Not sending stuff about Ron Paul for anyone's benefit. I do read things about him because , for me, he is a huge danger for the GOP in 2012. I review stuff about him about 5 : 1 over what I send to the group. He is way off base in terms of foreign policy --I'm being kind-- and otherwise is far from Republican positions on most other issues. If, God forbid, he won the nomination, it would be a disaster in November. Goldwater 1964 all over again. Also, I really don't like him generally. That is, personally he may be a nice guy, but in terms of his stands on most issues I an seriously turned off. Yes, we need to get our economic house in order, but then there is everything else he favors. Billy ------------------------------------------------------------- 1/2/2012 7:31:42 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
I hope you're not doing it for my "benefit." He's a large protest vote magnet. Large enough to win? I doubt it. If he derails Romney, that's fine by me. We need more candidates because these all have rather major deficits. David _ “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek On 1/2/2012 10:44 AM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: W Post Ron Paul’s quest to undo the party of Lincoln By _Michael Gerson_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/michael-gerson/2011/02/24/ABocMYN_page.html) , Published: January 1, 2012 <ARTIC Let us count the ways in which the nomination of _Ron Paul_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ron-paul-2012-presidential-candidate/gIQAnIp4cO_topic.html) would be groundbreaking for the GOP. No other recent candidate hailing from the party of Lincoln has accused Abraham Lincoln of causing _a “senseless” war_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jbOE4Ip7In0#!) and ruling with an “iron fist.” Or regarded Ronald Reagan’s presidency a “dramatic failure.” Or proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use. Or called America the most “ aggressive, extended and expansionist” empire in world history. Or promised to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection from South Korea. Or blamed terrorism on American militarism, since “_they’re terrorists because we’re occupiers_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IynTKIRCaeA) . ” Or accused the American government of a Sept. 11 “coverup” and called for an investigation headed by Dennis Kucinich. Or described the killing of Osama bin Laden as “_absolutely not necessary._ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/) ” Or affirmed that he would not have sent American troops to Europe to end the Holocaust. Or excused Iranian nuclear ambitions as “natural,” while dismissing evidence of those ambitions as “war propaganda.” Or published a newsletter stating that the 1993 World Trade Center attack might have been “_a setup by the Israeli Mossad_ (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive) ,” and defending former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke and criticizing the “evil of forced integration.” Each of these is a disqualifying scandal. Taken together, a kind of grandeur creeps in. The ambition of Paul and his supporters is breathtaking. They wish to erase 158 years of Republican Party history in a single political season, substituting a platform that is isolationist, libertarian, conspiratorial and tinged with racism. It won’t happen. But some conservatives seem paradoxically drawn to the radicalism of Paul’s project. They prefer their poison pill covered in glass and washed down with battery acid. It proves their ideological manhood. In many ways, Paul is the ideal carrier of this message. His manner is vague and perplexed rather than angry — as though he is continually searching for lost car keys. Yet those who reject his isolationism are called “ warmongers.” The George W. Bush administration, in his view, _was filled with “ glee”_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-911-prompted-glee-in-bush-administration/2011/12/09/gIQAUcaliO_video.html) after the Sept. 11 attacks, having found an excuse for war. Paul is just like your grandfather — if your grandfather has a nasty habit of conspiratorial calumny. Recent criticism of Paul — in reaction to racist rants contained in the Ron Paul Political Report — has focused on the candidate’s view of civil rights. Associates have denied _he is a racist_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eqoKVES_KKI) , which is both reassuring and not particularly relevant. Whatever his personal views, Paul categorically opposes the legal construct that ended state-sanctioned racism. His libertarianism involves not only the abolition of the Department of Education but also a rejection of the federal role in civil rights from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is the reason Paul is among the most anti-Lincoln public officials since Jefferson Davis resigned from the United States Senate. According to Paul, Lincoln caused 600,000 Americans to die in order to “get rid of the original intent of the republic.” Likewise, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 diminished individual liberty because the “federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please.” A federal role in civil rights is an attack on a “free society.” According to Paul, it is like the federal government dictating that you can’t “smoke a cigar.” The comparison of civil rights to the enjoyment of a cigar is a sad symptom of ideological delirium. It also illustrates confusion at the heart of libertarianism. Government can be an enemy of liberty. But the achievement of a free society can also be the result of government action — the protection of individual liberty against corrupt state governments or corrupt business practices or corrupt local laws. In 1957, President Eisenhower sent 1,000 Army paratroopers to Arkansas to forcibly integrate Central High School in Little Rock. This reduced Gov. Orval Faubus’s freedom. It increased the liberty of _Carlotta Walls LaNier_ (http://littlerock9.com/CarlottaWalls.aspx) , who was spat upon while trying to attend school. A choice between freedoms was necessary — and it was not a hard one. Paul’s conception of liberty is not the same as Lincoln’s — which is not a condemnation of Lincoln. Paul’s view would have freed African Americans from the statism of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act. It would have freed the occupants of concentration camps from their dependency on liberating armies. And it would free the Republican Party from any claim to conscience or power. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
