem with his use of earmarks, not so much that he “brings home the bacon”, but the way he does it. Places the earmarks in the legislation that he knows will pass, votes against the bill and then proclaims that he has never voted for an earmark. He lost me here really.

    A self described libertarian who doesn’t think a woman should have to right to make her own choices about her own body. Liberty? This seems basic to me.

    And then there is the pose with the Storefront guy.

    One Irony though: I wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper about a week before the brouhaha about the Sinclair Lewis quote. I used the same quote in my letter.

    And then there are the “groupies” who don’t refute any criticisms of Mr. Paul with any degree of effort. Like Elizabeth and Nick.

    Anyway, I enjoyed your blog and I am bookmarking.

  14. Did Paul vote against allowing stem cell research, or just against funding it? Paul votes against funding most things, if he doesn’t view them as explicitly authorized by the Constitution. I attended a speech in which he said that as a physician, there were situations where he had to discard an embryo (I think it involved an embryo implanted in the side of the uterus). He said he had no problem with stem-cell research being done using embryos that were being discarded anyway.

    As for the neo-nazi allegations…come on. Surely we’re smart enough not to be taken in by transparent dirty tricks. The charges are rather thoroughly debunked at antiwar.com:

    http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12102

  15. It’s no surprise that Paul is the same ol’ same ol’ repug, just like of huckafu*k, guliani, and romney. For some sad reason, all any dirtbag politico has to do is say he’s a libertarian, and the flocks of the stupid (otherwise known as the independently clueless) come running out to support him. Great article, btw.

  16. I’ve found the Paul campaign to be the most interesting facet of this election cycle, and i’ve kept pretty close tabs on it for quite some time now. In the interest of full disclosure, i’m politically agnostic. (My political compass graph finds me dead center between left and right and half way down the Y-axis into being libertarian as opposed to authoritarian) I’ve read the pros and the cons; and i’ve noted what a ruckus Paulists can cause on a comment thread.

    What i think is missed in the great Ron Paul debate of ’07 is that it concentrates on Ron Paul, i.e. his personality and policies, rather than the phenomenon. I’ve come to believe that the phenomenon is far more telling, and important, than the candidate.

    The fringes have always been restless, they will continue to be ad infinitum. For the most part, they are a negligible force in American politics…save the religious Right (but they are not as fringe as many of us would hope). What i see is a coalescing of the fringes around Dr. Paul; moreover, there appears to be a creep into the ‘mainstream’ of political thought. Either the fringes are growing larger or the mainstream is slipping towards the fringes. In either case, the end result is the same. How exactly does a candidate get the support of StormFront AND the Black Panthers?

    Confusion and fear are growing, turning into fear and loathing of the whole system as it stands. Ten years ago, a candidate who openly discussing disbanding the Federal Reserve system would have been laughed off the stump. Today, such a candidate can pull down $19M/quarter without ever, personally, asking for it. Ten years ago, no candidate would dream of suggesting that we remove ourselves from every last one of our overseas bases; today, they float blimps for such a candidate. (did they ever get that blimp off the ground?)

    I imagine that Weimar Germany, the fringes that coalesced around Hitler were refuted and laughed at by conservatives and liberals alike. (No, i’m not comparing Dr. Paul to Hitler.) I have a sinking feeling that the next time we see a phenomenon like Dr. Paul’s campaign, there may a great deal more flag wrapping and cross carrying. I fear that Dr. Paul’s eventual exit from the race will only fuel the fires of disenchantment.

    We are rather too close to the political/economic/social situation wherein a demagogue can whip the masses into hysteria. Broke, homeless, hungry people seek answers…any answer. More often than not, they are apt to accept scapegoats (e.g. the Fed) in lieu of answers. And they are prone to allowing the giver of answers to first frame the question. For the moment, the Revolution likes to invert evol into love; my worry is that love will give way to hate.

    Lord, i hope that i’m way, way, way off base in this analysis. Will someone please refute me.

  17. Interesting comments, Jackpine, and you’re certainly right about the phenomenon being bigger than the actual man. If it weren’t for Paul, it would be someone else. You’re also dead on about the fear thing. We’re experiencing massive change, and that engenders massive fear, which drives people to a desperate search for something easy and comfortable. This isn’t the first time it’s happened and probably won’t be the last.

  18. Jeff: Do we get Ron Paul spam? If you use the words “Ron Paul” anywhere on the Internets you get to hear from the Truthers. But they’re fun. You have to love their enthusiasm, don’t you?

  19. Wow, you use a photo with an idiot supporter as your case against him? I didn’t know he was supposed to run supporter’s information through the NSA before they took a photo with the man.

    If you are for freedom and liberty, and if you want the federal government to leave you alone; Ron Paul is your man. If you love the Iraq war, Patriot act, and domestic spying vote for the others because they are all weak, weak, weak on those issues.

  20. Ever notice how neither Ron Paul, his advisors, nor his supporters ever use the word “democracy?” It’s always “freedom” and “liberty.”

    Never the “we,” always the “I” with them.

  21. Dr. Slammy,

    I never thought I’d be deleting comments from my website, but I have deleted a whole bunch of those RP supporter’s comments. I scarcely ever mention politics(and not in a partisan way), sticking to trading, stocks, commodities, the economy, my art collection(I get a lot of page views whenever I post another picture), and a little surfing thrown in. Aside from my user info page, I don’t even think you could determine my politics on my site.
    I don’t know how they, or their bots find my own little blog to write their grafitti. Now, I use a fliter so I can approve comments before they get posted.

    Merry Christmas y’all.

    Jeff

  22. We hate deleting, too, but idiotswarming can screw the experience up for readers who legitimately have things to contribute. People who engage the ideas are welcome. Trolls – not so much.

  23. So Just who exactly do you think we should vote for? I’m a life long democrat who is very disgusted with everything my party has been doing. I’ve loathed republicans all my life- until I came across Dr. Paul. His writings on the rise of the Police state in America are dead on. He was the only one in the GOP to oppse the Patriot Act and the only candidate running to want to end the war. His personal integrity attracts me. He worked his way through college and has had a marriage with no taint for 50 years. He has voted consistantly the same way for 10 terms in congress- and has seen the error of his ways in supporting the Bushes and Reagan into office.

    It amazes me how if I support Dr. Paul- based on my OWN reflections and decisions- I am lumped into what Ron Paul haters perceive as clones or robots incapoable of independent thought. I assure you everyone I know is against Dr. Paul and I am NOT part of some well funded conspiracy. Everyday people everywhere are coming out for Dr. Paul and supporting him with thier own money because he IS the only candidate with integrity and no dirt in his past. For example: He never orchestrated any of those money bombs that have netted him $17 million dollars in two months. Everyday people did that, in the face of Media mockery- despite what all you pundits have said. Thats why Dr. Paul should win. He reprensents the People of America and not the Corporations. He WILL end the war if elected. Which candidate do you suggest we endorse that can make the same claim?

  24. I don’t understand why people aren’t rallying around Dennis Kucinich to the degree they are rallying around Paul. Kucinich is probably even more anti-war than Paul. He actually presented articles of impeachment against Cheney, and if that isn’t gutsy as hell I don’t know what is. I also read somewhere Paul actually voted against impeachment? Is that true? If so, I would like an explanation of that from his supporters. Anyhow I think the media has succeeded in making the democratic race a 3 horse affair by really making it look like Hilary and Obama are duking it out while Edwards nips at their heels. Then all the would-be Kucinich supporters have started looking at Paul as an electable alternative. Kucinich is easily the best candidate for a progressive voter in my opinion.

  25. Jerry: That Dr. Paul is all anti-corp makes a great story, but a guy who was THAT worried about them would have a voting record that looks different on things like lobbying and enviro issues.

    Who to vote for? I’m sympathetic – after all, the POINT of my post (which so far precisely zero of Paul’s supporters here have figured out, despite it being really obvious) is that the Dems aren’t doing a good enough job of providing an alternative. I suspect I’m going to wind up voting for Edwards because he’s the only one who’s seriously addressing the issues that matter the most to us. He isn’t perfect, but the whole of his record is far better than Paul’s.

    Aaron: The “people rallying around Paul” isn’t about Paul – it’s about a narrow segment of the voting population. You have some hardcore Libs (who have managed to pretend that the pro-choice thing doesn’t matter) and then you have some other folks whose views are simply way-right fringe. People who cared about Ruby Ridge and Waco more than anything else are going to love Paul. For the most part, that sort of psychology doesn’t exist on the other wing. That is, there aren’t a lot of people out there that you’d classify as “paranoid Liberals.”

  26. Ron Paul is just another Republican. Crooked, lying, cheating, bigot! What is the matter with any of you Democrats that even consider voting for him. Are you stupid? Forget the last seven years? Forget how they vote lock-step with Bush? Jesus, I can’t believe you people.

  27. Refute the facts? How about presenting some instead of recycled innuendo and disinformation. That said, it is unfortunate again that this article is disingenuous at best.

    Ay least the author is honest to point out what is appealing about Dr. Paul, but now lets look at the disinformation (my commments in CAPS):

    He’s ardently anti-choice, which makes me question whether he’s even a real Libertarian. He has managed to concoct a rationalization around the rights of fetuses, but it strikes me as labored (and his invocation of Terri Schiavo doesn’t help here, either)..
    HE IS NOT ARDENTLY ANTI CHOICE. HE IS PERSONALLY PRO LIFE, SINCE HE HAS DELIVERED OVER 4,000 BABIES. THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT HE WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING AT THE FED LEVEL TO CURTAIL ABORTION, HE WOULD LEAVE IT TO THE STATES.

    He’s earned a 76% rating from the Christian Coalition. I hate to get too ad hominem, but this is an organization that makes a point of opposing all things socially progressive.
    RIDICULOUS POINT TO CONSIDER WHETHER TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE OR NOT

    He voted NO on allowing embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) This doesn’t tell you all you need to know, but it tells you a lot that it’s helpful to know.
    WHAT IT TELLS YOU IS HE IS CONSISTENT ON THE ISSUE OF USING FEDERAL MONEY, FOR ANYTHING. IT DOESNT SPEAK TO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, BUT RATHER HOW HE VIEWS THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT.

    Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.
    SAME POINT FROM THE PRIOR ISSUE. NO FEDERAL DOLLARS FOR THINGS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN.

    Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007) Because, you know, he’s worried about corporatism.
    CURIOUS INDEED. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHY HE CAST THIS VOTE. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ATTACHED TO IT?

    Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) Because he’s terribly concerned about politicians being in bed with the big money.
    CURIOUS AGAIN, HOPE SOMEONE ASKS HIM THE QUESTION

    Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
    SAME

    Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
    HE BELIEVES IN SECURING OUR BORDERS, THIS IS TRUE

    He supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. Because there’s nowhere left in America where you can go to pray, I guess.
    SOURCE PLEASE? I FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE SINCE HE ADVOCATES THE FED GETTING OUT OF THE SCHOOLS BUSINESS.

    YES on “protecting” the Pledge of Allegiance.
    SOURCE?

    YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools.
    NOT SURPRISING, ALSO NOT THE END OF THE WORLD

    He’s rated at 5% by the League of Conservation Voters, indicating a strongly anti-environment record.
    BECAUSE HE VOTES AAGINST THE FED SPENDING MONEY ON THINGS THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS SPENDING MONEY ON. HE ALSO SUPPORTS CORRECTLY PUNISHING CORPORATIONS WHO POLLUTE. HE SIMPLY SEES A MORE RATIONAL WAY OF DOING THINGS.

    NO on raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and incentives for alternative fuels.
    AGAIN, IT HAS MORE TO DO WITH THE ROLE OF THE FED, THAN AN IDEOLGICAL STANCE.

    NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
    SEE ABOVE.

    look it is easy to cherry pick 10 votes from an 18 year congressional career but when you extrapolate them out and imply what he means by those votes, you become disingenuous. You also avoided the hundreds of votes cast by Paul which would support the opposite conclusion you reached before you decided to write the article. All you need to see is how the author concludes:

    all I want for Christmas is for you to stop making a pro-corporatist, anti-environment, anti-choice Jesuscrat with a disturbing record on race look viable.

    Cute, but a lie. Paul is not a corporatist, as he is the only candidate standing up to big business and takes no lobbying money. He is not anti environment, he is against the federal government spending the people’s money for pet projects, whatever they may be. He is not anti-choice politically as he wants the feds out of the abortion issue altogether. he also rarely discusses religion, so I am not sure where “Jesuscrat” nonsense came from.

    Be informed. Here is the truth:

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__071226_agents_of_disinforma.htm

    Be well.

  28. Anthony: You misdirect, duck the issue, suggest that letting the states do the dirty work is somehow a meaningful difference, and pretend that votes he actually cast on the floor of Congress somehow don’t count as actual evidence.

    And you, like all the other Paul supporters above, completely miss the point of the post.

  29. Say what?? The author flat out lies and I am accused of misdirection? Of course votes count, and for teh ones i thought were curious I would like to hear his rationale. I merely pointed out that the author and you ignore the 100’s of other votes he has cast that shred your silly little arguments to pieces. That is what makes you disigenuous. You also casually dismiss the idea of states rights, indicating you need a lesson in the Constitution.

    If you do not like Paul, fine. Don’t vote for him. But every time you try to lie, i will point out that you are lying. Be well and stay informed.

  30. Well, well. The problem with aging is that nothing seems really new anymore. I grew up with the states rights argument. It seems it should have been up to individual states to decide how to handle their “negro problem.” Later, as I learned more about constitutional law, especially case law around applying the Bill of Rights to all Americans because of the 14th Amendment, even the so-called legalist arguments around states rights began to show their threadbare nature.

    There will always be people in the US who want the US to be more like the European Union than like a real country. That’s probably how many, and maybe most, of the Founders thought of it. The American Civil War pretty much demonstrated the drawbacks of such a “nation.” But, there it is.

    Give it up, Doc Slammy. The Ron Paul supporters are about as rational as George Wallace’s were. Sometimes, you just have to shrug and recognize that nothing can be done. These people will always be with us.

  31. First, your inability to locate a clearly labeled “Source” link does not constitute “lying” on my part.

    That said, let me actually take a whack at some of this, then.

    HE IS NOT ARDENTLY ANTI CHOICE. HE IS PERSONALLY PRO LIFE…

    Let’s stop with the semantic games. He is anti-abortion. Period.

    THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT HE WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING AT THE FED LEVEL TO CURTAIL ABORTION, HE WOULD LEAVE IT TO THE STATES.

    Maybe Ron and his supporters live on a planet where it’s okay to deny civil rights to one person but to grant them to a person who has the good fortune of living 100 yards away. But around here we tend to look critically on such a proposition. And as JS notes in his comment, maybe we should let the individual states decide how to manage their respective negro problems, too, huh?

    He’s earned a 76% rating from the Christian Coalition. I hate to get too ad hominem, but this is an organization that makes a point of opposing all things socially progressive.
    RIDICULOUS POINT TO CONSIDER WHETHER TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE OR NOT

    Ummm, no. It’s an extremely valid point. It gives us a fairly objective measure of how closely his agenda aligns with that of an influential group that’s working to impose its narrow theology on the rest of the citizenry.

    He voted NO on allowing embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) This doesn’t tell you all you need to know, but it tells you a lot that it’s helpful to know.
    WHAT IT TELLS YOU IS HE IS CONSISTENT ON THE ISSUE OF USING FEDERAL MONEY, FOR ANYTHING. IT DOESNT SPEAK TO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, BUT RATHER HOW HE VIEWS THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT.

    This argument would be a lot more compelling if his record didn’t correlate so strongly with his stances on other religious right issues. Also, when push comes to shove here the underlying philosophy is really quite irrelevant. His actions would serve to significantly damage important research that can save lives. If I’m dead, it doesn’t much matter to my next of kin if you killed me for God or State’s Rights.

    Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007) Because, you know, he’s worried about corporatism.
    CURIOUS INDEED. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHY HE CAST THIS VOTE. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ATTACHED TO IT?

    Sorry, I’m not your research monkey. He did it. You want to rebut the point, YOU do the research.

    Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) Because he’s terribly concerned about politicians being in bed with the big money.
    CURIOUS AGAIN, HOPE SOMEONE ASKS HIM THE QUESTION

    Me, too. Until then, all we know is that for some unfathomable reason he did it.

    Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
    SAME

    Yup – the very same.

    He supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. Because there’s nowhere left in America where you can go to pray, I guess.
    SOURCE PLEASE? I FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE SINCE HE ADVOCATES THE FED GETTING OUT OF THE SCHOOLS BUSINESS.

    The source is already provided. Go back to the post and click on the link that says “Source.”

    YES on “protecting” the Pledge of Allegiance.
    SOURCE?

    Again, it’s that link that says “Source.”

    YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools.
    NOT SURPRISING, ALSO NOT THE END OF THE WORLD

    Also, not remotely inconsistent with the Religious Right agenda, huh?

    NO on raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and incentives for alternative fuels.
    AGAIN, IT HAS MORE TO DO WITH THE ROLE OF THE FED, THAN AN IDEOLGICAL STANCE.

    So you think that regulation of fuel economy standards should be left to the states so that the manufacturers have to address 50 sets of regs instead of one? Or are you not convinced that environmental damage can cross a state line? I’m confused here, because a Libertarian can’t possibly favor subjecting businesses to that kind of insane regulation.

    NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
    SEE ABOVE.

    So a NATIONAL resource is entrusted to Alaska’s state legislature? Or are you sneaking up on the argument that “the market will handle it”? No, you can’t possibly be that silly…

    look it is easy to cherry pick 10 votes from an 18 year congressional career but when you extrapolate them out and imply what he means by those votes, you become disingenuous. You also avoided the hundreds of votes cast by Paul which would support the opposite conclusion you reached before you decided to write the article. All you need to see is how the author concludes:

    Nice try, but that SOURCE link you couldn’t find is devoted to accurately representing the positions of all major candidates. And I’m certainly not hiding how I feel about Paul – yeah, I think he’s a very bad idea politically. But you have your cause/effect backwards. I’m not hammering him because I’m possessed of some kind of a priori dogmatic anti-Paul opinion that I was born with. I’ve looked at what he actually stands for and the FACTS have led me to my position (same as with all the other candidates, some of which rank WAY below Paul in my view).

  32. I cant believe i am trying to have a rational conversation with someone named dr slammy. This will be my last direct response. You are obviously a shill, but here is the response nonetheless:

    Okay, let me actually take a whack at some of this, then.

    HE IS NOT ARDENTLY ANTI CHOICE. HE IS PERSONALLY PRO LIFE…

    Let’s stop with the semantic games. He is anti-abortion. Period. EXCUSE ME GENIUS. THE ISSUE IS HOW IT WILL AFFECT YOU AND SINCE HE DOES NOT SUPPORT A FEDERAL ANSWER ON ABORTION, IT WILL NOT. THUS THE ARGUMENT IS A RED HERRING.

    THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT HE WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING AT THE FED LEVEL TO CURTAIL ABORTION, HE WOULD LEAVE IT TO THE STATES.

    Maybe Ron and his supporters live on a planet where it’s okay to deny civil rights to one person but to grant them to a person who has the good fortune of living 100 yards away. But around here we tend to look critically on such a proposition. And as JS notes in his comment, maybe we should let the individual states decide how to manage their respective negro problems, too, huh?

    TRY AND STAY WITH ME. ABORTION IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT. I KNOW THAT YOU THINK KILLING CHILDREN IS OK AS LONG AS THEY ARE STILL IN THE WOMB BUT 50% OF AMERICA DISAGREES WITH YOU. THUIS IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ALLOW THE STATES TO DECIDE WHAT LAW THEY WOULD WANT FOR THEMSELVES. WHAT YOU WANT IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO. THAT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL AT ALL

    He’s earned a 76% rating from the Christian Coalition. I hate to get too ad hominem, but this is an organization that makes a point of opposing all things socially progressive.
    RIDICULOUS POINT TO CONSIDER WHETHER TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE OR NOT

    Ummm, no. It’s an extremely valid point. It gives us a fairly objective measure of how closely his agenda aligns with that of an influential group that’s working to impose its narrow theology on the rest of the citizenry.

    IF YOU SAY A 76% RATING WITH A FRINGE GROUP MEANS SOMETHING THEN YOU MAY BE TOO DANGEROUS TO VOTE.

    He voted NO on allowing embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) This doesn’t tell you all you need to know, but it tells you a lot that it’s helpful to know.
    WHAT IT TELLS YOU IS HE IS CONSISTENT ON THE ISSUE OF USING FEDERAL MONEY, FOR ANYTHING. IT DOESNT SPEAK TO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, BUT RATHER HOW HE VIEWS THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT.

    This argument would be a lot more compelling if his record didn’t correlate so strongly with his stances on other religious right issues. SUCH AS???

    Also, when push comes to shove here the underlying philosophy is really quite irrelevant.

    I KNOW BECAUSE IT SHREDS YOUR ARGUMENTS TO PIECES, TOO BAD

    His actions would serve to significantly damage important research that can save lives. If I’m dead, it doesn’t much matter to my next of kin if you killed me for God or State’s Rights.

    NICE TRY. HE IS NOT AGINST STEM CELL RESEARCH, HE JUST DOES NOT WANT YOUR TAX DOLLARS PAYING FOR IT. YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE USAGE OF MONEY BUT YOU TRY AND TURN IT INTO A RELGIOUS ARGUMENT BECAUSE YOU THINK IT HELPS YOUR POINT. LUCKILY I AM HERE TO POINT OUT YOUR INHERENT DISHONESTY.

    Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007) Because, you know, he’s worried about corporatism.
    CURIOUS INDEED. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHY HE CAST THIS VOTE. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ATTACHED TO IT?

    Sorry, I’m not your research monkey. He did it. You want to rebut the point, YOU do the research.

    NO SPARKY. LET ME EXPLAIN HOW IT WORKS FOR YOU. I DID NOT DO THE ARTICLE. WHOMEVER DID, SHOULD PROVIDE THEIR SOURCE MATERIAL. BECAUSE THEY DID NOT, I ASSUME THIS IS NOT ACCURATE UNTIL I SEE IT.

    Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) Because he’s terribly concerned about politicians being in bed with the big money.
    CURIOUS AGAIN, HOPE SOMEONE ASKS HIM THE QUESTION

    Me, too. Until then, all we know is that for some unfathomable reason he did it.

    THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF FATHOMABLE REASONS IF YOU UNDERSTAND HOW BILLS ARE PUT TOGETHER AND HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS.

    Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
    SAME

    Yup – the very same.

    He supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. Because there’s nowhere left in America where you can go to pray, I guess.
    SOURCE PLEASE? I FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE SINCE HE ADVOCATES THE FED GETTING OUT OF THE SCHOOLS BUSINESS.

    The source is already provided. Go back to the post and click on the link that says “Source.”

    I TRIED BUT GOSH DARNIT, HE DIDNT SOURCE THIS ONE. HE ONLY SOURCE A COUPLE, LIKE THE ARTIC WILDLIFE DRILLING. ONCE AGAIN, SOURCE PLEASE.

    YES on “protecting” the Pledge of Allegiance.
    SOURCE?

    Again, it’s that link that says “Source.” GOSH DARNIT AGAIN, HE DIDNT SOURCE IT, DID YOU BOTHER ACTUALLY LOOKING BEFORE YOU TYPED THIS RESPONSE?

    YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools.
    NOT SURPRISING, ALSO NOT THE END OF THE WORLD

    Also, not remotely inconsistent with the Religious Right agenda, huh? ONCE AGAIN, I KNOW YOU DESPERATELY WANT TO TURN THIS INTO A RELIGIOUS THING BUT YOU ARE DEALING WITH A MAN WHO NEVER INTERJECTS RELIGION INTO HIS POLITICS, THUS YOU ONLY MAKE YOURSELF LOOK FOOLISH. THE ISSUE AGAIN IS EDUCATION BEING BROUGHT BACK TO THE LOCAL LEVEL AND PROVIDING COMPETITION. FOR THE RECORD, I AM NOT SOLD ON THIS PART OF HIS PLATFORM AND WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE FROM HIM.

    NO on raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and incentives for alternative fuels.
    AGAIN, IT HAS MORE TO DO WITH THE ROLE OF THE FED, THAN AN IDEOLGICAL STANCE.

    So you think that regulation of fuel economy standards should be left to the states so that the manufacturers have to address 50 sets of regs instead of one? Or are you not convinced that environmental damage can cross a state line? I’m confused here, because a Libertarian can’t possibly favor subjecting businesses to that kind of insane regulation.

    I KNOW ONE OF THE FAVORITE WAYS TO ATTACK PAUL IS TO PRETEND THAT HE MUST EMBRACE ALL FORMS OF A LIBERTARIAN PLATFORM INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT WHAT HE SAYS AND HIS VOTING RECORD. ONCE AGAIN, I WILL NOT ALLOW IT.

    NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
    SEE ABOVE.

    So a NATIONAL resource is entrusted to Alaska’s state legislature? Or are you sneaking up on the argument that “the market will handle it”? No, you can’t possibly be that silly…

    YOURE RIGHT, I AM NOT THAT SILLY. i BELIEVE HIS STANC WOULD BE THAT THE FED SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED WITH THIS. I AM NOT SUGGESTING IT IS A GREAT THING AS I WOULD NEED TO HEAR MORE FROM HIM. BUT IF YOU ARE VOTING BASED ON THE ARTIC REFUGE, IT IS TIME TO STOP VOTING.

    look it is easy to cherry pick 10 votes from an 18 year congressional career but when you extrapolate them out and imply what he means by those votes, you become disingenuous. You also avoided the hundreds of votes cast by Paul which would support the opposite conclusion you reached before you decided to write the article. All you need to see is how the author concludes:

    Nice try, but that SOURCE link you couldn’t find is devoted to accurately representing the positions of all major candidates. And I’m certainly not hiding how I feel about Paul – yeah, I think he’s a very bad idea politically. But you have your cause/effect backwards. I’m not hammering him because I’m possessed of some kind of a priori dogmatic anti-Paul opinion that I was born with. I’ve looked at what he actually stands for and the FACTS have led me to my position (same as with all the other candidates, some of which rank WAY below Paul in my view).

    I WISH YOU WOULD JUST STICK WITH FACTS THEN AND STOP MAKING ERRONEOUS CORRELATIONS AND DEFAMATORY REMARKS BECUASE YOU ARE IGNORANT.

    BE WELL dR. sLAMMY.

  33. Yes, I think it’s clear to anyone reading this – or anything else involving the Truthers – that I’M a shill.

    Thanks for dropping by and expending so much energy proving my point for me.

  34. Dr. Slammy,

    Seriously, man, you will never, never be able to have a rational conversation with someone who can’t find the caps lock button on his keyboard so that he can stop shouting about everything. Or maybe he likes to shout about everything. Either way, it’s a lost cause.

    The world has always had fanatics. Very few ever become non-fanatics. Even many of the neo-cons were once fanatic radicals. They didn’t change their spots, just their spots’ colors. Arguing with these people is fruitless. All we can do is defend ourselves against them, and hope that the schools will manage to find a way, some day, to short-circuit most of these people before they reach semi-adulthood.

    I’m not holding my breath.

  35. JSO: Don’t think of it as arguing. My philosophy is that when I find myself in disagreement with somebody who has a questionable perspective, I need to hand him the microphone and stand back. I’m just giving people a chance to articulate their positions, is all….

  36. Right-wing nuts, Left-wing loonies are all the same, they want the government to do their bidding and suppress the opposition (i’m pretty sure that is the definition of tyranny). The only function of a government in a constitutional republic is to follow the law of the land (the constitution), protect our individual rights (personal rights, and property rights), and let the people do for themselves what they can to make a life for themselves (leave me alone because I know what is best for me and my family). It is unconstitutional and immoral for a government to take a postion that is contrary to the powers that WE THE PEOPLE have given them. This means that the Congress cannot grab more power than it is given in the constitution. This means that the President cannot write his own laws in the form of executive orders and line item veto’s. This means that the Courts cannot legislate from the bench and rewrite the law to suit their own fancy at the moment. Government should be small, purpose driven (follow the constitution) and full of people who understand their function and have to character to restrain the urge to overreach their constraints. PERIOD!!!!

    If the point of this post is to do more to find a candidate that is more aligned to your personal views, then your views are contrary to what a governments true function is. If the government is imposing your views on me it is a form of tyranny. So stop complaining that no candidate conforms to your views of what a politician ought to be, and start learning what it means to be a true statesman.

    If you don’t like Ron Paul that is fine, but at least he seems to have a grasp of what it truly means to be and American. We are still the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE.

  37. I don’t care if you support Rue Paul. The point that I was trying to make is that freedom means that you don’t get to tell me what to do And then you don’t get to take my rights away to suit your way of thinking. Your views are valid and my views are valid, but it is not the governments job to enforce either of our personal viewpoints. its job is to follow the law of the land the constitution.

  38. I couldn’t agree more. And if you go back and re-read what I WROTE you’ll see that I say, unequivocally, that Paul is exceptionally right on some critically important issues.

    However, this doesn’t mean he’s the best candidate. The point of my post was – I thought pretty transparently – that a number of Democratic candidates needed to get off their asses and get right on these key issues.

    Let me put it a little differently. Say you take somebody like Edwards. If he gets in line with Paul’s uncompromising stances on things like Iraq (and all unlawful foreign adventures) and the Patriot Act (and other unlawful domestic adventures), Paul all of a sudden seems a little less perfect. Why? Because he’s so wrong on so many other things, and now you have a candidate who’s right on more important issues than you did before.

    My post was never about Ron Paul. It was – VERY EXPLICITLY – about how Dems are making Paul seem more viable to an important voting bloc than he would if they didn’t have their heads up their asses.

  39. And how is ridding yourself of an unwanted pregnancy by someone else affecting YOUR rights? An unwanted pregnancy can doom a family financially. Worse, a birth-defected baby can traumatize a family emotionally. And yet you want to enable states to legislate this choice which will ultimately force people to sneak across state lines to perform a medical procedure etc. Like our courts aren’t inundated enough now they have to enforce abortion laws and argue the cases across the land on the state level almost 40 yrs since Roe v. Wade?

  40. Couple of points for those who cannot read or respond intelligently. First of all, i stated I would use CAPS so people could differentiate what was my response, versus what I was responding to. Go back up and read where I wrote it, go ahead, we will wait for you. There you go. So, i was not “shouting”.

    secondly, Dr. Slammy, you pretend the article is sourced, then i point out correctly it is not, and you pack up your ball and go home declaring victory? Is that how it works on this site? LMAO. Next time you pick a fight, respect your opponent until you realize whether you should be in the fight.

    By the way, you keep lying and I will keep debunking you.

    Lastly, someone here made the poor assumption that I am somehow an extreme right guy. BZZT, wrong again. Go check my site and my writer archive. I have written well over 100 articles over the past several years and 90% of them speak directly against this administration and the decline of America since the Bush stole the white house.

    Lesson 2, know your opponent before you attack. Makes you look a tad bit more competent.

    Peace

  41. Dr. Slammy,

    You are missing my point. There are no good top tier candidates running right now. The Democrats think that they have cart blanche to take my money for things like universal health care, and public education. I say they are wrong. We are not a socialist society. I don’t want the government to take my money for anything other than national defense, to protect my rights, and for infrastructure such as roadways. If I want to give to a cause like rebuilding New Orleans, I want to do it voluntarily I don’t want the govt. to take my money and spend it for me. I don’t want to pay for public education because it doesn’t work. Basically if it is outside the realm of the constitutionally appointed duties of the govt. they are woefully unable to perform the function. The private sector can handle such situations much more effectively and efficiently. As far as the republicans go I don’t want to police the world and convert people to become believers in democracy ( an inheritantly tyrannical form of govt)

    I think from reading your post. and from the content of this website that you are a progressive. What are you progressing towards. If it is not limited govt and personal liberty than I think you will be disappointed with whomever is elected. until the conscience of the nation is turned back to the founding principles of this nation we will be continually disappointed with the results that the govt. gives us.

  42. Shawn,

    Funny thing. Everyone is for the gummint staying out of their affairs until their own ox gets gored. Then they scream and cry for the gummint to intervene.

  43. “Everyone is for the gummint staying out of their affairs until their own ox gets gored.”

    It is the reason why people used to (and still do) form co-operatives, societies, clubs, partnerships and alliances.

    Having followed the posts on this site for a while…the last thing Dr Slammy is is a liar.

  44. Thanks you. Asshole, maybe, but not a liar.

    I’m surprised none of these people have seized on the possibility that I’m trying to undermine Paul because I’m running against him….

  45. secondly, Dr. Slammy, you pretend the article is sourced, then i point out correctly it is not, and you pack up your ball and go home declaring victory?

    Did you bother to click on the (Source) link at the bottom of the list of votes? That’s the source for all of the above. So bitch at Slammy if you want, but if you don’t buy his contentions, the problem is with the website Issues2000.org, not Slammy. Oh, and here’s the link again, just in case you missed it again: http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

    BTW, if you don’t believe issues2000.org, then click on the “N full quotes on…” link above each list of position that Paul took – they quote his words on each issue or the exact language he voted for or against.

    The real Truth about Paul’s a bitch, isn’t it?

  46. Dr. Slammy,

    You’re wonderful! I was trying to articulate to friends, recently, why Ron Paul and his (libertarian mostly) supporters are scary–now I just have to direct them to this site. Paul’s bad but his followers are myopic nutters.

    Now that I’ve found this site, I’ll be back.

  47. Ahhh, you see, i write articles, so allow me to explain. When you wish to source a single line, you put the source right after the sentance ends, as this writer did after the artic drilling issue. If you wish to have one source for a list, you need to put after the list, as a seperate entry, so as to make it clear the source is for the entire list. Thank you for the source. It proves beyond a doubt that the writer was indeed being disingenuous. Why? because they selected only those votes they thought could make hij look bad and ignored the votes that shredded his pre-formed positions. Allow me to explain:

    Under the civil rights section, he voted not to allow marriage to be defined as being between a man and a woman. Hmm strange that you didnt include this one. Let me guess why. Because it destroys your silly argument that he is a religious wacko who is on the side of the religious right. What it shows is he is pro-constitution and does not want the fed involved in the bedroom, let alone the doctors office.

    Under education he voted no to allow prayer in school during the war on terror. This wasnt included because it flew in the face of his 1997 support of a constituional amedment. You see again, his point is follow the constitution. If you want prayer in school amend the constitution and make 3/4 of the states ratify it. He is merely consistent.

    I could go on and on. The voting record vindicates my position. He has a mixed record in nearly every category because he only votes based on what he views the role of government should be.

    Be well!

  48. “I could go on and on.”
    And you probably will every time someone posts something (in fact, I bet you respond to this post). The Ron Paul Squadron of the 101st Flying Keyboarders will always be at the forefront of the keyboard wars.

    In the end Ron Paul, is the Ross Perot of 2008 (can’t wait for the pie charts from Dr. No).

    Texas sure turns out some nuts (to be expected since the clock hands go in reverse). We ought to give it back to Mexico and say we’re sorry, but it wasn’t what we expected when we stole it.

  49. NicoleAndrea:

    Thanks, and please do come back. I wish I could take all the credit, but the fact is that a lot of people out there have been hard at work on the Paul phenomenon and I’m simply drawing on their expertise.

    The part that was truly mine was the attitude… 🙂

  50. I’m kind of curious as to why so much vitriol over a donation from and a picture with a white supremecist. I’ve been to a lot of conventions and seen pictures taken with celebrities–and the celebrities generally have very little (or no) knowledge of who the fan is, or what his personal life is about. The donation says that the donor agrees with the guy who he’s giving the money to; not that the guy getting the money completely agrees with the donor.

    That being said, just because Dr. Paul accepted the donation, it DOES NOT mean that Dr. Paul is a racist.

    As far as his voting record– from what I can tell, his sole yardstick has been whether the bills can be justified under the Constitution. If they can be justified, he votes for it. If not, he votes no.
    I’m happy he’s at least reading the bills– most politicians don’t have a clue what they are voting for.
    If you look at his whole voting record and see the pattern of his votes (and read the bills he’s voting on), you’ll see that he is EXTREMELY consistent.

    Yes, he’s religious– but he doesn’t IMPOSE his religious beliefs onto anyone else.
    Can you say the same about ANY other candidate?

    As for me, his constitutional stance and voting record are secondary. What got my attention was that he made sense as to why the attacks on 9/11 happened, and that he was able to back up his statement with the 9/11 Commission Report and testimony from the former head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden Unit.

    There are some points of Dr Paul’s platform that I don’t agree with— but I don’t think that my liking SOME of his platform makes me a kook or a racist.

    Of course, your opinion may vary.

  51. So far, no one (and underscore . . . . no one . . . . .) has made the case why Ron Paul (the man with two first names) should be elected. Maybe it’s that vision-thingy, y’know. He’s a 5000-1 shot who’s only in it for Tejas.

    In 2000, people overlooked the fact that an incumbent governor from Tejas was funding public schools with taxes on strip clubs and that for the most part, his view on government was what he implemented. Lazy public, lazy press.

    And face it, anyone claiming to be a Libertarian today, is only an embarrassed Republican (I know, it almost seems impossible to believe) who’s embarrassed at the latest Bush (too much inbreeding in that family). If they were true Libertarian, then they’d do exactly what Molly Ivins and Henry Gonzalez said. . . . first they’d start by removing all the stop signs since that is government interference with people’s rights.

  52. I think that people like Ron Paul because he stands for the constitution and individual freedom and against war. Personally, I’ll go with Dennis Kucinich, cause he’s all that and more.
    But, seriously folks, we will be presented with Clinton and Romney and told to vote for the lesser of two evils. But it’s just too hard to decide which of them is less evil!
    Plus, they really really want us to vote. As I heard Kissinger say once, “Ve don’t care who you vote for. Ve only care that you vote”
    Emma Goldman had that figured out a long time ago. She said that if voting did any good, it would be illegal.
    So, although I have voted every time since I was 18, I’m starting to think that it is more effective to refuse to vote.

  53. Hi Folks!,
    While Ron Paul is not the first perfect human being, what are our alternatives? On the Republican side, there are no anti-Iraq candidates. None. Almost all of the candidates on both sides are CFR members:
    Council on Foreign Relations Presidential Candidates 2008
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations#Notable_current_Council_members
    Republicans Candidates in the CFR: Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, (Fred Thompson, and Newt Gingrich have not declared.)
    Democratic Presidential Candidates in the CFR:
    Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson… clip..
    While we are still looking for the first perfect presidential candidate, the closest one we currently have that has any kind of a chance of winning is Dr Paul. I suggest that we work with our best bet, and then work on influencing his better judgment when and if the time arises, post election. Love, Steve

  54. Jesus Christ, Dr. Slammy, this was the worst piece of yours I’ve ever read on S&R. Dated, yes, but it demonstrates that you, too, have terminal myopia.

    Kettle, meet pot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s