Pragmatic Paul

[Annie]

http://instapundit.com/archives2/011582.php

November 12, 2007

RON PAUL: TRIMMING HIS SAILS? Well, more like trimming the tree, as he's not really changing his message, just, um, decorating it. But driving home this afternoon I heard a Ron Paul radio commercial on XM and he's downplaying the war issue, which was his big schtick not long ago. Now it came third, after "amnesty" on immigration and uncontrolled federal spending. And the commercial never used the words "Iraq" or "war" -- it was all about opposing "nation-building" in foreign countries.

Apparently the Paul campaign shares my view that the improving situation in Iraq can be turned into a plus for Paul's candidacy, not a minus, if the issues are pitched right.

Meanwhile, note this sensible antiwar take from AlterNet, which notes that it's hard to be against a war that seems to be drawing to a successful close:

All in all, violence in Iraq has dropped precipitously since late summer. With Al Qaeda declared dead, former Sunni resistance fighters wearing American-supplied uniforms, and the Mahdi Army lying low, killings in Iraq are way down. The security situation in Iraq is far better than it's been at any time since 2005. Many American antiwar critics, who are invested in the notion that no good news can come out of Iraq and who (secretly or openly) revel in the Bush administration's Iraqi failures, are reluctant to admit that things are getting better.

Perhaps they worry that, if the situation in Iraq improves, the prospect of Democratic gains at the polls next November will diminish. Perhaps they've convinced themselves that Iraq's ethnic and sectarian divide is so enormous that partition is the only solution, and that Iraq doesn't deserve to be a country anyway. Perhaps their distaste for President Bush (which I share) is so all-consuming that they fear any improvement in the situation will be credited to the President -- something they can't tolerate.​

If so, that's perverse. The fact is: There is a critical window of opportunity opening for the United States to withdraw and for Iraq to hold itself together and rebuild. To the extent that things are getting better, that's good news.​

Yeah, it is. Nice that people are noticing. But it's also, paradoxically, bad news for the Republicans in that those who have held their nose and stuck with the GOP because of the war are likely to feel freer to vote for people they agree with on other issues. And while it's true that Iraq is not the war on terror, it's also likely that the post-2009 phase of the war on terror will involve less outright war and more spying, backstabbing, subtle undermining, bribery, extortion and cooptation. Hmm. What candidate might be good at that sort of thing?
posted at 08:01 PM by Glenn Reynolds

 

[eots]

uh huh....ok

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

And while it's true that Iraq is not the war on terror, it's also likely that the post-2009 phase of the war on terror will involve less outright war and more spying, backstabbing, subtle undermining, bribery, extortion and cooptation. Hmm. What candidate might be good at that sort of thing?

Err wait, maybe I'm not reading this right, he isn't seriously saying that RP is or will be engaging in those things, is he?

 

[eots]

Err wait, maybe I'm not reading this right, he isn't seriously saying that RP is or will be engaging in those things, is he?

no she is heavily and cowardly implying them

 

[DiogenesDog]

Is this a coincidence or what. RPs, third party charmers with pungent witicims and great visuals. There are comments floating about that RP is the corporate hedge for further cutting into the anybody-but-a-Democrat swings and independents. His success will be relfected in a third party, Ralph Naderesque, bituminous-anthopomorphic-infant draw for the slack jawed.

I chortle in pleasure at the circumstances.

I AM

 

[eots]

Is this a coincidence or what. RPs, third party charmers with pungent witicims and great visuals. There are comments floating about that RP is the corporate hedge for further cutting into the anybody-but-a-Democrat swings and independents. His success will be relfected in a third party, Ralph Naderesque, bituminous-anthopomorphic-infant draw for the slack jawed.

I chortle in pleasure at the circumstances.

I AM

I thought it was America were any boy could grow up to be president ,but your probable right....it seems the bilderbergs and the cfr have selected Hillary to be elected

 

[Annie]

Err wait, maybe I'm not reading this right, he isn't seriously saying that RP is or will be engaging in those things, is he?

I don't think he's talking about Ron Paul.

 

[eots]

Ron Paul's "Fringe Views" Are Supported By The Majority of Americans
Latest smear attempt from whiny academic riddled with errors and lies

Prison Planet | November 14, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

The ad hominem slur with which political science major Stuart Baimel entitles his recent Stanford Daily hit piece, Ron Paul is insane , and the cacophony of errors which subsequently dominate the essay, just goes to show how much academia is rigged towards grooming compliant plebs for the establishment and not really about educating anyone.

"After reading about Ron Paul's record-breaking fundraising day a couple of weeks ago, then seeing it touted in a recent Daily op-ed, I was concerned. Paul and his views lie on the fringe; it's never a good sign for social stability when fringe candidates get so much support," whines Baimel.

Ron Paul's views lie on the fringe ? Absolute bullshit. It seems that Baimel has unfortunately thrown thousands of dollars at a political science degree in vain - and I - the University dropout - am going to have to give him a proper education.

Ron Paul's central "fringe view" as Baimel would have it, is his anti-war stance. The Texas Congressman is the only Republican candidate to advocate an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, indeed, he is the only truly anti-war candidate of the frontrunners from either party.

Is being anti-war a fringe view in late 2007? Let's take a look at the polls .

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll

"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing in handling the situation in Iraq?"

Disapprove - 68%
Approve - 28%
Not Sure - 5%

"When it comes to the war in Iraq, which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view? The most responsible thing we can do is find a way to withdraw most of our troops from Iraq by the beginning of 2009. The most responsible thing we can do is to remain in Iraq until the situation in the country is stable."

Withdraw most troops by 2009 - 55%
Remain until country stable - 40%
Unsure - 5%

ABC News/Washington Post Poll Nov. 1-5, 2007

"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"

Not worth it - 63%
Worth it - 35%
Unsure - 2%

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International Oct. 17-23, 2007

"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"

Bring home as soon as possible - 54%
Keep in Iraq until stabilized - 42%
Unsure - 4%

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 12-14

"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"

Oppose - 64%
Favor - 34%
Unsure - 2%

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007

"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; OR, do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"

Withdraw forces - 54%
Keep forces - 43%
Unsure - 3%

Ron Paul is the only frontrunner from either party that has advocated an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Is this a fringe view? No - it's the majority view in America today, as every single poll attests to, yet Baimel's major in political science seemingly doesn't teach him how to do a Google search.

The rest of Baimel's piece is riddled with gross inaccuracies. He attacks Kucinich for supporting the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, another "fringe" sentiment according to Baimel.

Wrong again.

A new poll out today from American Research Group finds that 55% of voters believe that George W. Bush has abused his powers in a way that rises to the level of impeachable offenses. 52% of voters believe that the same is true of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Last time I checked, 55% was a majority , not a fringe viewpoint.

Another one vote per IP MSNBC online poll shows 89% support impeachment.

Baimel smirks that Ron Paul is "Content to let genocide, wars of aggression, and human rights violations occur abroad with nothing more than a “moral statement” from the U.S.," intimating that the Neo-Con's butchering of Iraq, which has killed conservatively 655,000 Iraqis since the 2003 invasion and a further 1 million at least as a result of bombings and sanctions since 1990, was somehow a benevolent cause.

Does over 1.5 million dead Iraqis, around half of them children, as a result of U.S. foreign policy qualify as genocide, Mr. Baimel?

Presumably, Baimel entitled his piece "Ron Paul is insane" in an attempt to get a reaction - knowing that the statement itself is manifestly incorrect and is merely an inflammatory gimmick to attract attention and make himself feel important. Well mission accomplished, Stuart, because you're going to be on the receiving end of a fair few opinions over the next few days.

Feel free to politely e mail Baimel with the truth about Ron Paul's "fringe" views, and maybe it won't be too late to give Stuart a real education after all.

 

[Annie]

LOL! Blogs don't count, Paulatics said so! In any case, interesting that the link goes to an Alex Jones' site.

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/9/1/why_is_ron_pauls_campaign_paying_alex_jones/

Why Is Ron Paul's Campaign Paying Alex Jones? UPDATE: A 'Partial Refund'?

The question of what Ron Paul represents has burned through the blogosphere this week, followed shortly afterwards by a revelation about an apparently unsolicited donation from a white supremacist. Today brings a much more revealing look at the Paul campaign, as Hot Air and MVRWC have discovered a payment from Team Paul to Alex Jones -- the 9/11 Truther leader -- for $1300 in "services". Allahpundit notes:

Assuming it’s the same Alex Jones, which seems a safe bet, pray tell what might that payment have been for? The likeliest explanation is that it’s some sort of service fee, either Jones doing something on behalf of the campaign or allowing the campaign to do something using his property. Either way, I’m mighty curious to know what special service might have been provided such that Paul’s people couldn’t have gone elsewhere and gotten the same deal from someone who isn’t a degenerate conspiracy theorist.

This goes much closer to the heart of Paul's direction. While anyone can contribute to a political campaign, the choice of where the money goes is directly and completely relevant to an analysis of the candidate. If Paul chooses to help fund a 9/11 Truther, voters can reasonably conclude that Paul has sympathy for the paranoid conspiracy theorists.

The Paul campaign really has to explain their support of Alex Jones, more so than they need to explain the David Black contribution. So far, they haven't explained either one.

UPDATE: Paul's campaign says it's a refund of a campaign contribution. However, Jones donated $2,300, and the payment is for $1,300. Why only refund a portion of the contribution? Why would a candidate send back money except to distance one's self from a contributor, and why would a partial refund do that? That makes even less sense than some of Jones' conspiracy mongering -- and Paul continues to appear on Jones' radio show, as David Freddoso notes.

Posted by Ed Morrissey on October 27, 2007 12:39 PM

 

[eots]

LOL! Blogs don't count, Paulatics said so! In any case, interesting that the link goes to an Alex Jones' site.

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/9/1/why_is_ron_pauls_campaign_paying_alex_jones/

there was a retraction printed on this after all the documents where posted on Alex's site....think about it your accusations are about 1300 dollars and 500 dollars and your talking about a man that can raise 4.2 million dollars in a DAY

YET SOME HOW this is forgotten..it amazes me how the mind of a denier works

YouTube - sept 10 2001 missing trillions better quality
9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon ...
2 min 53 sec -
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSCm3N5E7iU[/ame]

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Is this a coincidence or what. RPs, third party charmers with pungent witicims and great visuals. There are comments floating about that RP is the corporate hedge for further cutting into the anybody-but-a-Democrat swings and independents. His success will be relfected in a third party, Ralph Naderesque, bituminous-anthopomorphic-infant draw for the slack jawed.

I chortle in pleasure at the circumstances.

I AM

Lobbyists in Washington don't even bother visiting Ron Paul, because he doesn't take handouts from them. He's called "Dr. No" for a reason. Plus, I seem to remember him ruling out a 3rd party run. There would be no point in him running to split the republican vote anyhow--Hillary is not a dove, and will almost certainly not bring our troops home. Any "comments" you may have heard are either neocons, or the authoritarian subspecies of liberal, engaging in daydreaming on someone's blog.

 

[DiogenesDog]

I don't think he's talking about Ron Paul.

I am putting Ron Paul in a Ross Perot ticket splitter role.

I AM

 

[DiogenesDog]

Lobbyists in Washington don't even bot her visiting Ron Paul, because he doesn't take handouts from them. He's called "Dr. No" for a reason. Plus, I seem to remember him ruling out a 3rd party run. There would be no point in him running to split the republican vote anyhow--Hillary is not a dove, and will almost certainly not bring our troops home. Any "comments" you may have heard are either neocons, or the authoritarian subspecies of liberal, engaging in daydreaming on someone's blog.

This mess with a worn down infantry and other combat arms being held in place by a flummoxed Connecticut "hillbilly" will be addressed in the first thirty days of a Clinton Redux administration.

The W_administration has not been effective in managing military needs in humane and efficient ways. W has been scrambling here lately to reframe his piss poor performance but what is done is done.

An aside - I really don't understand your position. Being a dove does not necessarily mean that one is anti military. W has done little for the military other than be selectively available for photo ops and dismissing astute leadership. He is the contra-Lincoln. He has gone out of his way to find ineffective military leaders and has a particular preference for those of the Soviet Kommissar type.

Paul is the Republican "Nader". He is a egoist spoiler. There is a lot of internal politicking to be done in these months before the conventions this summer. My field of study, my BA and a good part of my life experience is in organizational and electoral politics. I have done fieldwork in remote places in those areas, organizational and elective politics. I am a bit of a geek about those things. I have run two congressional campaigns. I have had no wins but the experience was a masters project. I am taking leave of those ventures except to speak my mind and sell equipment and supplies to both sides in state and local organizations.

I believe that the careers of Clinton,Dodd, Biden, and Richardson will be capped by this next eight years and Obama will be propelled into the follow on years. The Republican candidates will continue in their incumbencies and careers and will go on the "Ain't it awful" rubber chicken circuit. I have read the history and plotted the rise and fall of Presidents and contenders. The cycle continues.

Ron Paul will in the end be a spoiler.

I AM

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The point about Hillary is that she's not going to be terribly different in her mideast policy than GWB. She's criticized the administration for being too soft on Iran, for chrissakes. Don't take my word for it, read about it on antiwar.com or counterpunch.org. Wasn't it Edwards that basically called her a neocon in the last debate?

And Ron Paul is a man of his word, if nothing else. You may or may not like his words, but he sticks to them. He's said that he's not going to be a 3rd party candidate, on the Colbert Report I believe. He's already done the 3rd party candidate thing, and the odds are insurmountable.

 

[jillian]

The point about Hillary is that she's not going to be terribly different in her mideast policy than GWB. She's criticized the administration for being too soft on Iran, for chrissakes. Don't take my word for it, read about it on antiwar.com or counterpunch.org. Wasn't it Edwards that basically called her a neocon in the last debate?

And Ron Paul is a man of his word, if nothing else. You may or may not like his words, but he sticks to them. He's said that he's not going to be a 3rd party candidate, on the Colbert Report I believe. He's already done the 3rd party candidate thing, and the odds are insurmountable.

None of them are people of their word when it comes to getting and keeping power. Ultimately, it's too seductive.

 

[Annie]

The point about Hillary is that she's not going to be terribly different in her mideast policy than GWB. She's criticized the administration for being too soft on Iran, for chrissakes. Don't take my word for it, read about it on antiwar.com or counterpunch.org. Wasn't it Edwards that basically called her a neocon in the last debate?

And Ron Paul is a man of his word, if nothing else. You may or may not like his words, but he sticks to them. He's said that he's not going to be a 3rd party candidate, on the Colbert Report I believe. He's already done the 3rd party candidate thing, and the odds are insurmountable.

Yeah, I'm not keen on luddites or anti-semites. I agree with you, I believe he will not start a 3rd party candidacy.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Ron Paul is an anti-semite?

 

[William Joyce]

None of them are people of their word when it comes to getting and keeping power. Ultimately, it's too seductive.

I am inclined to agree, but some part of me wants to believe that Dr. Paul is an exception here. I accept that this could be naivete.

I always read with fascination how some of the founders, like Jefferson and Adams (I think), actually said at some point, Well, I've served. And now it's time to repair to my estate and let others take care of it.

Hard to imagine today's professional politicians thinking that.

 

[Annie]

I am inclined to agree, but some part of me wants to believe that Dr. Paul is an exception here. I accept that this could be naivete.

I always read with fascination how some of the founders, like Jefferson and Adams (I think), actually said at some point, Well, I've served. And now it's time to repair to my estate and let others take care of it.

Hard to imagine today's professional politicians thinking that.

I'd guess there would be much about his positions you'd be comfortable with.

 

[Paulie]

None of them are people of their word when it comes to getting and keeping power. Ultimately, it's too seductive.

If that's how you truely feel, then why would you ever vote? The lesser of 2 evils is still evil.