I dunno, as a non-American I (and a lot of others) are finding it harder and harder not to believe in conspiracy theories. Fact: a book called "Currency Wars", that targets the Bilderberg Group, the Washington Consensus the Council of Foreign Relations, is now a bestseller in CHINA...

yes David's reality is very funny.. He writes..

"The real problem with the success of Paul's candidacy is not only that it helps to legitimize and mainstream his extremist beliefs, but that it also dramatically empowers the very extremist elements that Greenwald dismisses as an insignificant faction of his support..."

David seems worried that Ron Paul "might" legitimize far right views cause he "associated" with some groups considered to be racist or extreme right.

meanwhile, David conveniently forget to mention the current reality of extreme, immoral and unconstitutional views that "have been put in practice" by Bush and his cronies which have not only been legitimized by the support of the dems but also legalized with their help.

I guess David is right, Ron Paul is a loony to suggest that preemptive war is morally wrong and wasting the taxpayer's money is a crime cause Ron hangs with crazy whiteys.

However, when David's Pals Hillary and Guliani espouse pre-emptive nuclear war and hang out with Israel first extremist who propose ethnic cleansing of certain arabic groups.. well it's just dandy by him

well thanks for setting me straight on that..

sam

What Sam said.

IDK abt ron paul. on the one hand he's really really really off the far-right end. on the other hand, he's the only one consistently calling out the Bush administration. However, my support(which means nothing as i am not a citizen) is with DK, who is the only one trying to actually impeach someone.

Seriously, Sam? Seriously, abb1? Since when has "Better than Bush" been an acceptable answer here?

Talk about the fuckin' baby with the bathwater. To end pre-emptive war we have to get rid of the right to choose? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? public schools? Pell grants? unemployment? food stamps?

Jesus Christ. It's not an issue of what groups Paul's "associated" with. It's an issue of what groups are trying to put him in office, which means which groups he will be beholden to.

Seriously?

Yes - what Sam said. I hate the Minutemen as much as the next guy, but they haven't killed a million Iraqis, have they? Or threatened to attack civilians with nuclear weapons?

I won't accept a double-standard that claims that freelance extremism is somehow a greater threat than government extremism, when the government obviously has all the best weapons. This is the same double standard that refuses to call a bomber a terrorist simply because his bombs are dropped from an airplane and have the American flag painted on the side.

We all know the Huey Long quote: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the American flag", but maybe there's a corollary: "When a genuine anti-imperialist foreign policy comes to America, it will be wrapped in the Constitution and be carried by a Republican."

Why, yes, I suppose to end imperial wars you, perhaps, might have to lose the federal right to choose and other nice federal things. Just too much power in Washington, if you ask me. It can be good, yes, but when it's bad it really does stink.

To end pre-emptive war we have to get rid of the right to choose? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? public schools? Pell grants? unemployment? food stamps?

OK, I understand "right to choose", since President Paul (!) will certainly get a chance to appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices (although he could be thwarted if Congress could ever grow a spine), but Social Security? Really?

Didn't Bush try to screw with Social Security? Didn't get far with that, did he? Same applies to just about everything else on your list. You're operating from some cartoon view of the President, in which he can simply order the abolition of all Public Schools, and Medicage besides, and it happens.

If the Democrats don't completely fuck things up (admittedly a distinct possibility) then whatever President we get will be working with large Democratic majorities in Congress. Try to factor that in, please.

Ok i'll give it a serious go.. I grew up in the DC area. I am a first generation (non-white) immigrant, I became a citizen back in the early 80's when Regan was destroying South america.

My family has experienced welfare and food stamps. I have experienced unemployment quite a few times. My friends and family work in the government machine (some do very well that work in the "defense sector") so believe me I know how the government treats the lower end of the economic spectrum as well as the ones who know how get with the program.

Do you know how much of the taxes that I (or you) pay into the system actually go to help my (your) fellow down and out compatriots.. not much from my experience. As I remember when I was on unemployment I got not even enough to cover my rent and this benefit lasted only six months..

Basically the current american government is taking my (your) money without giving you back anything of worth..

Ask yourself .. do you seriously believe that Soc Sec will be enough for you to retire on considering that every year you and your employer pay 14 percent of your salary together for your retirement?

I currently live in Switzerland where I pay lower taxes than in the US have cheaper health coverage, with the same quality (insurance is not provided by the government but it is privately purchased by everyone) and If I do go on unemployment I will get 80% of my salary for up to 2 years if needed.

and you know why this is possible?? cause here they do not waste money on a police state nor a massive military for controlling the planet while throwing a few crumbs to such programs as medicare, medicade, food stamps etc. Instead they practice transparency in government and provide for people who are down and out instead of locking them up

Yes Ron my get rid of welfare.. but he will also get rid of corporate welfare as well and he will stop the killing.. which is worth more than all the welfare, education and medicare services that we get currently

Seriously!

My reading of Neiwert is that the street thugs are a necessary even sufficient condition for fascism, and once the Brownshirts are empowered it is very hard to go back. Joe McCarthy was discredited, Nixon was impeached, the Bush years will pass and be to some degree reversed. No tyrant rules without street support, and Neiwert is correct to watch & worry about the streets.

The social conservatism of Ron Paul is a very dangerous anomaly for a supposed libertarian. Yeah, looks too much like a kind of fascism to me.

Didn't Bush try to screw with Social Security? Didn't get far with that, did he?

Hm. I didn't vote for Bush either.

in Niewert's comment thread Sam admits that he has not read very much of David's blog and therefore is unaware of many of his positions on other candidates hence Sam's comments are somewhat limited in scope

Didn't Bush try to screw with Social Security? Didn't get far with that, did he?

Hm. I didn't vote for Bush either.

I wasn't presenting some kind of Paul vs. Bush "lesser of two evils" argument, I was arguing against the idea that we, the people, will be simply powerless before the big, scary Libertarian President Paul.

There's an idea, very useful to those in power, that the only power we have is the vote. Once every two years, we get to exercise our magical power of the vote, and the rest of the time we're basically just spectators. That's the "thinking" I see behind the "Ron Paul will abolish our public schools!" silliness.

People like public schools, and they like medicare, and lots of other government benefits besides. To think that any President can simply take these things away is a fantasy. On the other hand, most Americans don't like spending their taxes on nearly a thousand military bases around the world. So the bad stuff Paul wants to do he can't do, but maybe some of the good stuff he wants to do he could do (maybe).

1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT.

and you know why this is possible?? cause here they do not waste money on a police state nor a massive military for controlling the planet while throwing a few crumbs to such programs as medicare, medicade, food stamps etc. Instead they practice transparency in government and provide for people who are down and out instead of locking them up.

Those f*cking Swiss!!!

They're making us look bad, and apparently without too much effort. They just made my short list.

From Neiwert's article -- Mention his extremist background and the flying monkeys descend en masse.

I saw Justin Raimondo descend on Kevin Drum a coupla days ago. A critical Ron post drew about 300 comments, many irate, within a few hrs.

Really, who can be surprised with the Ron Paul juggernaut? Were the right wing libertarians going to jump ship over to the democrat ranks? No, I think the chasm is too great.

Here's what annoys me. That some bumblef*ck (oh I don't know -- maybe Bloomberg/Paul) is going to do the 3rd party thing and break Rudy's back, ensuring HRC the coronation. And that's gonna suck big because, dammit -- this country NEEDS a four year Rudy term. Not in eight years, but NOW.

Hm. I didn't vote for Bush either.

Hm. I did. At least the first time. For reasons too insane, yet perfectly sane compared to my fellow 50% of Americans, to get into.

Liberals really are being stupid about this.

[steveb]

People like public schools, and they like medicare, and lots of other government benefits besides. To think that any President can simply take these things away is a fantasy.

ho ho. so if i bankrupt a system, forcing it to shut down in five or ten years, i haven't taken it away?

[ted]

dammit -- this country NEEDS a four year Rudy term.

mmm. i think you're giving the therapeutic gains of bush-cheney too much credit. can you guarantee short-term and long-term benefits from another round of therapy?

Waiting, waiting ,waiting, waiting, waiting for SOMEONE to hand US The Constitution back. (on a silver platter, too)
LETS JUST TAKE IT. 1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT

Yeah, Switzerland is OK, but I don't think the health coverage is much cheaper or taxes are much lower (if at all).

What's interesting, though, is that cantonal tax constitutes a much higher portion of their total tax bill than the federal tax; most of their tax money is collected and spent in the canton.

Ah, the good old "the worse the better" idea. There's something to it, I agree.

ho ho. so if i bankrupt a system, forcing it to shut down in five or ten years, i haven't taken it away?

Well, as I'm sure you know, the systematic disinvestment in public education has been going on roughly since the Nixon administration. Any reason to think it would accelerate under President Ron Paul, who likely would have to get his education cuts past a Democratic-majority Congress?

Step back just a second and look at the big picture: the U.S. spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and has roughly a thousand foreign bases (I read somewhere recently that 97% of the foreign military bases in the world are ours). Now, is this fact connected in some way to the fact that public schools are inadequately funded? I think it is.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the level of funding for education, health care and other social services is much more dependent on the amount of our national resources that we choose to squander on the military than it is on the policy wishes of any particular President.

The attacks on Ron Paul by these "serious" establishment Democrats (see: Kevin Drum -- the same "serious" thinker who thought the Iraq war sounded like a great idea) are getting increasingly tiresome. The current meme seems to be that a President Paul would usher in some sort of Hobbesian hell, wherein your grandmother would apparently be turned out on the street, forced to turn tricks in order to pay for her blood-pressure medication.

Paul has said -- repeatedly -- that if elected he would not seek to cut social programs, but would instead cut the obscenely bloated military budget. (Self-promotion disclaimer): I asked Paul earlier this year about his relationship with Dennis Kucinich (who, for what it's worth, calls Paul "a great American who more often than not is right") and his response pretty much dispels this myth:

"We’re close friends, and we certainly agree [on the war]. And I think we may end up voting closely all the time on the war issue. Sometimes some of these funding bills are a little bit complex, and even Walter Jones and I will disagree even though we agree on what we’re supposed to be doing, but the interpretation will be a little bit different. But I think Dennis and I usually come down on the same side of it. That is, if you don’t want the war you quit the funding, and that’s our responsibility and it’s not the president’s authority to do what he wants because we have the purse strings, so you have to vote against the spending. So we get along very well on that, and since it’s such a major issue I think I will continue to work with him the best we can. And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I’m not hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these programs. Because I’m not out to gut some of these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean, that’s not my goal. I’ve never run for office with the goal of slashing [those programs] even though philosophically I don’t think it’s the best way to deliver services and prosperity to poor people."

And finally -- trying to tie Ron Paul to David Duke as Neiwart does is the same tired, ad hominem b.s. used by the pro-war Malkin brigades. Every candidate running has unsavory supporters, and I don't think Ron Paul raised $4.3 million the other day because of the support of a few inbred racists. Obama invited a vehemently anti-gay (and self-professed "cured" homosexual) gospel singer to campaign for him -- no one, not even the bigots/idiots at Hot Air would claim Paul has done anything like that. If we're going to apply these sleazy guilt-by-association smears evenly, then I guess the entire antiwar movement is now discredited. After all, David Duke happens to have a "Support our troops.. bring 'em home" banner on his site.

On the most important issues of the day, which a president would actually have the power to do something about -- ending the war on drugs, dismantling the American empire, ending the use of secret prisons and torture -- a Paul administration would be much more progressive than any candidate but Kucinich.

"ending the war on drugs, dismantling the American empire, ending the use of secret prisons and torture -- a Paul administration would be much more progressive than any candidate but Kucinich. "

It won't happen, so I needn't worry about it, but I have wondered what I'd do in the voting booth if it was HRC vs. Ron Paul. I don't agree with Paul about much and think he's crazy on most issues--except that little tiny bit about American imperialism, torture, pre-emptive wars etc...

HRC is a lot closer to Bush on those issues.

@steveb: Any reason to think [education divestment] would accelerate under President Ron Paul...?

no, i'm sure continuing to load municipalities and states with debt at today's pace would suffice.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the level of funding for education, health care and other social services is much more dependent on the amount of our national resources that we choose to squander on the military than it is on the policy wishes of any particular President.

hmm. i think if it were private schools that were union run instead of public, public schools would be getting $100,000 per kid. it's really, really not about the money. e-ven for the dem-o-crats.

@ted: Since Rudy is plum loco, I'm hoping that they'd jump in the other direction, and waaay beyond where the Dems think the center is.

i had a guy tell me that about bush. then bush killed a million people. taught everyone a valuable lesson. best class i ever took.

yes, bill clinton killed a million people. but it wasn't a war he started. i'm not apologizing for anybody, but if i were choosing from outside the US, i'd choose a democrat this time, i think. fewer apocalyptic cult ties.

paul, via charlie: I’m not hostile toward [some of the liberal welfare spending]. If ... [if] ... [if] ... [then] I may well be very open to funding some of these programs.

some. may very well be. hey, charlie, your hyperlink for the quote is as broken as this "promise" would be after the dust settled.

Not really seeing the issue here. Ron Paul sucks the way that all nutty hardcore free marketers suck -- it's like if Jude Wanniski was still alive and running for president -- but who gives a shit because it's not like he's going to be president. I mean, yeah, it's interesting that he's raising so much money, but the only way he's going to influence the election is if he runs as an independent or for a 3rd party in 2008, splits the right, and hands the Democrats a landslide.

oops, sorry. paul's "may well be very" and my misread "may very well be" may well very be different. however the number and nature of the if's is too big to ignore. so i don't get why non-wingnut people are supporting him instead of gravel, outside of tactics.

My html skills leave much to be desired... link to interview referenced above: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/davis4.html

i don't get why non-wingnut people are supporting him instead of gravel, outside of tactics.

He's got a real populist movement backing him, he's quite charismatic, he's feisty, his supporters have a lot of fight in them and he's the only coherent conservative in the field. Gravel has been effectively consigned to Kucinich territory already, by the moderate and reasonable, prim puckered sphincter people, and has no brawlers supporting him.

absent or neglected universal kid benefits = hereditary rule

Ron Paul sucks the way that all nutty hardcore free marketers suck...

Nah, not the same way, I don't think so. A typical nutty hardcore free marketer is pretty much a corporate whore; Paul sounds like a sincere anarcho-capitalist type. Which, I suppose, might make him even more dangerous - I don't know - but he certainly doesn't suck in the same way as, say, Grover Norquist.

i don't get why non-wingnut people are supporting him instead of gravel, outside of tactics.

Let's give "tactics" their due. Here's a tactic for ya: major corporations realize that they're not going to get NAFTA and a bunch of other good stuff through a Democratic Congress if these things are being pushed by a Republican President. So they throw a bunch of money into the DLC, help get Bill Clinton elected, and get their wish list enacted into law.

Think of it as the "Nixon went to China" effect. If you want to fuck over the labor unions (and, from your previous note, it sounds like you do) then you get a Dem to do it, in the name of helping the poor of Mexico. If you want to dismantle the U.S. empire, you get a Republican to do it, in the name of limited government and lower taxes.

Ted; The Constitution is changeable. (they got WHISKEY made illegal and then back to legal, if that ain't flip flop changing, then there's no such a thing)
THE CONSTITUTION IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN A PEOPLE AND IT'S GOVERNMENT. (with guarantees)(like ANY contract YOU MUST DEFEND your own interests)(no contract, no guarantees)

So they throw a bunch of money into the DLC ... and get their wish list enacted into law....

... and get a major third-party candidate to run as spoiler ...

If you want to fuck over the labor unions (and, from your previous note, it sounds like you do)

because i wrote it poorly. if there's a will to spend money in DC there's a way. at the federal level, military spending isn't stealing money from other programs. it IS spending tax revenue and limiting the options of public sector people without limitless credit -- only one level of gov't can print its own money and tell its creditors to shove it -- and it's monstrous and wrong -- but that old slogan about the army having to throw a bake sale is about ATTITUDES, not availability.

If you want to dismantle the U.S. empire, you get a Republican to do it, in the name of limited government and lower taxes.

even if i agreed with this, and i don't, because the real difference is the lack of tens of millions openly and constantly saying STOP in meaningful ways, but if i agreed, then your model also requires that i have the money and influence of wall street in toto to make it happen. you can't supermarket-shop your way into this -- there isn't a perfect candidate in one job who can do it. politics is either hand made, or it's window shopping.

real difference is the lack of tens of millions openly and constantly saying STOP in meaningful ways, but if i agreed, then your model also requires that i have the money and influence of wall street in toto to make it happen

Look, all I'm trying to do is chart a reasonable course between the "Ron Paul will save America" zealots and the "Ron Paul will destroy America" zealots (not saying you're in either camp).

President Paul (which is never gonna happen, so why the fuck am I wasting time on this?) wouldn't be able to abolish Social Security or public schools with a stroke of a pen, and he wouldn't be able to close nearly a thousand military bases with a stroke of a pen, either. But a President who is actually trying to make huge cuts in military spending would provide all of us an enormous opportunity to organize in support of that.

And a political climate in which a President is making a serious attempt to dismantle the US empire, with the support of millions of people like you and me, would be miles ahead of where we are now, with essentially no debate about the empire and the associated enormous growth in the military.

You decry the "lack of tens of millions openly and constantly saying STOP in meaningful ways", but isn't one of the reasons this isn't happening the simple, demoralizing fact that NO ONE in power is listening to us? Most people aren't willing to take part in a protest if they think their protest will be completely ignored. In that way, who the President is does make a difference.

@ted: i'm being ornery because i'm scared about how much sustainability work there is to do.

@steveb: academic, right, but SINCE it's academic, why betray ideals like universal education? why reinforce the dog-eat-dog propaganda? i mean, if you're white and you can't walk into a black church in alabama with your candidate's entire platform -- or a michigan mosque -- they're the ones who get hit. be not slutty, child.

if you're white and you can't walk into a black church in alabama with your candidate's entire platform

Good point, but Paul isn't my candidate. Right now, I'd say my candidate is Cynthia McKinney.

I think I've figured out what's drawing me into this debate, even though I'm not much interested in Paul. What I find fascinating is the sense of utter powerlessness evinced by both sides, the Paul supporters and the Paul opponents.

Many Americans seem to operate on the assumption that the only power we've got is the vote, and if we screw that up, God help us. The idea that a flawed guy like Paul could get into office, and that we, the people, could exert some power to check his worst impulses while reinforcing his better impulses, just doesn't enter their calculations.

That people should think this more than seven years into the Bush Imperium shouldn't be surprising. But if we're serious about changing society, we need to understand all the power we do have, and when it works, and when it doesn't.

If we're talking about war-fighting, then a President does have near-dictatorial powers. Put some troops in harms way, and once they're being shot at, Congress will keep the money flowing, no matter what the public thinks.

But this definitely does not apply to domestic initiatives. Ask anyone who's tried to gut Social Security or Medicaid about that.

Paul's candidacy is interesting to me because it helps to highlight this distinction. In the areas of the Presidency where Presidents tend to exercise unchecked power, his impulses seem benign. And the places where his impulses are not good are areas where Presidents can be checked by public opposition.

Like all assumptions, our assumptions about the power we do have as citizens generally aren't debated explicitly. Instead, they tend to come out in the form of tactical disagreements about who to support for President, whether street protest does any good, etc. Even then, it's often hard to get past the tactical argument to the underlying assumptions that motivate it.

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion, since it's helped me to think some of these things through.

Speaking of assumptions and discussions, although the federal government has stuck its nose into education a lot, particularly with the No Child Left Behind Act, cleverly designed to destroy public education, the fact is that most education is funded at the state and local level.

Neiwart could have not spent half of that post spreading guilt-by-association and then most of the rest of it denying that he was spreading guilt-by-association and ended up with a brief 2 point bullet list of "crazy things Ron Paul has said" that I could take into account when thinking about Ron Paul's candidacy, instead I think I just wasted precious moments of my brief attention span trying to draw some substance out of a long winded and insulting rant about the importance of hamstringing oneself with silly political impracticalities like not talking to people with abhorrent views, which would preclude talking to the entirety of the earths' population for adhering to one nutty idea or another.