Politics The Marginalization of Ron Paul (or How Media Plays Favorites)

haha, ron paul got an endorsement from rick santorum's nephew. that's gotta be humiliating.

 

Paul's speech a few minutes ago that was typical Paul, including a line..."We're all Austrians now" (referring to the Austrian school of economics). That had to have most people scratching their heads.

 

this link takes you to joan didion's essay "insider baseball" which is among the more interesting (and well-written) demolitions of the contemporary presidential political ritual i've seen:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1988/oct/27/insider-baseball/

it's really worth reading as an antidote to the pressures one may find oneself experiencing to misread this farce as an indication of either the health or integrity of either the american political system or the degenerate neo-liberal ideology that still dominates----as convincing a demonstration of the power of intellectual interia as there's ever been---but now, suddenly, we're expected to say o good, all better now, business as usual blah blah blah.

 

No, I think that Dan Savage still has the market cornered on Santorum humiliation, considering the #1 Google hit for "Santorum".

 

Allowing your signature to be used on several racists newsletters, that you profited from, raises a questions as to whether or not you may be a racists.

 

this one even floored me:



here's the text of it. this was a speech by him in 2002. why are we not listening to this man? instead, we continue to listen to the idiots who brought us here.

 

Great and before that he appeared in a John Birch Society documentary making wild claims that the UN would take away Americans’ gun rights, property rights, rights of religious freedom...

​

IMO, his isolationist foreign policy is dangerous, but perhaps you can explain why its in America's interest to withdraw from the UN and NATO, refrain from promoting and supporting (by peaceful means) democratic movements, oppose all foreign aid (both military and economic/humanitarian)...

You evidently want to focus solely on his anti-war position and the issue of "military adventurism" (if that is how you would like characterize it), issues with which many liberals might agree. But you ignore the fact that foreign policy is much more than that. It requires being part of the world community to protect our own interests and his foreign policy positions do the reverse to the extreme.

 

Right - free trade Paul-style... unilaterally abolishing trade agreements.

There is plenty to criticize about the UN, WHO, and other multi-lateral organizations, but withdrawing and not supporting UN peace keeping efforts around the world, treaties to abolish landmines and similar treaties, humanitarian aid, etc. would leave the US more isolated than any time in history.

 

what are the fruits of an 'interventionalist' foreign policy? korean war, vietnam, iraq debacle, afghanistan war, the never ending war on terrorism, patriot act taking away the 4th amendment, ndaa taking away the 5th, torture, tsa harassment, over throwing dictators in the middle east, financial, and moral bankruptcy.

lets not forget the reason we got attacked on 9/11 is because we were over there. bin laden said so himself. the blood of 500,000+ iraqi's is on our hands. and millions more in countless other sanctions, bombings and undeclared wars.



i stand in stark opposition to ALL of that. so what makes the word non-interventionist so scary to you? i'd take a non-intervention policy instead of an obama the decider's foreign policy anyday.

also, what part about the UN allows for gun rights or property rights? just because the UN hasn't taken our guns or property rights yet doesn't mean they don't want to.

 

So you're justifying one extreme by pointing to the other extreme. Fortunately, most Americans support a foreign policy the falls between the two.

You're completely ignoring the fruits of an "interventionist" foreign policy that supports peacekeepers around the world, has saved millions of people around the world through WHO health programs, development programs and other humanitarian assistance programs.

And the UN can never take away rights of American citizens or are you forgetting the Supremacy clause of the Constitution? It is right wing conspiracy nonsense and Paul is the the worst offender.

 

so we can go to war based on a UN declaration thus ignoring the constitution, but they can't take the rights away without going through the constitution? doesn't add up. maybe tomorrow the UN will declare the 2nd amendment null and void and obama could use that as justification just like he did in Libya.

 

Its this kinda of talk (maybe the UN will declare the 2nd amendment null and void) from Paul supporters that turns others off which explains, in large part, why he is unelectable. That, along with his belief that property owners should have the right to "protect" their property, thus enabling race and religious based discrimination, businesses will voluntarily self-regulate (environmental, labor, etc) in the people's best interest not their own corporate interests, his arrogance that his interpretation of the Constitution is the only valid interpretation, and other nutty extremists positions.

Fortunately, we'll have heard the last of him in a few months. Unfortunately, his son may pick up the mantel.

 

That's pretty much my problem with Paul. It's either this crazy position or another crazy position. When Paul speaks there rarely anything in between.

 

I've come to believe that politics in the US behaves like a pendulum. It swings a little in this direction and then back in the other. Only lately the swings have become extreme and rarely approach the center. When you look at a guy like Paul and compare him to Dennis Kucinich you'll find what they have to say in several ares to be very similar. Kind of odd if you think about it.

 

i've never seen what is so appealing about the center. we have plenty of centrist politicians that are wishy washy flip floppers. they are the status quo in washington.

we need more people like paul and kucinich. call them 'extreme' but i call it extreme to keep putting faith in the same people who get us into these messes.

 

Extremism, particularly Paul's brand, is not in America's best interest.

I am still trying to understand how reneging on trade agreements will lead to “free trade” and not cripple the US economy.

Or why total deregulation will protect Americans from corporate abuses.

Or why enabling discrimination is good for the country.

Or why the US should simply turn our back and not be at the table when genocide and atrocities are being committed against people who only seek basic human rights or contribute to humanitarian efforts around the world.

Or something as basic as how seniors or other high risk Americans or those with per-existing conditions will have access to affordable health care if left entirely to the private sector?

Or as simple as ending the federal gas tax. So how do we maintain the Interstate Highway System? Turn the entire system into a a toll road?

I could go on, but why wont you answer these questions? I've asked numerous times.

Paul is not just about being anti-war and decriminalizing marijuana, positions you like to highlight or utter nonsense like suggesting that "maybe the UN will declare the 2nd amendment null and void."

He represents all of the above.