John McCain survived the New Hampshire primary thanks to receiving the support of the bulk of Republicans opposed to the Iraq war. McCain also did much better with the antiwar voters than other GOP candidates in the crucial Florida primary.
Ron Paul, who announced he was dropping out of the race last night, never made his opposition to the Iraq War the key theme of his own campaign. (He did superbly when asked about this issue in debates or interviews, but most voters never saw the debates or interviews).
After McCain had emerged as a near-frontrunner before the Florida primary, a single 30-second ad highlighting his warmongering could have had a huge impact. Even if the Paul campaign only paid to have it broadcst a single time, it would likely have gotten picked up and frequently rebroadcast as a new story (the same tactic other candidates used).
Stressing an antiwar message probably would not have allowed Ron Paul to capture the GOP presidential nomination. But educating voters about McCain’s record could have made all the difference.
Losing the antiwar vote to McCain is like losing the chastity vote to Bill Clinton.
It is perplexing that a candidate who voted so courageously against the war in Congress would siderail this issue in his presidential campaign – and thereby possibly miss a chance to block the biggest GOP Senate warmonger from the nomination.
Ron Paul DID NOT DROP OUT
I NEVER saw a Ron Paul commercial! Where was the money spent? I also never saw a Mike Gravel commercial, but at least he had an excuse – he had no money!
Some of Gravel’s campaign videos are quite good. He is also the only candidate emphasizing impeachment, now that Kucinich is out.
His main flaw is akin to Paul’s, thinking matters can be resolved from the top down, rather than holding the Executive Branch accountable.
Without impeachment, it really does not matter much who is elected president.
Depends on where you were… if you were in an important primary state, you saw them. I saw them here in Washington State… but not before the primaries got here. No disrespect intended, but maybe you are not in a politically decisive area. We certainly had a lot of his signs and posters here in Spokane!
“We certainly had a lot of his signs and posters here in Spokane!”
Another one of the many reasons why I look forward to a return to Spokane – one of the country’s best kept secrets. Enjoy every day there, Kevin.
“I saw them here in Washington State…”
Those observations, no doubt, were made either in or east of Ellensburg. People talk about “North” and “South” California… Kevin can probably attest to the fact that Eastern and Western Washington are not only quite different geographically, but also politically.
I’ve always thought it would be great if Eastern Washington told Olympia to “stick it” and then, with an alliance of the residents Eastern Washington, Northern Idaho and Montana, form the Great State of Jefferson, and then proceed to secede, of course. :-)
And as an aside, there is STILL no state income tax in Washington State. And that, of course, is not for a lack of trying. Do you think for one second that would be the current state of affairs if it weren’t for the freedom loving, “Galveston Cousins” in Eastern Washington?
Yea, I know. I’m going “off topic”.
So byte me (spelled that way on purpose).
You’ve got to admit, a daily dose going on for years of reading antiwar.com and now the blog entries can sometimes get so g*dd*mn depressing.
It’s a bitch being right again and again. Am I right? :-) Do we feel like we’re in some g*dd*mn Twilight Zone episode? With everyone around us thinking the most g*dd*mn, ignorant and stupid… do I dare call them… “thoughts”?
I swear sometimes I think the pods really are growing in the greenhouse and gardens and all these “people” around me aren’t really people at all.
I’ll stop ranting (for now)… sorry for the interruption… enjoy your Sunday. I think I’ll just start my own damn blog.
Yeah, he SUSPENDED HIS CAMPAIGN… for four more years.
Oh, he dropped all right.
That man was handed his hat time and time again and for some reason he couldnt except defeat.
Hes nothin but a memory now.
This gets at the one aspect of Paul's campaign that was less than principled: he strategically downplayed this issue hoping to win the nomination of a party whose base still supported the war.
It didn't win him the nomination, of course, It just made him him look weirdly reluctant to won up to his strongest selling point, and consequently, a little less genuine — a little more like just another politician, afraid to be himself.
While I agree that Ron Paul’s campaign wasn’t as media savvy as it should have been, and his ads were weak. I don’t believe it was at all possible that he could overcome the the Media bias against him in just one year.
The important thing now is how to carry on the revolution for 2012. Another four years and the revolution could be effective.
The revolution needs to carry on, recruiting people to swell the grass roots and plan for an extremely efficient and organized campaign in 2012. I would estimate that RP has about 20K dedicated supporters now. That number should grow to 100K in the next three years. Then the money bombs will be much bigger. Then we can hire marketing firms and break through the media black out.
One major obstacle is that Ron Paul is probably too old to run for 2012. We will lose the advantage of having the most conservative congressman / doctor / serviceman at the helm. We need someone new to carry on the message. Some one who believes in the message of personal freedom and liberty. Someone who is not compromised by historical baggage. Someone who is as eloquent in his answers as the good Dr. That will not be easy to find.
Another gynecologist perhaps?
LOL!
Yeah well I don’t think those 1 million or so people who will no doubt be killed by the Warmongers in the White House can wait until 2012. This is not an “oh well” situation. Lives of millions are at risk. World War 3 could be on the horizon by 2012. Without Ron Paul there is no choice. Hillary’s War or McCain’s War won’t matter.
If Paul had 100,000 die-hard supporters there could be a march on DC. Think French Revolution without Robespierre.
The problem, realy, is that Americans never saw a war they did not like. Every war has brough victory, with victor’s huge dividends, without any significant cost or sacrifice; no bombs falling on our schools, churches, stadia or malls, no shortages, no rationing, no inflation, few dead or maimed, no fear of cholera epidemic or malnourished, damaged children, no refugees and no soldiers dead and unaccounted for. Only ticker tape parades,, new highs for Wall Street, more country’s ‘hosting’ our troops at obscene cost to their economies and obscene profits for pentagon from which to develop new weapons and plan new wars (always against weak enemies and certainty of victory) Folks, America will not heed Antiwar.com until there is a cloud over Kansas City or Minneapolis or Orlando (mushroom cloud, that is) and that ain’t gonna happen.
“It is perplexing that a candidate who voted so courageously against the war in Congress”
Paul was always a weak campaigner. He had no sound bites, kept using cryptic phrases like ‘blow back’. IMO if you want a liberterian revolution start with local mayors or lower. Then you might get a stable of potential candidates.
It should also be noted that his supporters were quickly targeted. For example closing Liberty Dollar?
My suggestion, he use the money he raised to fund candidates in Texas and create a Liberterian ‘machine’ that could be copied in other states.
that’s a good idea.
Uhm….watch the video again.
The MSM has misinterpreted it.
That is good news.
It ain’t over until WE say it is over.
Ron Paul has not quit.
He is still spreading the message. We will do the rest.
He has not asked for his name to be removed from any ballot.
Lightning may strike between now and the convention.
Goodness knows that McCain is NOT well liked among Republicans. He is just the best that Americans can vote for with MSM like your self slanting the results.
Please quit spreading falsehoods. Admit the ambiguity of what he said in the video and URGE people to listen to the video themselves. There is a strategy afoot that needs McCain to shoot himself in the foot. You are hurting this by saying he is out when he is only talking about realities and odds. We know the odds. Do you? And the outcome if we fail? Get real and start helping
We ain’t giving up!
“Admit the ambiguity of what he said…”
Is that what the campaign has come down?
Supporters are supposed to sift videos for ambiguity???
Sort of like when I sift the kitty’s litter box, maybe?
But I have to wonder – don’t you actually have to be doing things indicative of being IN the race before you can get OUT (or suspend, depending on which ambiguity we’ve sifted).
But you’d never been “in the race” since you’d simply used the earlier posturing to bait and switch attention to your re-election campaign. And, yes, there is indeed in this case a rather profound similarity to what one might sift from kitty’s poopie box.
Hes OUT..He quit, its over so except it for gods sake.
Hes not going to be President….So your choices now are Obama, Clinton or McCain. And i for one can only hope that it comes down to Clinton and McCain. The last thing we need in office right now is a Muslim.
Mr Bovard, Dr.Paul has not exactly dropped out. Please revise your article to reflect the difference between ‘dropping out’ which implies walking away and shutting down, and at least make mention of Paul’s Liberty PAC, the Free Foundation and his continuing effort to change the system.
“Victory in the conventional political sense is not available in the presidential race…”
Was it ever?
“We do still encourage all effort to gain the maximum number of votes and delegates in all the remaining primaries and to continue the caucus process that is ongoing… I will continue to make every effort to visit any state where the enthusiasm for liberty exists. The campaign for freedom will continue in this new phase.”
I also posted this comment at my own blog. Some of the comments coming in there are clarifying the situation and the campaign nicely.
The first comments are from Brian Wilson, a prominent radio host who relates how he tried many times to get Ron Paul on his show to no avail.
http://jimbovard.com/blog/2008/03/07/ron-pauls-missed-chance-against-mccain/#comment-112618
May we summaraize–“Tune in, turn on, suspend”?
Go to http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com and download/listen to the audio interviews (his conversation in Missouri and Indy and verify it is NOT over). He did NOT suspend. In the video he said he is available for campaigning in all the states. The maximum delegates is important, but it would also be good to solidify support in the remaining primaries, now witht he real two alternatives during the race practically left. (Alan Keyes has also not dropped out as far as I know, but he is no factor). Even if he does not get the nomination, a strong showing in the remaining primaries, where he could get say 30% plus will be very important for the future, but also as a bargaining power during the RNC. The GOP can ignore Ron Paul even less then.
“… he is available for campaigning…”
Well, that’s very considerate of him.
I live in Maryland, where there were legions of Ron Paul supporters.
I am not aware that Ron Paul ever did anything in Maryland.
And it is not exactly an arduous trip here from Capitol Hill.
If I am mistaken about Paul not doing anything in Maryland – especially in the weeks before the Maryland primary – I hope one of his supporters will correct me.
When did the word “campaign” become a passive verb?
Why “Ron Paul supporters” rather than supporters of some of his watered down Libertarian ideas?
And why now of all things his seemingly uncuttable umbilical to the Republican Party?
That, and Paul’s tepid support for impeachment, make the whole shebang suspect.
Has anyone taken a close look at the actual contributors to his campaign, and what the motivation of some of the larger ones, if there were such, may have been?
It is always useful to learn to think like the enemy–what use might a Rove have found in having an important portion of the anti-war movement identified with a maverick Republican?
Well, as someone who is a maxed out donor… my motivation was that I *thought* we were going to get a solid, professionally run, TRUE REPUBLIC-an candidate that would actually go out and campaign, and yes mainly against this stupid Clintonesque-Wilsonian war.
What happened instead is I got *sucker-punched* and my money got mainly squandered on shitty commercials and a woefully inept campaign, with the remainder paying ridiculously high salaries to a bunch of entirely incompetent, irresponsible, non-communicative, former staff *cronies* of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sickened and pissed off. I will NEVER donate a penny to any candidate that I do not get to look *RIGHT* square in the eyes and truly JUDGE their character.
Ah, yes, yet another hymn of praise to that kind, principled, Ron Paul. Gottcha where it hurt, did he, jkhutz? My sympathies. He only grazed me. I was going to vote for him if he’d just had the authenticity to run as an independent. But somehow, all of that decency stumbled over the grandfatherliness and there we were, independentless. It seems he’d needed to spend most of his time making U-Tubes stroking those folks in the campaign that bilked you and taking care of number one: His Republican House seat. Oh, but you’ll hear from them again, of course. Even money you’ll get an e-mail solicitation for more scratch.
Justin, you are way off. *Everyone* who knew anything about Ron Paul knew that he was the anti-war Republican candidate. Why would he broadcast what everyone else already knew? His struggle was not to be a one-issue candidate.
It sounds like you’re blaming the victim here. He had little chance in the first place, and went much further than I ever expected. Let’s not be sore losers.
That’s what he’s saying, anything who knew anything about Ron Paul wasn’t that many people.
He maybe coulda broadcast that to the people who didn’t know, i.e. the vast number of people in the US who had either never heard of him or were convinced by hyper-liberal media sources that he was slightly more right-wing that Hitler.
Most people I knew had never heard of him and the rest were convinced he would end all rights and suspend the constitution(!?) I mean for real.
Let’s face it. The Paul campaign was one huge debacle …The TV ads stunk ….There was never sufficient funds deployed to Iowa or NH ….And most curiously there are 6 million dollars left in unspent campaign funds – to be used for what purpose ? … The antiwar issue was his trump card and the morons who ran the campaign flooded voters with anti-immigration pamphlets …..Didn’t they know that Tancredo’s message was a market-tested loser? ….Oh well someone will get to spend those unused campaign funds , won’t they ?
And all of the above simply for openers, sad to say. Why anyone might feel inclined to vote for Ron Paul in the Fall given knowledge of this kind of track record absolutely boggles the mind. I’ve previously used the term schmegeggi, or schmegeggie, if you prefer, in making an appraisal of Paul. I’ll advance it once again. I mean, would you vote for a schmegeggi?
I know I wouldn’t vote for the John Lowell that comments here, but yes, would for the Honorable Ron Paul. The latter is kind.
Presumably, then, you would, in fact, vote for a schmegeggi, peace. :-)
Just to add to the variants, Saul Bellow has it “shmegeggy” (Herzog 1964).
Others seem to suggest a reduplication from S(c)hmeg and there is also, Schmegegke, which looks alarmingly close and means “left-over food”.
Bellows would be a fine choice, Eugene, but I wonder if there’s anything more profound involved in these differences than a preferred spelling. I mean, really, schmegegge, shmegegge, schmegeggi, and this one of Bellows you bring us, schmegeggy. There’s this from
the Yiddish Glossary, for example: “Shmegegi – Buffoon, idiot, fool. Or this from Dictionary.com: schmegegge, noun (Yiddish) baloney; hot air; nonsense. There is certainly a shift of emphasis from “buffoon” on the one hand to “hot air” on the other, but I’d be suspicious of the latter, frankly. I think one has to consider precisely how the term might apply to Ron Paul, for example, to get something more of its authentic flavor. And here my decided preference would be for buffoon, the Yiddish Glossary definition.
Actually, I agree and will take it further, part of the vibrancy of Yiddish is its elusiveness.
I would have gone with “Nebbish” (also “nebbich”, etc.), just for example.
But who cannot defer to Sophia Loren?
One of the interesting things is that, if (and at this point no one knows for sure) it is a currency made in America, and truly Yinglish, as opposed to strictly Yiddish, there is also a possibly Rabelaisian cryptotype.
Actually, it is also possible that it is not one word in origin or use, but several conflated under the same approximate form.
Another high point of the language was Hoffman to Hoffman in a court in Chicago not that long ago.
You’re clearly on to something here, Eugene. Perhaps we have your awareness of the fact than hands count little when it comes to Sophia Loren to thank for that. :-)
There can be little question that the experience of assimilation – after an earlier ghettoisation – brought observable effects on European languages and music here. One thinks of the evolution of Slovenian or Polish polka music from its basis in Europe as a rather dramatic example. Why would there not have been a related effect on Yiddish language usage in the Jewish community in New York as it approached the second third of the 20th century? The movement from “schmegeggi” to “shmegeggi” might be explained that way but someone more knowledgable than I would have to offer the micro-analysis. Perhaps Sophia Loren if you can draw her in somehow. :-)
As to “nebbish”, one conjures up something even dwarfish here although not of necessity. The Yiddish Expressions website has nebbish as “a nobody, a simpleton, weakling, awkward person”. It was a term very commonly in use by Jewish friends of mine while at university fifty years ago. And, you know, I suppose you maybe right: It captures the mood respecting Paul a bit more precisely. Paul is less fool than simpleton. Just don’t ask me to edit my posts. :-)
Paul should have attacked McCain on the war saying such provocative things the media would have to take notice. Something like: “McCain talks of ‘Honour’ in Iraq. There is no possibility of that. Bush has shamed our nation, we are drenched in blood., rightly despised, and on the wrong side of history and McCain is either too stupid to see it or too dishonest to admit it. I fear it may be the former.” would have had Riley quoting him within hours.
But Paul failed to say what needed to be said and fizzled out.
Hallelujah! This is exactly what I was thinking. The anti-war sentiment is what would have carried him. But the danger in this strategy is that the media would have portrayed RP as the dangerous nut. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that nothing he could have said would have gained him the publicity he needed to change the outcome.
Furthermore, it does not appear to be in his character to attack his opponents in this fashion. It really is not in him.
As Jim Bovard reeferenced above, after having Ron Paul on my show 3 times in the past 2 years – and dozens of times over the last 12 – he became unavailable (as in unresponsive) during the entire course of this campaign.
As in Maryland, Ron Paul signs wallpapered the NW Ohio landscape. As the only talk show host pounding on the pulpit for Paul (illiteration not intended), it was beyond frustrating to get him on the show to answer the questions of the understandably ignorant and extol the rightness and virtue of his beliefs and campaign – especially in an area that is decidedly anti-war, pro-2nd Amendment and stultifyingly stupid when it comes to matters of Freedom, Ignorance and Individual Responsibility. To not even get a return cal, e-mail, smoke signal, Carrier pidgeon from RP Campaign HQ was beyond a travesty – it bordered on criminal prevention of spreading Freedom. Unlike other campaigns, Paul’s couldn’t/wouldn’t/didn’t even have a surrogate.
As posted on Bovard’s blog, this is what happens when campaigns are left in the hands of fans, ideologues and amatures. Proven here is the fact that Adrenalin is a lousy fuel to run a political campaign. And some socialists on the Democratic side have already exploited the catchy “change” and “hope” buzz words. Sadly, there were boatloads of pros who would have happily engaged had they been asked.
Maybe lightening will strike. Maybe pigs will achieve lift-off. Problem is – as Ben Franklin once said – “Lost time is never found again”.
Pity.
Brian Wilson
PD/Talk Show Host
WSPD/Toledo and other fine talk stations
across America
“And some socialists on the Democratic side have already exploited the catchy ‘change’ and ‘hope’ buzz words….”
If this is directed at Senator Obama, I note that, as Raimondo himself has pointed out, that good senator was vociferously against the attack on Iraq in 2002, and after 9-11, when it was not the easy or popular thing to do, though indeed Illinois was more against the war in Iraq than perhaps anywhere in the country.
Not only that Obama specifically identified the neo-Con agenda and mentioned Wolfowitz, et al. by name.
Senator Durbin too, who is not on many issues my cup of tea, also early opposed attacking Iraq.
mr.costa i guess you have drunk too much kook-aid and been little light on actual reading .
here is a link to start . about the so called ” antiwar ” obama against iraq war in 2003 and since then..
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_25/cover.html
Raimondo’s article on the subject is sufficient:
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12366
And I said nothing about “anti-war”, I said “against the attack on Iraq.”
Incidentally, the other Illinois Senator, Peter Fitzgerald, whose seat Obama won, resigned, explaining in a private letter to his supporters, read carefully between the lines, that the way the two parties went about their business in Congress made any further efforts on his part a waste of time.
The poor fellow did not say so, but he was clearly taken in by Bush’s and Cheney’s and the Neo-Cons’ deceits in regard to Iraq, including non-existent WMD and the uranium or whatever from Africa.
Pardon, not “resigned”, declined to run for reelection.
Resigned was more his attitude.
duh !
he was ” against the attack on iraq before election . his that ” famous speech ” has more buts and ifs then i use in all my days talk .
surprise ! the speech disappeared from his web page once primary was safe and he was thinking of general election . bush was popular you know .
and he kept his stellar opposition to that war by doing every thing in senate when he actually had some power . right mr.costa ???
Peddle your Tendenz elsewhere.
gee you do not like actual facts ! mr. costa what a surprise .
voting money for iraq war and elctioneering ACTIVELY iraq war monger Lieberman ( against an iraq war opponent ) i am sure was an act of senator obama’s strong principled and ongoing opposition to iraq war . right ???
go drink more obama kool aid by all means but spare us and few of these poor pixels :)
You have no idea whatsoever of what I think about Obama, if anything.
Anyone with half a brain would have easily garnered a singular fact from what I said above.
Since you haven’t, you are presently running at less than fifty percent.
But feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself.
You won’t mind much I don’t pay attention, will you?
There are so many to choose from.
Not to feel badly, Brian, rather simply to accept with joy the fact that you’ll never feel moved again to invite St. Paul to join you on your radio show. Such resolve will place you squarely in sanity’s precincts, far removed as they are from the imbecile enthusiams of the yahoos who ran the Paul campaign and who continue to insist even here that all is not lost, that the “cause” must and does continue. One can feel almost paralyzed searching to find language suitable to describe such lickspittle. Perhaps better to think in terms of remedies than language, you know, the recommendation of certain emetics and the like.
Mr Lowell, please stop talking like a hot air balloon about to burst, I don’t get half of what you’re saying.
Thank you, Brian Wilson. How awful that Ron Paul was not a real campaigner. Shame on him. He should have been all over the media, 24/7.
“Ron Paul, who announced he was dropping out of the race last night, never made his opposition to the Iraq War the key theme of his own campaign. (He did superbly when asked about this issue in debates or interviews, but most voters never saw the debates or interviews).”
I am disappointed in this article. So far as I know Ron Paul did not/is not dropping out. The campaign will continue on with is supporters. And anyone who thinks that the Iraq War/Foreign Policy is not at the “front and center” of his campaign is out to lunch, and has been watching an entirely different campaign than the one I have followed. Having said that, I think Ron Paul has done a wonderful job of not being a “single issue candidate”. But it is amazing how the #1 issue, Economics, is undeniably linked to Foreign Policy… two issues that Ron Paul is second to none on .
Paul’s economics are best the kindergarten level, as is his unveiling of “self-ownership”, which is a logically reflexive and legal absurdity.
I respect Paul on many fronts, and have for a very long time, but economics is not one of them. Too, his initial opposition to Kucinich’s move to impeach Cheney, and his now tepid support for sending it to Judiciary, have done severe damage to what was earlier a high regard for his Constitutionalism.
“Self-ownership” a legal absurdity, eh? So does that mean I can own you? Probably not worth the cost of feeding…
The usual kindergarten response, keyed on the absurdity of Locke and the universal extension of an ambiguous definition of “ownership” and “property”.
I certainly would will not stop you from thinking you own yourself, and the self you own thinking it owns itself, and that self thinking it owns itself….
You are obviously also incompetent in the way of understanding legal fiction.
Have a very pleasant infinite recursion.
Spengler would be much amused.
corr: “certainly will not”
In what manner is the idea of “self-ownership” absurd? It is actually quite logical (depending on one’s definition).
A modern presidential campaign lives or dies by its media campaign.
Can you point me to the TV ads the Paul campaign produced and aired that stressed his opposition to the Iraq war?
The campaign had the resources to produce and air such an ad.
Why didn’t they do it?
I have to agree 100% with Mr. Bovard. Dr. Paul had to know that his main base of support in this campaign was neither libertarians nor paleocons, but ordinary Americans of all political stripes who were fed up with the occupation of Iraq, the “war on terror,” and the “clash of civilizations” that the Bushniks and neocons are slavering for. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again — Paul needed Democratic and independent crossover voters in order to get a significant number of delegates. I changed my registration for 4 months – how many others did? How many were asked to? When I gave money to the campaign, I was of course thanked for my donation, but WAS NOT EVEN ASKED if I was a registered Republican, or wanted to be one. I am probably about 60% to 70% in disagreement with Congressman Paul on the issues, but I set this aside for the sake of nonintervention, anti-imperialism, and civil liberties. His campaign did NOTHING — less than nothing — to convince others in my position to do the same. A simple ad with Dr. Paul saying something like, “I know that my views are a minority position, even within my own party, and I can’t be expected to win most of you over to them in a single campaign. I don’t ask for your vote because you agree with everything I believe in, but because you understand that this nation is at an important historical crossroads — we must either restore our Republic to it’s rightful, constitutional condition, or we must be prepared to let it change into a modern imperial Rome, whose citizens can only expect bread and circuses along with unending wars, but no freedom. If elected, I will govern constitutionally, immediately suspend enforcement of the unconstitutional Patriot Act and fight for it’s repeal, and bring our troops home from the Iraqi desert hellhole to which an unchecked, unaccountable government has illegally dispatched them, and will never allow such a thing to occur on my watch. As for my other ideas, which I will discuss at another place and time, and you will of course be free to use the democratic process to support or oppose them. But if you agree with me on the centrality of restoring our Republic, then I need your vote.” This would have been a truly reassuring, and uniting, message, that we simply did not hear.
What a wonderful message for Ron Paul to give, created above by A.G. Philbin, and very necessary.
Kind of late to close the barn door after the cows have already gone to pasture and the chickens have left the chicken coop.
Ron Paul’s real error was seeking the Republican nomination…
McCain won the GOP nomination because of (not despite) his fear mongering war whore ways. Face it, (what’s left of) the Republican faithful is composed primarily of fear addicted warfare staters. The kind of people who still give Bush 70% approval ratings, even while the nation as a whole weighs in at 30% approval.
The presidential election is gonna be a welfare state vs warfare state exercise in illusion of choice politics. The concept of liberty has been relegated to sporadic local and regional appearances, at best, with no place on the national stage.
I disagree completely. For those who got off their ass and became delegates, they found their competition in wanting.
GOP was, and still is, the weak party.
What worked against Ron wasn’t the GOP, it was the military-industrial-complex-owned media.
I have to agree with this. Down at the grassroots level, even in true red-state-fascistland, Ron Paul Republicans had a lot more allies in the county GOPs than they had recognized. Most of the local parties have seen their membership shrink drastically and therefore welcomed the new members.
Well, yes and no. He had to seek the nomination of his own party, and if done properly (it wasn’t), it could have strengthened his potential position as an independent. His mistake was in acting as if he were solely out to win the Republican nomination, thus effectively abandoning most of his antiwar, pro-liberty base. It had to be a different kind of campaign, one that sought to use outside forces to gain leverage within the GOP, chiefly independent and Democratic crossover voters. The Republican Party is simply not self reformable. His campaign should have been less about electing a president than about changing the national conversation, as promulgated by the media. A 20% vote in the GOP primaries would have done that, in spite of the media. Attacking the Democrats equally for their pro-war stance and Patriot Act support would also have caught the attention of a disgruntled, and mostly disenfranchised, public. Appearing in public with Kucinich and Gravel would also have helped. I think Dr. Paul had too much respect for his party, a favor they have not, and will not, return.
Finding someone with the cajones to be a candidate is not sufficient for a political sea change. Nothing will change for the better while public opinion is controlled by a media dominated by the Israel First crowd and while members of that group sit on every choke point of the federal government. What is the solution? There may be none.
It was always well-known that Ron Paul was the only candidate for the Republicans who opposed the war.
The debates were a sham as far as giving all the participants equal time was concerned. If Ron Paul was lucky, he was asked two questions.
It is really duplicitous on the part of Bovard to try and speed Dr. Paul’s exit from the race. He will leave it when he feels he should, not before.
I sincerely hope he does not fall for the “our party is now a team and we should all close ranks”, because endorsing John McCain, the most avid warmonger, would make me retch.
Ron Paul was forceful in debates and interviews on the war issue. I would have liked to have seen commercials stressing that and I didnt. I heard some ok radio commercials before the IL primary.
No serious “anti-war” people could vote for McCain. If there are people who call themselves anti-war and voted for McCain they are idiots or hypocrites. Maybe they think calling for more troops is being a “critic” of the war. Everyone knows McCain stands for big govt and warmongering and thats what Repubs are about.
RP’s campaign made a mistake trumpeting the bogus immigration issue, but the end result would not have been different. RP’s postion on immigration is closer to Buchanan paleocons than libertarians.
An antiwar Repub is basically an oxymoron these days, unfortunately. Chuck Hagel didnt run because of this and he is being chased out of the party despite being a reliable, principled true conservative. The Repubs love a Scoop Jackson Dem like Lieberman and voted him back to the Senate against their own party nominee.
The only thing Repubs care about is war, violating civil liberties, increasing the power and reach of govt, favors for their wealthy cronies, and cheap demagogic issues like trashing immigrants and gays. They are pathetic.
But don’t you see, according to Paul’s “true believers’ (Paul’s own phrase), that makes the Republicans ripe for a Libertarian takeover from the inside?
It’s good that you mention Lieberman.
Gore-Lieberman versus Bush-Cheney–the bases were covered, don’t you think?
In retrospect Gore perhaps should be thanking his lucky stars.
He has a Nobel Prize, for whatever that is worth, and he wasn’t assassinated in office, eh?
Imagine if he had been schmoozing in the World Trade towers on the just the right day, for example.
No doubt the dancing Israelis would have danced themselves to death over that one, and Iran would already be cinders, in some imaginations at least.
Hmm, how superfluous is Bush at the moment?
I’m not really sure these “anti-war” Republicans were ACTUALLY anti-war! They are anti-LOSING a War. They are “good Imperial citizens” who prefer to slaughter “savages” in jolly good fashion to the “unmanly” appreciation for international law. “IF ONLY we could massacre more Iraqis”, they were thinking. They were not thinking “oh what a terrible thing we have done murdering those innocent Iraqis”.
Trying to talk to them about peace is like talking to a wall, they want ACTION and CARNAGE, they want to high-five each other every time an American Smart Bomb levels an Iraqi or Somali Orphanage, Hospital, or Apartment complex.
A lot of people told me that the biggest problem with the Paul campaign was Kent Snyder. This includes two very hard-working volunteers here in Texas.
If Paul simply could have come off like O-bomb-a, he may have won easily.
He is 18 years younger than Senator Byrd. He can run again in 2012, since the war will still be going on then. I can only imagine where O-bomb-a’s suckers will be then, after their beloved candidate totally sells them out on the war issue.
He shouldn’t run again. Rand Paul could, but Ron simply doesn’t have the gumption. At times, he doesn’t look like he even wants to win.
I’m not going to work to get Ron delegates elected knowing all my work is one stupid web video away from being flushed down the loo.
The Revolution will live on, but we’ll back a candidate we can better rely on, politically speaking.
1) Ron hasn’t dropped out. His video is less than a service to his supporters still working to take over the GOP, but he hasn’t dropped out.
2) McCain has not secured the nomination. Not by a long shot. The GOP could easily send him packing at the national convention.
3) Ron Paul supporters in Texas are just now celebrating a huge WIN. Why? The only thing that matters are delegates, and we’re taking over the party here.
The problem with the campaign is Ron himself. If he can keep quiet from now until the convention, we have a shot.
And for the adults out there, here’s what your earlier hope for an authentic and substantial anti-war candidacy has been reduced to:
“1) Ron hasn’t dropped out. His video is less than a service to his supporters still working to take over the GOP, but he hasn’t dropped out.”
Now some of these yahoos – the ones closest to the Paul machinery, apparently – remain utterly possessed by these almost schizophrenic flights of fantasy. I mean, really, what’s to come next, reports of a white robed Ron Paul seen emerging from a flying saucer announcing that his candidacy was really the work product of spiritual beings intent upon
transfiguring the House Office Building?
“2)McCain has not secured the nomination. Not by a long shot. The GOP could easily send him packing at the national convention.
And you contributed, right? And now you want your money back? There’s more.
“3)Ron Paul supporters in Texas are just now celebrating a huge WIN. Why? The only thing that matters are delegates, and we’re taking over the party here.”
And we worry about the neo-cons and AIPAC a lot here? They don’t come even close to being the kind of threat this lad might be if given any more influence than he has at present.
I mean this stuff is patently certifiable.
I once seriously considered voting for Ron Paul. But by his having been willing so wholeheartedly to embrace the idiotics so evident in the kind of bilge on display here, I’m now embarrassed by that fact.
I can only guess, from Mr. Lowell’s non-stop wrath, that the doctor who delivered him accidentally dropped him on his head, and Dr. Paul has to take the blame from now on.
Talk about the fury of a supporter scorned!
The article is unduly harsh on Mr. Paul. He had huge media bias to overcome and McCain had all the advantages of being the establishment candidate. It was hardly a level playing field. And what about the average American? Why give them a pass? They SHOULD have watched the debates. They should have been more informed about what the various candidates stood for. I guess watching the football game on TV is more important then learning about what your country’s future leaders are all about. If McCain gets elected, Americans deserve whatever happens to them. This is a guy who wants troops in Iraq for 100 years and is PROMISING the American people more wars. Nice.
By George I do believe he’s got it!(Or whatever the hell the Wankers say).
Most Americans don’t really care about issues, they like the shiny and bright media campaigns, long worded speeches are BORING!
Ron Paul “missed McCain knockout?” Please. Try “missed landing a single blow.”
It is more like he has been on ropes for the whole round and the seconds are ticking away with less than 10 to go and his opponent is landing every blow to the head and the referee is about to call an end to it.
And we have a front row seat to the unfolding disaster of a possible McCain presidency if he “unifies the titles” under him.
I can understand losing the chastity vote to Hillary Clinton. That would explain the legacy of Bill.
“missed landing a single blow.�
He took Rudy out. Exposed him as a mealy mouthed liar early on, he did.
“I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11th”
How is that landing a blow against McCain?
John Lowell,
“I once seriously considered voting for Ron Paul. But by his having been willing so wholeheartedly to embrace the idiotics so evident in the kind of bilge on display here, I’m now embarrassed by that fact.”
Sure, you were considering voting for Paul. Judging by all the nastiness you have expressed here and elsewhere about your better, I don’t believe you. You remind me of the neocon jerks over at Town Hall.
========
Peace,
I agree. I wouldn’t vote for John either, preferring to vote for Dr. Paul instead in our primary.
And what curiosities, pray tell, might have you wandering in the direction of those “neocon jerks over at Town Hall, Ry guy?
Now, peace, look, if you won’t vote for me might we settle for the simple kindness of a cash donation. I promise to be very Paul-like in dealing with the funds: They’ll all be spent in one state I assure you.
Keep in mind that Ron Paul has been in the fight a long time. Like all long-time Libertarians (or libertarians) that I know, they no longer drink a lot of the Libertarian Kool-Aid that tricks the mind into thinking that the general population really wants freedom and are now ready to vote for it. The Kool-Aid gets one thinking that 30 or 40 % of the votes will come if you run the right campaign; the reality is 3 or 4 % at best. America is corrupt to the core; the voters want a free lunch. The empire is falling. Ron Paul has done the decent thing by pointing this out, why should he try to put his body in the way of tumbling bricks?
BTW, another little picture of this corruption – McCain has just been endorsed by Islamophobe John Hagee. John Hagee is a Christian Zionist wing nut who sees a Bibical need for genocide of the Palestinians (in his mind, Jesus has a return ticket booked on El Al for Jerusalem and they need to clear the runway of all Arabs before he can land). Do you think Tim Russert will demand that McCain "renounce and reject" Hagee the way Russert demanded that Obama renounce and reject Louis Farrakhan?
Thanks for the heads up on Hagee:
“John C. Hagee (b. April 12, 1940) is the founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, a non-denominational evangelical church with more than 19,000 active members. John Hagee had received millions of dollars in total compensation for his position as CEO at his non-profit corporation, Global Evangelism Television (GETV). He is one of the highest-paid televangelists.
Hagee is the President and CEO of John Hagee Ministries which telecasts his national radio and television ministry carried in America on 160 TV stations, fifty radio stations and eight networks including The Inspiration Network (INSP) and Trinity Broadcasting Network. The ministries can be seen and heard weekly in 99 million homes. John Hagee Ministries is in Canada on the Miracle Channel and CTS and can be seen in Africa, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and is in most third world nations.
He is also the president and CEO of Global Evangelism Television, which telecasts his radio and television ministry. Hagee has received numerous honors and accolades from national Jewish organizations for his unwavering support of Israel. In pursuit of his support of Israel, Hagee helped found Christians United for Israel on February 7, 2006 as a ‘Christian AIPAC’ lobbying Congress to support Israel. He has also been controversial for what many see as bigoted comments and beliefs regarding Catholicism, Homosexuality, women and Islam.”
[Wikipedia s.v.]
“Hagee believes that the Bible commands Christians to support Israel and the Jewish people….
Hagee has said Iran is a threat to Western civilization and that they will never respond favorably to diplomacy. He supports an American-Israeli pre-emptive military strike against Iran to eliminate its alleged nuclear programme. He supports the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States….”
[Wikipedia]
Hmm, “programme”–haven’t not seen that orthography in a bit, even by a Brit.
Some very good thoughts here, in my view. Many here consider Paul’s apparent oddness as his principal political liability. While one certainly would have to agree that oddness does little more for a politician than say, a copier salesman, I do think that Paul’s profound lack of relevance was even more limiting. Someone mentioned the campaign’s focus in Nevada on eliminating the tax on tips. Now here’s a choice that has all the fingerprints – and the arrogance – of Paul’s adolescent staff. What is presupposed, of course, is that Nevada Republicans are incapable of political perceptions that rise above the narrowly personal. While voters are self-interested certainly, they usually prefer to envision their acquisitiveness in the context of something a shade more altruistic: They’re only accepting this tax reduction because it will generate more revenue, you see.
And the question of the Hagee renunciation is just delicious. Sad to say, it will never be raised. Someone like Russert is too careerist to risk exploration of West Bank ethnic cleansing on his program.
I do see a legitimate reason why antiwar republicans might go for McCain. While he’s pro-war, he’s at least anti-torture.
If you dismiss Paul as not having a chance, or if you disagree with him on certain non-war issues where he comes across as nutty according to mainstream standards, then why not go with McCain?
Yeah, I’d very much prefer Paul too, I just want to point out that it’s entirely reasonable for anti-war republicans to go for McCain. If you can’t get anti-war, then anti-torture is at least a step in the right direction.
Looking at it the other way, if you just bomb people you don’t need to torture them…
Bramblyspam,
“While he’s pro-war, he’s at least anti-torture.”
This statement is patently false. Knowing full well that it gave the president authority on his own initiative to step beyond both international and American legal conventions in authorizing torture, in October of 2006, John McCain voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act. McCain’s support for the MCA is probably the most singularly cynical and outrageous act in the recent history of American politics.
No he’s just against being tortured HIMSELF he has no qualms with torturing OTHERS(as were the likely beliefs of those Vietnamese who had him for an extra long stay in their “special” suites at the Hanoi Hilton)
And the better solution would be getting shot as opposed to being tortured?
I have to agree that Ron Paul’s advertising wasn’t very strong. His source of appeal was supposed to be his uniqueness amongst all the other candidates. Instead, a recurring theme of his ads here in Nevada was eliminating taxes on tips. Not that I disagree with getting rid of taxes, but the perception–as erroneous as it is–is that ALL Republicans cut taxes, and that cutting taxes might even be “helping” the rich, while “hurting” the poor.
I would have liked to see Ron Paul emphasize the contrast between himself and the other Republicans, as well as the DEMOCRATS. Although it was a Republican primary, if Ron Paul had ran ads pointing out that he was the ONLY candidate opposed to the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraq war, perhaps he could have picked up antiwar Democrats. He should have exposed that Barack Obama voted for the PATRIOT Act reauthorization in 1996 and has consistently voted in favor war funding.
I can understand Lowell’s disappointment in the Paul campaign. It was very ineffective. I don’t think he ever stood a chance though. He started strong but seemed to lose energy fast. He is 72 for christ sake…I think Lowell is being a bit unfair to him. Goldwater got smoked after winning the primary but he created a stable follwoing of supporters willing to donate time and money. Reagan was given Goldwater’s mailing lists…and that propelled him over Bush. Paul has some avid supporters now but I don’t know if he has anyone to hand the baton too. There has been rumors about Barr and Ron forming some sort of political group. Maybe something good could come out of this…but I won’t hold my breath.
I can’t believe the harsh tone on Dr. Paul from some of you idiots. You guys are ridiculous. So he didn’t hire a bunch of slimy PR people from DC to run his campaign to make it more “effective”. And the guy is in his 70s running around the country when he could be kicking back at home with his family trying to change the country for the better. Obviously he could have made changes in how his campaign was run by you Monday morning QBs are pathetic.
What truly great man and a truly great Libertarian! He can’t be held accountable for his incompetence! His age did it!
Ron Paul assumed that ideas would carry the political campaign. While ideas have dramatically changed history a political campaign requires more than this as an engine. In this respect one could accuse Ron Paul of not necessarily incompetence per se, but rather significant over-optimism.
“While some may talk about whether or not an offense is ‘impeachable,’ that is only so much political rhetoric. The Constitution only specifies that Congress can impeach a president for ‘high crimes’ and ‘misdemeanors,’ but the definitions of those words are left to Congress to determine-anything a sufficient number of Members of Congress find offensive can be cause for impeachment….â€
[Ron Paul September 28, 1998]
Well, er, what are WE waiting for Mr. Paul, and why did you initially oppose Kucinich’s motion to impeach Cheney?
I believe Ron Paul did what he could with the resources he had. It is a sad fact that had he been thirty years younger, photogenic, and possessed of a fine speaking voice a la Obama, Congressman Paul might have done much better than he did. Thanks to the MSM, the American electorate gravitates to people who “look and sound presidential,” whatever that means. Ron Paul looks more like a kindly professor, more cerebral than pretty, and unfortunately that turns a lot of people off.
Maybe Hunter Thompson was right. Perhaps we are a nation of used car salesmen. I would like to believe otherwise, but the fact that Republican voters went for a candidates like McCain and Romney, with their close ties to Bush’s policies, does makes me wonder.
Just as one cannot polish a turd, neither can one realistically expect a politician to enlighten tens of millions of mentally inert voters on complex issues by employing 30 second media sound bites no matter how expertly produced.
We can’t expect a political campaign to succeed where the national education system and the general culture have utterly failed. How many voters know or even care that the numerous undeclared wars since WW2 have all been unconstitutional and that the present wars are a huge drag on the economy? How many voters understand or even care that it is individual freedom, made possible by limited constitutional government and the Bill of Rights, that is responsible for our prosperity, and that unconstitutional activity of all sorts will result in the loss of that freedom which will then result in the loss of the prosperity? How many voters know or even care that the Federal Reserve System and the abandonment of the gold standard are the cause of the destructive business cycle and our declining standard of living? How many 30 second sound bites will it take to effectively communicate such ideas to people who haven’t got a clue?
30 second TV and radio political ads have evolved as tools to tug at people’s emotional strings using vacuous drivel such as “hope and change.” This is how power hungry politicians sway ignorant voters unable to think critically. Such ads are the wrong tool with which to educate. And educate we must in order to roll back the statist tide.
Since 1972, the Libertarian Party has consistently received about 1% of the presidential vote. Running on essentially a libertarian platform, Ron Paul has averaged about 6% of the primary vote. Not bad for a libertarian message. Those who feel betrayed by Ron Paul the politician and who nitpick at his “lackluster” performance don’t comprehend the nature of the task ahead. For there to be a political revolution, there must first be an enlightenment. For there to be an enlightenment there must first be an awakening. The Ron Paul phenomenon is the beginning of the awakening. It served to awaken and energize the future awakeners and educators.
Paul’s Constitutionalism was one of the best things about him. And that in my mind has been severely compromised in relation to his stand on impeachment.
Paul’s ideas of “self-ownership” and his kindergarten economic catechism are also part of the drivel.
Only an Anglophilia of a peculiarly American and archaizing sort is capable of enthroning central naiveties of Locke and Smith on such topics as if they were the last word in presuppositions.
Yes, the Federal Reserve is a fraud, and run incompetently into the bargain–but no, neither Paul nor the Austrians have any understanding of the concept of “money”, and how it vitiates many of their own simplicities.
Yes, most American politicians are economic illiterates–but no, Paul is no savant or philosopher-king, save perhaps to the kindergarten of his “true believers”, as he calls them.
At any rate, this sort of education will go nowhere, and perhaps one should be looking harder at real collapse and disaster as the only effective Schoolmarm.
People in New Orleans did not need to be told they “owned themselves”, by the state that collected their taxes or by anyone.
Slogans and sound-bites are not necessarily bad. It depends on how much they abstract and how they abstract it.
Paul’s “self-ownership” is as empty at bottom as Kennedy’s “new frontier”.
“Just as one cannot polish a turd…”
And just who was it that told you that, Metacynic? You’re just one of those nasty old cretins who’s out there killing off the Revolution while its still in the crib. Let me tell you something, Mr. Turd Polisher: Ron Paul is still in this race, he’s here to stay. And if you don’t think so, I’ve got it on good authority that every member of the Guam delegation bought Ron Paul coffee mugs this morning. We’re taking over, you can feel it.
…Eugene, my take on you is that you’re too used to telling the truth beyond common synthesized perceptions. While this my be seen as noble in and of itself; such directness renders you far too cynical and thereby invalidates you for the persuasive art of partisan Politics…Which is to say: Politics, are Diabolic.
…that’s one of my favorite phrases
Boobus AmericANUS just wants to WIN.
Mr. Costa,
I suspect that anything I write to you will only incite you to further attacks on the character and intellect of others. Perhaps I will be first in line. I am so deeply impressed by your ability to dismantle Austrian economics and Lockeanism and the rest by labelling them kindergatenish. If you have real arguments why not spend time giving them to us rather than rehashing the same insults? If we are too kindergartenish to understand you, then why preach to us. Actually, I suspoect that you simply have a huge ego inflated with power words. If not please direct me to a place where I can find your great wisdom in print.
Let me guess, you want me to do it for free?
That is hardly in a Randian or Capitalistic spirit, I daresay.
Incidentally, Locke is easy to demolish and has been done again and again, and you don’t need me to do it for you.
Getting out of kindergarten suffices, and a little hard reading, but that is your choice.
I am so happy you are content to own your very own self. Do you own your very own life too? Does your body own your very own body too?
Or is this at best, merely figure of speech and perhaps a legal fiction?
I do not preach. Nor do I argue. I have no problem whatever in traipsing across any minefield where the only penalty is deflated ego.
See you on the other side when you grow up, including seeing beyond words and their various surfaces.
I agree with every word in Jim Bovard’s report above. Thanks.
I don’t see the point in saying that Ron Paul failed to do this or do that, when the only people that know who really won the primaries are Diebold. Until these machines are destroyed and replaced by a viable and verifiable system the process is a joke and a scam.
There again Kucinich is key. He has again again argued that a paper trail is necessary.
He demanded a recount in New Hampshire not in the interest of his own candidacy, or, as many accused him doing, as a straw man for Obama, but because an accurate vote count is part of his program.
“…an accurate vote count is part of his program?” If that’s the case, then it’s my considered opinion that Chicken Kucinich is in the wrong business.
You may well be right.
If so, matters will be resolved, after Twain, in a higher court, shortly enough.
The fact is that most Americans are lazy in the head, would rather learn about the latest football stats than ongoing wars and have little principle in their core values.
You can’t blame Dr. Paul for his message not sticking with people who the Founders would have been disgusted with.
I have enough respect for some of Paul’s actions in the past not to accuse him of doing it consciously, but by any objective criterion he is sending mixed messages.
Again, he may not be doing it consciously, but he is also promulgating some of the most pernicious doublebinds of his sub-culture.
As for his son, and some of the people around him, they remind me a bit of Billy Graham’s progeny, “He-who-buries-parents-in barn.”
That his parents likely deserve the testament has nothing to do with the son’s own empty smarminess.
Paul doesn’t have a sub-culture you say? Or he has separated that from his messages?
Have it your way.
Eugene Costa,
Kindergarden economics? You clearly must be a communist.
As the great Mogombo Guru said…
“There is no known example, in the history of the world, where a fiat currency was debased in a wild fractional-reserve multiplication by the greedy banks that did NOT end badly. And 100% of the time is as close as you can get to ‘guaranteed’.”
Whatever you say.
A small problem–I don’t accept Hegel. But that shouldn’t bother first graders.
Instead of trying to define what a fiat currency is, try defining what it isn’t.
Get back to you on the other side of the minefield.
Ron Paul DID NOT WANT TO WIN.
It’s pretty obvious.
Hey, antiwar.com, check it out:
Adm. Fallon ain’t that against war with Iran.
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1448/135/
Eugene Costa,
The maturity level of your posts are the “kindergarden” level. If you can actually post some argument with substance instead of all the immature insults, I would be surprised.
Whatever you say.
The thing that essentially neutered Ron Paul’s campaign was his decision early on not to give up his old congressional seat. His decision to seek relection made him wary of coming out too strongly on many issues, especially about the Mideast, because this opinions might harm him in his own House district. As time passed he started to increasingly pull his punches, especially when it came to Israel. I was actually waiting someone to ask him about Mearsheimer/Walt and then have him attempt to nervously plead total ignorance and bewilderment about the the contentions of these two authors.
Once he decided to seek relection any questions about how the Israel Lobby got us in the Iraq war place became off limits. He quickly decided he didn’t want that nest of hornets stirred up.
This decision to seek relection still mystifies me. He must have known that he was burning his bridges behind him when he made more better known his call for a cut off of all aid to Israel. This is after all the most extreme thing you can do in American politics.
Suddenly however he must have decided it might be possible could crawl back up those old bridges if he only exhibited a bit more moderation.
I put this decision to seek relection to be the result of an attack terminal incumbent-itus. He is after all a career politician. Once he realized that he had no chance of becoming president he decided deep down that he really liked being a Congressman. Despite all his speeches, he seems to have completely forgotten about the corrupting power of career incumbency and the incurable rottenness at the core of the Republican Party and that there was nothing really left there worth saving.
Whatever ostracism he felt before will only be increased if he wins his reelection campaign. This is because he is now openly contaminated with the lingering and potentially terminal virus of anti-Israelism. The leadership will go out of its way to prevent the spread of this disease. Where he was gnored before, he will now be openly shunned. He will become Washington’s version of Mel Gibson,a non person.
The funny thing is that he could have avoided this fate if he had decided to walk away from the corruption of the Republican Party. He could have then be totally free to voice his real opinions on a national stage. Instead he has chosen to assume the yoke (and inevitable lack of independence) that come with Party membership.
Consider all the funds and votes Paul accumulated from anti-war independents and cross-over Democrats.
By suspending his campaign he also took the air out of the sails of part of the anti-war movement, and depleted the contribution pool.
By refusing to countenance a Third Party bid he validates the Republican Party warmongers as salvageable.
All this must make Rove and the Neo-Cons very happy.
Has anyone looked closely at the contributor list on some of Paul’s big fund-raising days?
I would not be surprised to find a few Neo-Con individuals or outfits among them in disguise.
Then too, perhaps his son Rand is interested in inheriting both the “true believers” and his father’s Congressional seat, who knows?
About the only way Paul can resurrect what I admired in his older persona is to come out strongly for impeaching Cheney now.
What strikes me psychologically is how offended some of Paul’s” true believers” are at the idea that he too, and they, should be held accountable for false advertising and/or incompetence.
I don’t know who wrote the widely publicized passages in Paul’s Newsletters, nor do I much care.
Hypocrisy comes in many subtly graded forms, however, and the “accountable” are always other people, eh?
Among some of Paul’s “Christian” following, I detect a hint of an interesting if hidden economic image, for example–a zero sum game moderated by “charity”, which “charity”, however, structurally reinforces the zero-sum game.
This is old hat–like the Christian missions where they feed the starving only after forcing them to listen to the God-awful sermons.
The sermonizers thereby apparently persuade themselves they have something worthwhile to say.
What is Paul’s position on Bush’s faith-based initiatives, by the way, which I, after Madison, consider unconsitutional?
The really insulting part of some of Paul’s kindergarten sermons about “self-ownership”, is that it is almost always phrased in the second person, “YOU are self-owned”, etc.
I have less of a problem, with the Kindergarteners and First Graders declaring, “I am self-owned”.
Hey, it’s your business, including the hairy palms.
On with the mission–oh, pardon, I mean “the rEvolution”.
Are they giving away free tote bags yet?