Skip to main content

Ron Paul says some of his best friends are black.

It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics.

First of all, "[more] than any other Republican candidate" is probably the lowest bar ever set.

Second of all, do they know about his history of racism? (Hilariously, some Paulbots are claiming that the Ron Paul Political Report wasn't written or edited by, well, Ron Paul. That the piece in question was written by a staffer. If so, was a retraction printed in a subsequent edition of the newsletter? If not, the excuse doesn't fly.)

Third of all, while he's clamped down his overt racism, it's still bubbling near the surface:

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. “According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery.”

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the–that iron, iron fist.

MR. RUSSERT: We’d still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them.


MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?

REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government’s taken over property–has nothing to do with race relations [...]

it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.

Follow this link for a full evisceration of these ridiculous (and very much fringe) views.

Finally, given the comments and emails from the Paulbots, I'm led to believe that they support Ron Paul for one reason and one reason only -- because he opposes the war and American imperialism. Well, if that's the case, why don't these people support Dennis Kucinich. True, I don't think much of Dennis, but at least his anti-war creds aren't sullied by noxious views on any number of other issues.

Update: Oh, another point since some Paul supporters seem to think that Ron Paul is blameless in all the problems foisted on us by the GOP majorities this past decade and somehow he's the only one that can fix things: Ron Paul enabled the GOP congress, voting for Tom DeLay as majority leader during the DeLay era. He could've quit the GOP and gone Independent or Libertarian, but instead he choose to cast his lot with the warmongering and free-spending Republicans. Perhaps the $6,000 he received from DeLay's ARMPAC was enough to buy his loyalty?  

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:50 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I see (13+ / 0-)

    his signs put up by those nuts supporting him all over the place where I live. Every time I see one, I laught out loud... and then shudder. The scariest part about him is that even people who might ordinarily support a Democrat have bought into his rhetoric.

    "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Wiesel

    by BlueTape on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:52:26 PM PST

    •  He will run in a 3rd Party next year (9+ / 0-)

      2008 may very be the year of multiple big time third parties.

      •  The more the merrier (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aaraujo, Spathiphyllum, Wary, Lobsters

        If any third party candidates take a state's electoral votes, the Democrats will most likely win in the House State Delegation vote, so long as they hold onto their slim majority.


        by Walt starr on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:56:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bloomberg will run (5+ / 0-)

          and I expect that we have not seen the last of Ralph Nader

          •  Watching a news show (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rolfyboy6, vcmvo2, Independant Man

            Sorry don't remember which one or who were the Dem and Rep strategists answering the questions.

            But the question was asked if there's a thrid party candidate how much will it affect your chances of winning?

            The Republic said, 'well, I'm not really sure, we'll just have to wait and see".

            The Democrat answered "Not a bit, our Democrats are happy with all of our candidates so no matter who wins the nomination, it won't hurt us a bit".

            Everyone's jaw just about dropped to the floor--after all, it's usually the Democratic Party that's running in primaries like the Republic Party is this time around.

            I loved it!

            "People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest and self-serving"

            by Wary on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:14:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  even if comes from the left (0+ / 0-)

              as in another Nader run

              •  KOS gets kookier everyday. (9+ / 1-)

                Ok lets honestly dissect his statements. But first somebody remind him Markos that the debate with Timmy was over 2 Sundays ago. For someone who claims not to be 'afraid' or 'worried' of Paul in previous diaries "considering he polls consistently under double digits" it sure sounds like he's worried.

                If not then why you'd ask does he devote so much time in the past 5 days writing so many diary entries shamelessly attacking this sole non-neocon man of political integrity and moral principle in standing up to the Iraqi fiasco, fiscal responsibility, civil rights, and defense of habeaus corpus?

                Does Kos fear more and more Dems like me who once loved Kos's integrity now finding his low blows against Paul kind of cheap and moving towards Paulian politics.

                I don't have to see eye-to-eye on Paul on every issue and indeed I find his views on immigration  anathema to my views, but as a minority I can vouch Paul has not a racist bone in his body (who has seen Paul be one of the few to speak and accept invitations to black groups including NAACP, Hispanic groups, Arab Americans, and Univision). But I have asked myself what matters more this election cycle, the same old canard of flimsy politics of fear which Hillary seems to have no qualms running like her disgusting neocon Repug opponents.

                If Dems are afraid to stand by their principle and speaking the truth, why should I reward them with my  support?

                Kos says,

                That the piece in question was written by a staffer. If so, was a retraction printed in a subsequent edition of the newsletter?

                The fact that he didn't write the piece (the same staffer who attacked one of Paul's African American female colleague on Houston's City Council)who Paul highly respected, showed not only did he disagree with the staffer going all out but the firing of the staffer IMHO is evidence enough of his disgust with the staffer. But nothing will satiate Markos and his witch-hunt against Paul.

                Its ironic that the hatred of Paul would unite Kos and the anti-Arab, mouth-foaming hatesite Little Green Footballs in their quest to sink this noble man.

                Polls or no polls, I think Paul would surprise a whole bunch of Beltway pundits and political chattering class of which sadly Kos' has become with his anti-Paul rants and recent anointment as a Newsweek columnist. It shows that he has become what he railed against (Much like Dean...and this is what distinguishes Paul. He won't sell out his supposedly "loony views" to gain a foothold as a "mainstream" political leader hence principled).  

                I therefore urge all of you before resorting to hateful name calling and screaming "TROLLS" with retarded recipes to assess if you have become the very bullies that you once saw in others. Today the Pualites are now where the Kossacks were 3 years ago.

                I have decided to reward Paul with my support precisely because he has gone head-long into the hornet's nest and challenged his own party on Iraq/war/terrorism (bedrock of the neocon-hijacked Party). How many Dems can claim that honor? Obama, Hillary, and Edwards tout the pro-Israeli line that will lead US into a collision course with Iran and the larger Islamic world, including with Syria and Lebanon as we saw the Dem/Rep chorus of "We back Israel right to defend herself," during the Israeli-bombardment of Lebanon in '06:



                Who had the gall to speak up then on behalf the 1,000 plus Lebanese civilians, destruction of civilian roads and infrastructure, Qana massacre, bombardment of power plants? Only Ron Paul... In an age when a single terrorist attack on US soil may trigger a potential regional war with Obama saying its ok to go in Pakistan and Hillary saying "I agree with Barack" and Edwards extolling he might stay in Iraq till 2013, only Paul offers a sensical, root of the problem approach.

                He's usually the lone vote against the establishment. Not always correct but at least reasons with his Medical School gifted brains and lets his moral conscience guide him over petty interest groups.

                Dems like  Pelosi/Reid/et. have been an abject failure, but still are better than any Repug could offer. Therefore it is my prediction that Ron Paul will score in double digits in both Iowa and New Hampshire and surprise a lot of people. As a young college graduate, I will also tell you if Paul doesn't win, then I will back progressive Dems in my Congressional elections and maybe Edwards for Presidency.

                I hope I didn't offend many of you. I know my views strike at the heart of what many progressives believe, but I urge all of you to never let group think dictate you above moral and well-thought out individual conscience. Support whoever you may, but remember the past judgment and dissect current views of the candidates thoroughly. The lives of many millions of innocent people all over the world due to US foreign policy just may lie in the balance and  it could all change due to a single stroke of a second or event.

                Best New Year's to all and may progressives finally grow a spine, but I won't be holding my breath!


                •  you sir, are a complete ass. n/t (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aaraujo, Diogenes2008


                  "Is leor nod don eolach."

                  -9.75 (economic), -7.18 (social)

                  by dadanation on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:37:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Didn't you get the memo? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tommy Paine
                  Paul turned Kos into a newt!


                  The President is not my master. He is Chief among my servants.

                  by DemCurious on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:19:21 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Ron Paul and his racist bones (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  You claim that Ron Paul's high respect for his fellow African American colleague proves that he couldn't possibly have written that article, but Ron Paul's own words during his 1996 campaign fail to support it.   When Ron Paul was asked about that article in 1996, he acted like an ass about it, despite the fact that Barbara Jordan passed away earlier that very same year.  Now, maybe Ron Paul eventually realized that he looked like an ass about it, and decided to change his story by insisting that he respected Barbara Jordan all along, and that he couldn't possibly say anything bad about her.  But that was long after his newsletter had already been printed.

                  Furthermore, you fail to answer the question on why Ron Paul never issued a retraction.  And you cite the "firing" of the ghostwriter as evidence for your case, but you never once cite evidence that the firing even occured!    Surely if Ron Paul was willing to fire a staffer over that article, then he should have been at least as willing to issue a retraction, yes?  Therefore, a lack of a retraction implies a lack of a firing.

                  Here's an excerpt from my in-depth FAQ:

                  Here is what Ron Paul was saying five years earlier, in a 1996 edition of the Austin Chronicle:

                  "But that promise has yet to come to pass. His concealment is easy to figure: The articles that have been leaked have been an embarrassment for Paul. In one 1992 article, Paul labeled the illustrious congresswoman Barbara Jordan, now deceased, a "moron" and "fraud" whose accomplishments depended on her race and sex. Paul now explains that he's been wronged -- his "academic, tongue-in-cheek" opinions have been stripped of their context. But when the Victoria Advocate requested the entire copy of the newsletter, promising to publish its entirety, he refused that too.

                  Now, I may not be an expert on human psychology, but I don't detect very much sadness or regret in Ron Paul's statement. Especially considering the fact that not only was Jordan a former colleague who Ron Paul insulted, but who passed away earlier in that very same year. For a doctor who campaigns on his pro-life policies, Ron Paul doesn't show much respect for the dead. If Ron Paul was truly saddened by the situation, then why wouldn't he correct the situation right away? Or, at the very least, not act like a complete ass about it?

                •  I don't like the name calling (0+ / 0-)

                  Idoubt ron Paul is racist. My guess is he really believes on principle the whole states rightsthing.
                  His immigration views are Xenophobic (and quite unlike traditional libertarians who usually support open borders) and his economic views are from the McKinnley administration(w/o a tarrif).

                  You can oppose Ron Paul w/o attacking his personal integrity. He is a neanderthal,but anhonest neanderthal.

                •  Looney. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  He won't sell out his supposedly "loony views"

                  It always amuses me when strict adherence to our nation's Constitution is regarded as "looney."

                  Keep up the good work, Ron Paul. This country needs you.

                •  Kos' attacks on Ron Paul (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  I agree with everything you said rednova.  I've been reading this blog for over 2 years.  Kos must be very frightened of Paul.  It seems that Kos is no longer grassroots for change, but simply a democratic shill.  

          •  Bloomberg and Fulani/Newman (0+ / 0-)

              Billionaire Mike Bloomberg has had a longtime political relationship with the Lenora Fulani/Fred Newman totalitarian cult. See the websites of Chip Berlet and Dennis King, two experts on LaRouche, Fulani and Newman.

          •  And a Constitution Party candidate (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aaraujo, ShaunMcDonnell

            to appeal to the Buchanan 1%ers. I consider Ron Paul to be one of their possibles.

            "My heart found its home long ago in the beauty, mystery, order and disorder of the flowering earth." ~ Lady Bird Johnson

            by Over the Edge on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:54:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, but I would vote for Nader. (0+ / 0-)

            I've put him off for 2 elections, now, but think he represents my views more than any Dem. now running.
            I would also consider Bloomberg, but ultimately not vote for him, I think.  He's done a great job with NYC, from what I can tell in Nevada, and I often think he's taken the right stance.  I'd have to hear more about his ideas for Presidential stuff, though.

            Being bipolar means that I sometimes lose control and speak in generalities. Sorry if I offended anyone.

            by rainmanjr on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:57:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  RP keeps on saying he won't (0+ / 0-)

          The Libertarian Party get as few votes nationally as say the Workers World Party.

    •  He's totally whacked out (8+ / 0-)

      and I hope he makes a third party run, too. Most Paulbots are REpublicans.


      by Walt starr on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:55:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe - but I don't believe he is a rascist (8+ / 0-)

        I don't think from reading above that Ron Paul is a rascist.  Maybe as you say he is whacked.  I certainly disagree with his position but then I disagreed with Goldwaters, too.  But I didn't think him a rascist.

        I think libertarians are misguided about Republicans being their default party.  I have been monitoring the Fox News fiasco.  They have locked Ron Paul out of the next "discussion".  Conservatives really don't like libertarians.  That's natural - the party of Gitmo doesn't really like liberty.  The patriot act isn't an expansion of liberty.  Looking to curtail Habeus isn't an act of liberty.

        Scalia is certainly not libertarian.  Conservative judges believe that liberty is a grant from government and not a right of birth.  They are far from the Hamilton ideal.  Just as the Christian Right is far from libertarian in nature.

        And Republicans are not small government either.  They are corportist and use government as a partner with big business.

        Attack the Ron Paul ideas all you want, but I don't think we have to demonize him as rascist.  I don't think we need to make fun of libertarians either.  That is what the posters at Little Green Footballs are doing.

        And no... - I am not a Ron Paul voter.  I support Edwards.  But if Dennis could win, that would be my guy.  So it isn't that I am defending my candidate but rather think that libertarians should seriously consider voting Democrat if they don't want to waste their vote on a third party candidate.  They won't be able to vote for Paul in the general.  

        Democrats will defend liberty - not Republicans.


    •  At-all-costs pacifism (6+ / 0-)

      It really makes me sick that some people (like Samm Simpson running in FL-10 -- as I brought up in another Paul-is-racist post) back him because they are stalwart anti-war activists.  They're willing to compromise everything in order to stop the Iraq war or war in general.  Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there have been Green Party activists who are in Paul's camp because of his staunch anti-war stance.  

      One moral stands above all others, eh?

      Boycotting CNN: biased news networks are bad for America, period.

      by jpfdeuce on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:57:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  lolz (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smugbug, Over the Edge, BlueTape

      if the presidency was determined by who has the biggest signs, Ron p4v1 would win in a landslide.  He also has large leads among Youtube commenters and crazy people talking to themselves on the corner.

    •  Rhetoric or authenticity? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LibertySquirrel, Nihilist23, Prachar

      I will vote for the Dem regardless but, in all fairness, Ron Paul is authentic. The Dem candidates should take note (except Gravel!).

      C'mon, Dem Prez Candidates, shoot from the hip. You can do it.

      "You don't make a hog fatter by weighing it". ---John Edwards, on NCLB

      by Spoonfulofsugar on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:55:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, I don't know (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rainmanjr, BlueTape, Prachar
      about "people who would ordinarily support a Democrat." Driving back after my 10-day break (aaaah....) I saw two homes proudly sporting  Ron Paul yard signs (the only candidate I've seen such signs for yet), one of them having several, along Rte 20 in northeastern Indiana/northwestern Ohio. But this area isn't a bastion of liberal or even moderate thought. I warn you, if you're going this way, make sure you bring CDs or cassettes or your iPod or whatever because you will only be able to get bad mainstream country stations and what seems like a million Jesused ouy Halleluia Christian stations. Nasty little part of the world. I was tempted to knock on the door of the person with the multiple signs (which I stoppped to take some photos of) and ask why they supported h im but I decided I didn't want to get into it with them.

      I'll tell you: I have run into a TON of enthusiastic Paul supporters up here in Cleveland (the only Republican I've seen ANY enthusiasm for), but they are mostly Libertarians with a sprinkling of Republicans. Out here, the most ardent anti-war folks ARE Kucinidiots who start to foam at the mouth if you suggest he doesn't walk on water.

      We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14:

      by anastasia p on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:39:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I cannot comprehend this man. (14+ / 0-)

    The souls of libertrains are closed to me.

    You've got a fast car, I want a ticket to anywhere. Maybe we can make a deal. Maybe together we can get somewhere - Tracy Chapman, Fast Car

    by Timothy Scriven on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:52:47 PM PST

    •  I suspect that there are no (12+ / 0-)

      poor libertarians. Their motto seems to be, "I've got mine. Screw you!"

      I guess that's the way it crumbles...cookie-wise.

      by kitebro on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:01:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (10+ / 0-)

        I honestly respect republicanism way more than libertarianism. At least at its core, republicanism has some principals that have merit (though what happened to them with this incarnation of the republican party is beyond me). Libertarianism is simply a rational for naked greed.

        People don't wanna see the news-it's boring. People wanna see animals. Close up. With a wide angle lens.

        by PLCOT on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:04:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Libertarianism: Preschool for Republicans. (4+ / 0-)

          I came in peace, seeking only gold and slaves

          by revenant on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:20:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, You know what they say.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          who threw da cat

 in, a Libertarian is just a Republican who wants to get laid and smoke pot.

          Of course, my favorite description of libertarianism is the image of a deranged man walking down the middle of the street, on drugs, carrying a gun, and not much police around to do something about it.....

        •  real libertarianism vs US right-wing Libertarians (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mike Erwin, James Kresnik

          The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque,[11] an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used in order to evade the French ban on anarchist publications.[12] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as inconsistent. However, the association of socialism to libertarianism actually predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism to libertarianism in the United States.[13] As Noam Chomsky put it, "a consistent libertarian must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer".[14]

      •  Fountainhead had me (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        in its grips on a camping trip with my family when I was young.  We talked about it around the fire.  I was all hyped up on it and I remember my Mom telling me that I would get over it one day when I knew more.  My mom is gone now.  But I would say the spell lasted until I was just out of college.

        I hope that book has not been reissued and those yungsters go for our guys.

        "Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." Carl Sagan

        by dogheaven on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:10:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I thought that was all right wingers n/t (0+ / 0-)

        "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

        by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:31:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Libertarians ARE NOT "libertarians" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        McGirk, James Kresnik

        Ignore the socialism part. This is the longest, historic libertarian movement, not the right-leaning, US-centric libertarianism that Wikipedia defaults too (after all, it's the US Wikipedia you're looking at).

    •  Sorry, they are very clear (11+ / 0-)

      The libertarians I have met believe they were successful ALL ON THEIR OWN. The state had nothing to do with their success.

      Paul is finally a figure they can support.

      Try to have a civil discussion with them about anything. They haven't really thought through their ideas very well.

      I like to ask them about support for libraries.

      The wise are driven by reason; ordinary minds, by experience; the stupid, by necessity, and brutes by instinct. Cicero

      by MoDem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:03:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And yet the best of them advocate civil liberties (3+ / 0-)

        For other people as well.

        You've got a fast car, I want a ticket to anywhere. Maybe we can make a deal. Maybe together we can get somewhere - Tracy Chapman, Fast Car

        by Timothy Scriven on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:19:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  They built their own roads? (6+ / 0-)

        And made their own clothes, educated themselves?

        Yeah, it's easy for people to make the false claim they 'did it all on their own".

        "People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest and self-serving"

        by Wary on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:19:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  more of the list (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MoDem, nasarius, A Citizen, Wary

          get their own water, clean water?
          Clean up their own sewage?
          Plow their roads?
          Provide their own firefighting and police?
          Ensure that power and other utilities are compatible with the appliances they buy?
          Ensure that what they purchase is somewhat safe, and if not there is legal recourse?

          •  Hey (7+ / 0-)

            Just curious ...

            Do you know any libertarians who vigorously oppose the government providing transportation and sanitation infrastructure?  Police and fire?

            I know a lot of libertarians.  None of them fit the stereotype you're pimping.  Perhaps most tellingly, Ron Paul himself doesn't fit it.

            There are plenty of great reasons not to be a libertarian, and I bet that you'd agree with them.  You don't have to resort to beating up on a straw man to make your point.  

            •  No, that is because they haven't thought about it (8+ / 0-)

              They don't like government, but they haven't thought through the logic of their position.

              I teach at a public regional university.  I like asking libertarian students why they are attending such a university and how would their libertarian views allow support for such a university.  I have yet to receive a coherent response.

              I really like citing public libraries for those who absolutely detest everything the government does.  Public libraries are the most communal institution we all know.  However, public libraries subvert EVERYTHING libertarians and radical capitalist believe in.  They should absolutely detest that such a communistic institution exists.

              The wise are driven by reason; ordinary minds, by experience; the stupid, by necessity, and brutes by instinct. Cicero

              by MoDem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:12:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've written to the "top" libertarians (0+ / 0-)

                like Lew Rockwell and the other guy who passed away awhile back, asking if they were opposed to the limited liability protections incorporated entities enjoy. Could not for the life of me get a straight answer from any of them.

                Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

                by Jim P on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:04:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ha. (0+ / 0-)

                  Someone else has thought up exactly the same objection as me.

                  In a libertarian universe, companies can make dangerous products, and the solution is always: We don't need laws...if you can prove harm, you can sue. If someone pollutes your water, you can sue, if someone sells you a toy with lead paint, you can sue, etc.

                  When I point out that limited liability companies basically mean that corporations can invent LLCs to sell dangerous products and fold them when they get sued, with no harm repaired at all, I never seem to get a coherent response to that.

                  People seem to act like that's crazy and that would never happen, and I have to point it out has happened before, and give examples of corporate executives who have made off with, in essence, everyone else's money, causing all sorts of harm, and the only thing that stops it from happening more is that outright criminal actions can pierce the corporate veil and the wrongdoers can be charged criminally.

                  The sane person who thinks libertarianism is a good idea would be, a this point, thinking 'Hey, maybe we should get rid of limited liability.'. And, to be fair, many of them do, the ones who are socially liberal because they don't like the government, but fiscally conservative because they are not paying attention and think Democrats spend more than Republicans and they currently have health insurance. (Of course, proposing getting rid of LLC also demonstrates they're not actually paying attention, as that is an incredibly stupid idea and nothing would get done.)

                  But there's a large subsection of libertarians I end up talking to either have or plan to have their own business and don't want their personal assets touched. They don't plan to cause harm, but they know enough about the law to know that there's all sorts of liability issues that arise in running a company, and how dangerous it can be without limited liability.

                  Yet if they allow that, they can't quite find any way to stop my 'Toxic Waste Inc' from showing up, accepting toxic waste for 'disposal', pouring it into the ground water, and dissolving itself. Without, you know, actually having that be illegal.

                  In a universe that asserts it's full of 'personal responsibility', it's outright astonishing how many of them have no problem with the ultimate reputation of personal responsibility, a corporation. (Or it would be if I actually thought they honestly were for 'personal responsibility'.)

                  •  well there you have it (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Here Lies Democracy

                    In my frustration, I made up the example of a LLC company that gets financing for a can't-miss idea: genetically modified plaid chickens. But--and no one could have forseen this--the chickens grow thumbs and a cerebral cortex and next thing everyone's cow has been eaten by raving chickens and some kids are missing. When you add in the cost of hunting down the chickens, the community has been costed about 100 times the assets of PlaidKens Co. Everyone's essentially screwed.

                    So, limited liability means the whole community has been drafted into someone's scheme, regardless of its merits or consequences. The risks are effectively, and arbitrarily socialized, and there's no way around that reality. Hence the avoidance of the obvious conclusion in my dealings with them.

                    The Libertarian "philosophy" seems, as do Republican rationales, little more than elaborate excuses for not acting with ordinary human decency.

                    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

                    by Jim P on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:30:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Libertarians love government. (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sk4p, mattb79, livy, sij, Prachar

                When it is as local as possible and constitutional.

                I fully support paying property taxes for schools, police, and fire fighting.  I fully support a gas tax that would only be used to maintain roads and bridges, and no other funds used for this purpose. Schools, police, fire, and roads are 99.99% of the programs that the majority of people will ever need in their entire adult lives.  

                We just don't think that the federal government is where charity programs belong.  

                We just don't think we need a multi-million man army unless  a foreign army is physically invading our territory.  Think how much federal government we could eliminate by getting rid of this huge boondoggle. Just turn over all the soldiers and equipment to the states for their national guard, keep a small core cadre of professional soldiers at the federal level, and make it take congress declaring a war before the national guard could be called up by the president. You know, checks and balances.

                Oh, and for the record, Libertarians give more to charities than any other political group.  We put our money where our mouths are. Charity is a core Libertarian value.  

                Libertarians believe that people are good and decent and that the people will step forward and give their money freely to programs that need it, once they stop paying 40% of their salary to the IRS.

                The Liberals think that people are bad and greedy and should be forced to support the programs that Liberals think are good at the point of an IRS gun.

                You want food, or heat, or special education programs, or housing aid for the poor? Ask me for it politely.  If after I check out your charity program to make sure that 95% of the aid goes to the poor, or your teaching program will actually make a difference, then I will donate thousands to your program.  

                And you know what?  I only want to help out the charities in my own state.  Because this is where I live and I want to see the results of my charity.  I want to help out my friends and neighbors.  I will donate if there is a disaster in another area, anywhere in the world, but don't even ask me for day to day support for people else where.  If their friends and neighbors won't help them, then why should I?  

                And you know what?  If you come to me asking for money for some BS program that is useless and a waste of my money, I'll tell you no.  That is my right in a free society.  

                Just don't send around government goons with guns to force me to send money to charity and education programs that give less than 10% of the money to those that need it.  To take my money to use in education programs that don't work.  

                I have news for you, you are not Robin Hood, and stealing is wrong.  

                •  Right ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  James Kresnik

                  Ron Paul is "pro-life." As in, the government can commandeer the bodies of pregnant women to force them to bear children. Where's the rights of women in the Ron Paul society? Maybe if their men/owners bought them and set them free ...

                •  Here, here. (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't consider myself a Libertarian (does regarding the Constitution as the greatest document ever written, and an implementation of the form of government described within the greatest form of government ever conceivable make me a Libertarian? I don't know.) But the stereotypical garbage that has been referenced to describe Ron Paul in the comments I have read thus far really surprises me.

                  Hold your ideas tentatively, you array of progressive thinkers. Don't resort to the name-calling and conventionalized portraits provided to us by those who ultimately control our opinions.

            •  Just read another thread (0+ / 0-)

              in which Ron Paulers touted the "building own roads" "elimate state or federally supported schools."

              Uh huh, yeah you're free to build your own roads on your property, but where the hell are you going to go, if the next neighbor doesn't. (And let's not get into cities...)

              One of the first mandates of the Pilgrims after they landed was to set up, free, publically-supported schools.

              Founding fathers and all, saw the sense.

              It was only in the south that large landholders as early settlers were against public schools -- because they thought it would make the indentured servants too uppity.

              Libertarians are free to send their kids to private school, or build roads on their own land -- but they apparently resent the common good.

              •  ugh (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                McGirk, mattb79, livy

                Meaningless rhetoric.

                Unless you can prove that Ron Paul does not support State governments providing roads (he does) then enough with the generalizations as a basis for your lack of support in a man who wishes to rescue this country from its criminal monetary institutions.

                •  Those statements were repeated over and over (0+ / 0-)

                  and over and over and over and over and over by Ron Paul's supporters as his views -- now where the hell did they get those ideas?

                  I guess I'd have to take them at their word --either they're Ron Paul's idiot ideas, or his supporters are . . .?

    •  You mean Libertarians (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      McGirk, James Kresnik

      Libertarians are a political party, that only use the word to apply to government (in particular when it comes to public works, health, environmental, and social services). They want to give all power to companies. "libertarians" are opposed to all hierarchal institutions of unaccountable power, not just government.

  •  Or Gravel (13+ / 0-)

    He definitely has more anti-war creds than Paul.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:52:56 PM PST

  •  Ron Paul then explained that... (11+ / 0-)

    some of his best friends are n****rs.

  •  Ron Paul, George and Ringo (8+ / 0-)

        If Ayn Rand and the KKK had recruited the Beatles...

  •  Noxious views (6+ / 0-)
    True, I don't think much of Dennis, but at least his anti-war creds aren't sullied by noxious views on any number of other issues.

    Like being against abortion rights?

  •  It's called a "cult" (8+ / 0-)

    that's why.

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

    by michael1104 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:53:49 PM PST

    •  that is a stupid (3+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      OregonCoast, McGirk, Prachar
      Hidden by:

      that is a stupid quote IMHO. Your putting your hand on a book and this gives your words more meaning? ask yourself why that is?  The Bible is given the most power in this phrase and action.

      As for a cult? our you kidding me? they are simply a grassroot political organization and campaign.  You want to find real cults look no further than your nearest religious building.

      In the US of A, you don't matter, only your wallet does.

      by udontmatter on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:30:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  but . . but . . . (18+ / 0-)

    Ron Paul is defending the constitution! He's for freedom and can't possibly be racist! /snark

    Seriously, Paul's supporters need to stop acting like he walks on water. The guy is a creepy weirdo.

    •  Well, sure, but white supremacists have let slip (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wary, jay w

      he meets with them regularly. I'm not linking directly to their site, but here's a Google cache

      I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn't see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul's extensive involvement in white nationalism.

      Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.

      I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.

      For his spokesman to call white racialism a "small ideology" and claim white activists are "wasting their money" trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.

      I don't know that it is necessarily good for Paul to "expose" this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous -- and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.

      This his from a Bill White, a "Commander" in the American Nazi Party

  •  Having better straight men makes Ron Paul look (0+ / 0-)

    more anti-war than the Ds.  All he has to do is talk back to the idiocy of the other Repubs. The Dems have no such idiots to make themselves look better than.  They have to distinguish themselves in other ways. And they're more likely to end the war than he is.

  •  difference between Paul and Kucinich (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delirium, mvr, McGirk, Prachar, buckrogers1965

    is that other dems want out of the quagmire.

    no republican has had the balls to admit it yet.  Paul was the first and only.  that is why he is gaining traction.

    It is merely an anti-war vote.

    Paul vs. Clinton in the general election?


    Republicans are not a national party anymore.

    by jalapeno on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:56:05 PM PST

  •  His supporters (7+ / 0-)

    remind me too much of Kinky Friedman's supporters. Paul sounds good if you don't really listen to him.

    •  the problem is... (3+ / 0-)

      American's generally don't "listen", they re-act. Which is what makes Paul so dangerous. He is reaching out to casual voters through unorthodox methods such as youtube and the street corners (there are at least 15 Paul signs on my drive to work -- through blue collar areas of PA).

      I fear that mocking and ignoring Paul is going to do more harm than good. Especially when two of our possible nominees have votes on their records that don't exactly point to an immediate desire to end the war.

  •  There are Ron Paul signs (9+ / 0-)

    all over the interstate and I live in heavily Democratic Rhode Island

  •  Ron is our savior (10+ / 0-)

    An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. -- T. Paine (-6.25, -7.18)

    by DH from MD on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:57:40 PM PST

  •  Retraction (4+ / 0-)

    If so, was a retraction printed in a subsequent edition of the newsletter?

    Surely it should be trivially easy for Paul to put this issue to bed by showing us the retraction... except, oh yeah, he hasn't released copies of any issues of his newsletter to the media, despite having been asked to do so on multiple occasions. Hmm.

    May God help me resist the temptation to hold Obama's supporters against him.

    by phenry on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:57:50 PM PST

  •  If he got elected, (4+ / 0-)

    I'd be in favor of eliminating the presidency. That would make government smaller. What a rube!

    I guess that's the way it crumbles...cookie-wise.

    by kitebro on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:57:55 PM PST

  •  But of course (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He pulled the fairydust over that little fact for a few days.  I'm glad he's found out.

    I want my country back. NOW!

    by enough on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:59:08 PM PST

  •  No way Ron Paul is racist.... (7+ / 0-)

    An old white male in the Republican Party is racist?  Who would have guessed it?  What is the world coming to....I'm shocked!!

  •  It is hard to go (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rainmanjr, Prachar

    back in time and imagine how slavery could have ended in this country by any other means than a terrible bloody war.  I wish I knew more of how it ended in Europe.

    So his answer to Tim on the Civil war thing did not scare me so much.  It is the sum total of his views.  (He'd get rid of the Dept of Education. Well,I'd get rid the the DEA.)

    The thing is we are going to have to face up to how we solve big problems without war.  This is a huge change for our species but one that we have to overcome for us to have a future.

    So I agree that it is the anti war thing that has him gaining some attention.

    "Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." Carl Sagan

    by dogheaven on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:00:30 PM PST

    •  civil war (5+ / 0-)

      civil war was ABOUT money, which lead to seccesion.  It was not about freeing black people. Free labor was just a part of the equation.

      In the US of A, you don't matter, only your wallet does.

      by udontmatter on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:03:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes you are right (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2, rainmanjr

        however ending slavery was put into the goals of the conflict.  It had to be.  It had been festering since the first Continental congress.  No one had the balls to address it.  This war was the opportunity to deal with it.

        "Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." Carl Sagan

        by dogheaven on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:26:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  what do you mean ? (4+ / 0-)

        it was about economics.? Tell that to the abolitionists. Tell that to the freed slaves.

        And tell that to the 100,000 blacks who fought for freedom. And many of their same white counterparts.

        You are oversimplifying a complex movement and dynamic. Yes many northern industrialists were happy to crush the south. And frankly, the southern ruling class wanted war.

        But the fact is, the end of the war brought the end of slavery. Sadly the, 'it was about economics' movement is ultimately about trivializing the barbarity of slavery and humanity of black people. It's why southern revisionists play it up.

        •  Well.... (6+ / 0-)

          The Civil War, at least in Lincoln's mind, was about neither slavory nor economics - though both certainly palyed a role.

          It would be hard to find a single American historian with any credibility who would argue that in 1861 an invasion of the Southern states was launched to free the slaves.

          Slave owners in the border states occupied by the U.S. Army were allowed to keep their slaves. Whenever any of Lincoln's generals, such as Gen. Fremont, took it upon themselves to emancipate some slaves early in the war he rebuffed them, reversed their decisions, and demoted them. The Emancipation Proclamation itself very specifically exempted all areas of the country that were controlled by the U.S. Army, guaranteeing that no slaves would be emancipated by the Proclamation.

          In his first inaugural address Lincoln referred to the proposed "Corwin Amendment" to the Constitution that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery. He said that he already held the legality of slavery to be "implied constitutional law," and "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable" by enshrining slavery explicitly in the Constitution.

          Not only that, but it was Lincoln, working with William Seward, who orchestrated the passing of that amendment through the U.S. Senate. Even Doris Kearns-Goodwin documents all of this in her book, Team of Rivals.

          In an August 22, 1862 letter to newspaper editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln explained the purpose of the war:

          "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

          Of course, in reality he destroyed the voluntary union of the states that was established by the Founders.

          The U.S. Congress concurred with Lincoln's statement. On July 22, 1861, it issued a proclamation saying that the purpose of the war was not "interference with the rights or established institutions of those states" that had seceded (i.e., slavery), "but to preserve the Union with the rights of the several states [including slavery] unimpaired."

          This is an ugly truth, but it is the truth.

          •  proximate and ultimate causes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Over the Edge

            The immediate causes of the war were secession, the firing on Fort Sumter, and the Constitutional debate about whether states could secede or not. I would hold that they could not, and there is a good Constitutional case for that, though it was moot until some state actually did it.

            The ultimate cause of the war was slavery. Even the tariff issue, which I address in another comment, can be traced back to slavery, since it was the export dependent slavocrats who wanted low tariffs to support their lifestyle.

            •  Ultimate Cause for Lincoln was saving the Union (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sparhawk, Pluto, Prachar, buckrogers1965

              The South had legally seceded from the Union (Jan. 1861) before Lincoln became president. South Carolina created its own government. The government of South Carolina asked the Union to give up Fort Sumpter and President Buchanan refused. This was in Feb. 1861 still before Lincoln was president. The South then put a naval blockade around Fort Sumter.

              Lincoln was inaugurated in March of 1861 and said in his speech that he had no plans to end slavery but he would not allow the states to secede.

              In April 1861 the North tried again tried to re-supply Fort Sumter. This was after the Confederate Constitution was drafted and signed. So again, knowing that the South Carolina was getting out of the Union, and wanted to protect its puported sovereignty from the North, Lincoln invaded the South.

              It was all about preserving the Union and Lincoln even stated slavery was not an issue until later in the war when it became politically expedient.

              •  Sorry my response was too technical (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                James Kresnik, Prachar

                Ultimate here is what's behind it all, not in the sense of most important to any participant. Why did the South want to secede? Just to prove a Constitutional point? You don't kill hundreds of thousands of people over a debating point. You do it to defend your interests.

                The real question about slavery and secession was whether slavery needed to expand to survive. Lincoln, and the secessionists, thought it did, and that confining slavery where it was would force the South's peculiar institution to wither away peacefully. That was one reason Lincoln wanted to maintain the Union, because he believed in the Declaration of Independence and the Confederacy didn't. Read the Cornerstone Speech and ponder the long staring contest of July 4, 1863 at Gettysburg. Even preserving the Union was not an end in itself. Even just saying that slavery was what it could all be traced to ignores the fact that it was a very unusual system of slavery that was at issue and unstable because it involved a caste system, unlike other, more stable systems of slavery, such as Roman.

                •  Simultaneous Posts (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Prachar, buckrogers1965

                  I am aware of the Cornerstone Speech, and it came at a time later in the war when Lincoln chose to make slavery a politically expedient issue. Prior to, and at the start of the war, Lincoln was quite the racist, and I know this is tough for many to swallow.

                  It is what I find ironic about this Ron Pual thing. Everybody is calling him a racist over his Civil War comments and for not fawnign all over Lincoln, when Lincoln himself was a racist and I believe Paul knew this, but it is hard to explain this to a brainwashed America in a few minutes with Russert.

                  •  Your dates are off (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    James Kresnik, Prachar

                    The cornerstone speech was before the war began. Stephens tried to disavow it later, when everyone realized that slavery had been a bad idea. Yes, Lincoln was racist, especially when he made the remark you quoted, from the debates with Senator Douglas, IIRC. Getting to know Frederick Douglass changed his mind about that and a lot of other things, including the idea of emancipation. That's one of the tragedies of his death, IMHO. He was so brilliant and his thought was evolving so rapidly, we were cut off from his brilliance too soon.

                    •  My Bad... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Danjuma, rainmanjr, Prachar

                      This is what happens when you try and remember the history you studied at both the Citadel in Charleston, S.C. (Citadel students were the ones who first bombed Fort Sumter) and the University of Pennsylvania with its liberal, northern bent. You get an interesting perspective from the two institutions, and for the record I am a damn Yankee from Philly.

                  •  You should do a diary on this subject. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    It would be a fascinating conversation.  Have you read Vidal's Lincoln?  I love the conversation Abe has with Douglas, in the Oval Office, following his election.  Douglas contends that Lincoln doesn't give a damn about the slaves.  He simply wants to be the President who saves the nation because that would make him as well loved, if not more loved, than the first President.  Great read.  

                    Being bipolar means that I sometimes lose control and speak in generalities. Sorry if I offended anyone.

                    by rainmanjr on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:11:57 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  And by the way.... (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sparhawk, McGirk, rainmanjr, Prachar

                Ron Paul is wrong when he stated (I believe) that there were "better ways to end slavery" than having a Civil War, because (per my previous two posts with quotes from Lincoln and Congress) the war was not about slavery, but rather saving the Union.

                Where Ron Paul is right is that Lincoln is by no means the saint that our faux elementary school history books teach us. Outside of my above quotes from Lincoln:

                "I will say, then, that I am not now, nor never have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now, nor never have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriage with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which, I believe, will forever forbid the two races living together in terms of social and political equality. Inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white man."

                -- Abraham Lincoln

                "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side."

                -- Union General Ulysses S. Grant

              •  Also by the way (0+ / 0-)

                Your argument that "Lincoln invaded the South" implies that secession was constitutional. It wasn't. From the Constitution, Article VI:

                This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

                The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

                Ordinances of secession were violations of that oath, and should have been punished to the full extent of the law.

                •  Semantics (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sparhawk, Prachar, buckrogers1965

                  Marched in, invaded, sought to restore the rule of law.....

                  My points in my posts have been that Lincoln was not quite the saint people paint him to be. Ron Paul attacked Lincoln on MTP, yet Ron Paul is now being called a racist for attacking a racist. The irony.

                  •  You don't "invade" your own country (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    It's not semantic, it's legal. We invaded Iraq. If Bush moved troops to Florida it would not be an invasion. As for the canonization of Lincoln, could he help it he was shot on Good Friday? Blame a certain Shakespearean actor for the theatricality of that.

                    •  Well.... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sparhawk, Prachar, buckrogers1965

                      Even if it is not under the rule of law, if states declare their independence, form an army, and fire on your troops at Fort Sumter, what do you call it? "Moving" troops to the South to restore the rule of law? So be it. However, this "movement" involved quite a bit of bloodshed. While, depending on your perspective of constitutional law, it may not have been an "invasion" - it certainly was an attack. Not that two wrongs don't make a right. The South attacked first by bombing Sumter.

                      •  Law enforcement? (0+ / 0-)

                        But this could entangle us in the ridiculous argument about whether the fight against al-Qa'ida is law enforcement or warfare. Certainly the Civil War remains a legal conundrum, implicit in many federations. That's why so many subsequent federations (Yugoslavia, USSR etc.) have made the question of secession explicit.

                        Not that it helped Yugoslavia prevent bloodshed. ;-(

                        •  Well (6+ / 0-)

                          I think these technical terminologies play a small role in the big picture that one part of some form of a union or government decided they wanted out - to secede, unless of course you are teaching AP history where every point has to be exact on your exam.

                          The question then becomes who is the legally and morally correct party? If you believe, as many down south do, that the South had the legal right to secede, then it was an invasion by the North. If you believe the South had no legal grounds, then I guess it was a police action or something along those lines, but the shame of it all - along with your examples, is that these all involved too much bloodshed.

                          To me, the more important matter, as you seem to indicate, is the terrible loss of life. And isn't that what this Ron Paul was saying - that there must have been a better way than losing 600,000 lives in the Civil War (not that he had an answer)?

                          •  And for some reason, in all of your rehtorical (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Over the Edge

                            dancing, the plight of the slave is lost. So in order to defend gallantly packaged presented, degenerate, self-indulging, self-destructive monarchical rot, you would throw aside the interests a population that had already lost millions and the certain fate of an entire nation. I simply cannot and will not accept your framing of the issue as it is far too narrow in scope and loaded in intent to make a convincing narrative, much less history.

                            The grim analysis is that and massive invasion and loss of life would have been far most costly after a successful succession. Let's say succession succeded without a shot fired. First, hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised human beings would have died to feed an antiquated and inefficient agrarian machine. Given the recalcitrance of the Southern Elite, slavey would not have ended short of violence or massive slave revolt.

                            The South would have added military might to the Filibustering campaigns in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, seeking to expand slavery. Two antagonistic entities with anthithecial political systems would be competing for new terrortries. The system of patronage - the same one that has retarded development in the South to this day - would continuously retard Confederate social, political and economic development.

                            The seed of succession would lead to permanent political instability throughout North America. A state would contemplate succession anytime the ruling plutocrats thought it economically advantageous.

                            Foreign powers would take advantage of the schism and conflict, sapping the political independence and economic vitality of North America. To put it crudely, your dream of a peaceful succession and transition would be nothing more than one huge bloddy mess, an expansion of chattel slavery including brown slavery and a series of brutal wars leaving America a tattered and impotent collection of balkanized entities no more effective than modern day Latin America.

                            In short the North did us a favor.

                            Sorry folks. It's not politics as usual.

                            by James Kresnik on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:49:52 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You have put my comments in your own context (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mike Erwin

                            I never said there never should not have been a war and that there could have been a peaceful secession. Never said it. Slavery was and is abhorent. My points were geared towards Lincoln, who was mentioned by Koz and Paul.

                            Let me make it clear that I believe there was no option other than to fight the Civil War, and that abolition of slavery was a noble cause. African American slaves suffered terribly, and any other non-violent solutions would have taken decades to end slavery. My posts were geared more towards Lincoln and how I believe he is misunderstood - for better and worse.

                            With all that being said, Ron Paul made a good point in the wrong way. I believe Paul made an interestng point when he made his statement that we did not have to fight the Civil War to end salvery. Why? Because Lincoln himself stated that he would allow the South to maintain slavery if it would save the Union and prevent war.

                            This is where both Lincoln and Paul can come across as racist, but Paul offered the alternative of buying out the slave owners. I'm not so sure this paints Paul as a racist (some may argue other things do) but rather an extremely anti-war pragmatist. I believe Ron Paul is a little naive in thinking all wars can be avoided with non-intervention (or as some say, isolation). Buying out the slaves would have taken decades, but it may well have saved 600,000 lives. So what do you do? Ultimatley, I believe the Civil War was unavoidable anyway as Lincoln would not allow the South to seceed under any terms. Was it worth losing 600,000 lives (in a country of only 30 million, and more lives than in any other U.S. war) to save the Union and ultimately end slavery? That is a very loaded question with all sort of pitfalls on both sides of the argument.

                            One problem with Ron Paul running for president is that he is very well read, he does not pander and he is not good at sound bites, and so his ideas don't come across clearly. America seemed disturbed when Paul denounced Lincoln on MTP, but from what I have written above, Lincoln was no saint himself.

                            It's a very complex issue that can't be handled on MTP, and Paul was basically trapped when Russert asked the question, but that is what Russert does. It is wrong, IMO, to paint Paul a racist over his Lincoln statments (see my posts above, but there may be other reasons to paint Paul a racist, or at least insensitive).

                            I see Paul as an idealist to a point that he has a distorted utopian view, and since that view is based on a strict view of the constitution - with the core being property rights, it is easy to take him out of context. A lot of what he says does not fly in our modern world. However, a lot of what he says goes to where our government has strayed and does make sense.

                            So, yes, slavery was terrible and needed to end. The best way to have done so can be argued ad infinitum. As for the original post, I do not believe Ron Paul's statements about Lincoln and the Civl War provide for a racist overtone, but rather an overly idealistic view that all wars can be avoided. I'm not well read on the Civl Rights Act issue, but I'm willing to bet Paul has a reasonable argument on the side of property rights, but you can't help but come across as insensitive, if not racist, by putting proprty rights over human rights.

                            As for these neo-Nazi's supporting Paul, I don't put much into that. Paul's platform appeals to them, but interstingly, Paul apparently has more support from African Americans than any other GOP candidate (not that that says much).

                            What I find so intriguing about Paul is not whether he is a racist or not, but how a presidential candidate has such a large and diverse group of supporters. There may not have been a presidential candidate in history with such a large tent. He attracts Arican Americans, White Nationalists, fed up old school Republicans, left-wing Democrats, Independents, Anarchists, those who have not voted in years, a large contingent of first time voting college students, 9/ll Truthers, members fo the Christian Right, agnostics, athiests, you name it.

                            I think an intersting diary would be why Ron Paul has such a diverse group of supporters, with it going to his platform and the general apathy and/or distaste America has for both the Democratic and Republican parties - and what they are getting from government in general. Take away the While Nationalists, the Christian Right and old school Republicans, and one would think the Democratic party would be attracting the other groups, and it would be an interesting discussions as to while Paul is getting this support and not the Democratic party.

                •  One further point.... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  It really does go to what one considers the moral high ground. In thinking back on my history, and somebody can check this if they want, I am quite sure that the American Revolution against Great Britain was not a revolution but technically it was a secession (not that I'm crazy about technicalities).

                  So, it really is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure most on this here would agree the U.S. secession from Great Britain wasa good thing and the secession of the South from the North was a bad thing. However, that does not mean others don't hold different views.

              •  The desire to preseve the peculiar institution (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Danjuma, balancedscales

                of slavery at any cost was a cause for the South to attempt secession.

                If it wasn't then why did states like mine (Texas) make slavery a prominent part of their Declaration of Causes?

                "My heart found its home long ago in the beauty, mystery, order and disorder of the flowering earth." ~ Lady Bird Johnson

                by Over the Edge on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:35:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Good point (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  The Confederate Constitution ignored secession, but did write the Dred Scott decision into it, and required all states joining to accept "negro slavery" as a condition of joining. Slavery was important to the Confederacy.

                  •  Important enough to be the cornerstone. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    "My heart found its home long ago in the beauty, mystery, order and disorder of the flowering earth." ~ Lady Bird Johnson

                    by Over the Edge on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:42:11 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  In such tumultous times (0+ / 0-)

                    hotheads are given a lot of leeway.  What you say is true.  But it's also true that the more intelligent slaveowners like Robert E Lee voluntarily set their slaves free; the cries to the rabble notwithstanding, the tide had turned against slavery.  If Europe had organized a boycott of slave-made products, which pretty much was a matter of time, there would have been a rapid rethinking.

                •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Danjuma, Prachar

                  South Carolina specifically mentioned the cause of slavery in their documents to secede.

                  The only point I was looking to make was and is that Lincoln did not initial view slavery as his reason d'etre for the Civil War, but rather the cause of saving the Union, and that quite of few of Lincoln's writings and quotes are overtly racist.

                  •  I don't disagree with that. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    On the other hand, it cannot be said that (the preservation of) slavery was not a cause of the South's role in the war.

                    I don't see you saying that, but I read and hear it often.

                    "My heart found its home long ago in the beauty, mystery, order and disorder of the flowering earth." ~ Lady Bird Johnson

                    by Over the Edge on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:52:53 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rainmanjr, Prachar

                      If you read my above post, I not only agree - it is a fact that the South mentioned slavery in their proclamations to secede because abolition was a political hot button in the North. Again, my points have been geared towards Honest Abe and his true character. He had great qualities, but he was human and whether it be for political reasons to appease border states or due to his own character, Lincoln spewed quite a bit of racist venom.

          •  I contend that Lincoln should have let them go. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sk4p, livy, Prachar

            The south, I mean.  He was wrong in using war to keep this country together, though right in his wishes for  how to end it, and should have let them leave.  They would have folded, economically, in short order and we would have reclaimed them, voluntarily, I think.  The way it is, they never grew out of resentment, have taken a backwater religious-rule stance, and affect our Presidency in far too great a manner with these views.  

            Being bipolar means that I sometimes lose control and speak in generalities. Sorry if I offended anyone.

            by rainmanjr on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:08:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Southern states would have come back (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I have been making this argument for some time.  Slavery was becoming less and less economically viable.  One by one the slaveholding states would have wanted to rejoin the Union.  Legally, slavery would have been around a little longer in the South. However, the virtual slavery that occurred many decades (a century?) after the Emancipation Proclamation would not have happened at all (or at least to a much more limited extent).

              •  The grass is greener? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                We forget the Confederacy was set to expand their territory and increase slavery. The southern planters and traders would have recomposed themselves into a aristocracy and would have sought nothing less than imperial style expansion south and west. Moreover the Confederate economy would have been propped up by Brittan and other European powers, giving the Confederacy economic capability that would far exceed the capability of their inefficient economy and giving European powers and expanded presence on our continent. Much more blood and treasure would have been expended and many more people would have been enslaved before the Confederate experiment collapsed - and the aftermath could have been far more troubling than we could imagine.

                Sorry folks. It's not politics as usual.

                by James Kresnik on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:56:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Lincoln, The Union, Civil War and Emancipation (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rainmanjr, livy, Prachar

                  Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War.  The attack on Ft Sumner is what started the Civil War.  The North said, "You started it, we'll settle it."

                  Lincoln's primary goal was to reunite the nation at any cost, slavery was beside the point.

                  Two of Lincoln's generals approached him to authorize their efforts to free all slaves  in sectors under their command during the first year of war, Lincoln refused.

                  Lincoln was for a MORE GRADUAL solution to slavery "problem", through state by state reforms, with the further possibility of a federal buyout providing compensation to the slave owners. (sound familiar? Kos called this idea "racist")

                  Lincoln only used slavery as a wedge issue, an economic weapon against South, by depleting their workforce.  He wrote the proclamation in such a way so that his supporters would not fear the freed slaves would take their jobs and drive wages down.

                  •  No, slavery was the whole point. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Over the Edge
                    Lincoln's primary goal was to reunite the nation at any cost, slavery was beside the point.
                    Making such a claim is like saying that the elite's classes ideological hatred of the socialist Madird Government was not the cause of the Spanish Civil War. It misses the primary and in most cases the exclusive cause of the other disputes. Slavery as both a anti-humanitarian an economic institution was the causal origin of every other issue.

                    Lincoln only used slavery as a wedge issue, an economic weapon against South, by depleting their workforce.

                    Even if so inclined, sweeping reforms would have been a very hard sell, considering the political atmosphere of the time. Indeed Lincoln started with the intent of keeping the Union together and displace the political domination of the southern aristocracy. He also had to consider the geopolitical implications of a southern succession, the demands of northern industrialists and the future and ambitions of a competing slave state on the North American continent.

                    Moreover, we would err to forget that Lincoln and Grant's feelings about black participation in American life evolved considerably, almost radically between pre-succession conflicts and the and emancipation as the war reached it's conclusion.

                    Lincoln was not the power mad cynic, simply a politician who had to make choices within the geopolitical, economic and humanitarian framework he was given. I can only agree that if slave buyout plan and phasing out of slavery was indeed a viable option, Lincoln would have made that his first choice. Such an option it was not to be and could never have been as the southern aristocracy would have vetoed that option, as they made all indications electing to expand slavery at any given opportunity,including the option to prosecute border wars and foreign invasions. I am forced to conclude that Paul's proposal unsubstantiated conjecture motivated by wishful thinking.

                    Sorry folks. It's not politics as usual.

                    by James Kresnik on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:46:09 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I've considered Brittain. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  But they mostly wanted involvement with the south only as a base to retake their upstart colonies.  Southerners would have tired of them, who would have treated the populace with complete disrespect, very soon.  The U.S. would have had to abstain from trading with our new neighbors, down south, and worked to make others do the same.  I think that would have happened since slavery was becoming as distasteful as child labor is now.  They would have begun to collapse and crawled back home.  

                  Being bipolar means that I sometimes lose control and speak in generalities. Sorry if I offended anyone.

                  by rainmanjr on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:52:56 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  completely different than Europe (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, balancedscales

      It's bad economics and history to compare us to Europe. Our situation was unique in demographic and economic sense.

      •  I am not comparing, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I just wish I knew how it was accomplished and over what period of time.

        Any primers on the subject to be reccommended?

        I think that was as huge a dependancy and economically entrenched system as our energy system is today.  Though Slavery was much worse.  However we are going to need strategies that BIG to get the political will to deal with greenhouse gas emmissions globally.  So I wonder if there is a lesson there.

        "Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." Carl Sagan

        by dogheaven on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:30:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  in a lot of places, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dogheaven, Prachar, buckrogers1965

      it ended by compensated emancipation.  The government paid off the plantation owners and set the slaves free.

      In other places it just ended because it was no longer a viable or economical means of production.

      All this talk about the Late Unpleasantness though, detracts from the true issue, and Kos' likely root concern.

      The prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination is She Who Must Not Be Named.  A Ron Paul 3rd party candidacy will attract more Dem than Rep votes, due to his antiwar stance.  This will allow the Republicans to maintain the Presidency by a comfortable margin.

      The Ron Paul coalition, is a coalition of the disaffected.  If you are "Totally fed up" about Something, RP is your guy.  Antiwar people probably form the majority of the coalition, but there are many others.

      Enterpriser; Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41

      by jimsaco on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:29:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We should be happy? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik, Prachar

        The republicans having control of everything stuck us in a bloody, expensive quagmire.  We voted Democrats in, and they decided that as long as we stayed in the bloody, expensive quagmire they could get more votes out of it.  They even supported a troop surge.  Wonderful.

        I am not going to vote for any of the "front runner" candidates and neither are the majority of the American public.  

        Your neocon candidates that are killing our soldiers with cold blooded political calculation are all going to lose.

        •  Then vote for Kucinich. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          livy, Prachar

          He has never supported this war, initially or by funding, and has a great plan to remove us from it.  Voting RP, who has lots of very faulty thinking, would be disastrous for our country, should he win.
          But that's the rub for this notion of him splitting the Dem's from HRC.  Should RP win.  He wont.  When he doesn't, will RP supporters come back to Dem. Party because the Repugs are, well, repugnant?  I'd bet they will...or not vote at all.  

          Being bipolar means that I sometimes lose control and speak in generalities. Sorry if I offended anyone.

          by rainmanjr on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:28:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (4+ / 0-)

      The problem with Paul's answer lies more in the fact that it validates the idea that it was legitimate to own people and sell them, IMO.

      "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

      by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:01:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah. This is right. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik, Independant Man

        You make a salient point.  It is, probably, the troubling underbelly of his thinking.

        Being bipolar means that I sometimes lose control and speak in generalities. Sorry if I offended anyone.

        by rainmanjr on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:30:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If RP were really a libertarian ... (3+ / 0-)

        He'd be saying the South should have compensated the slaves for the wealth created by their unpaid slave labor.

      •  Paul did not validate slavery (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I did not hear Paul validate slavery at all.  I'm fairly certain that he has called slavery immoral and antithetical to freedom.  He only said that it would have been less costly in lives and less costly economically to buy the freedom of the slaves.  Besides the upfront savings, it would have nearly eliminated the century-long, post-War "virtual slavery" system in the South.

        This isn't too unlike his stance on Social Security.  He believes there is no Constitutional authority allowing the Federal government to implement such a program.  However, he says that the Federal government now has a responsibility to provide for those who have become dependent on that system until that system can eventually be eliminated.

        •  Woof, woof (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tecampbell, Independant Man

          When a politician wrings his hands publicly over the plight of the oppressed Southern slaveholder, deprived of his human chattel without due compensation from the warmongering Northern government, that statement is not made in a cultural and historical vacuum. It's dogwhistle politics. You can see for yourself the dogs it called -- neoNazis and white supremacists. Given that a lot of those folks don't bother to vote most years because they hate the government so much, do you think they doubt where Ron Paul stands on the issues they value?

          Lie down with dogs, and you get up with fleas.

          •  Paul not concerned about the Civil War (0+ / 0-)

            I don't think you can say that Paul was anxious "over the plight of the oppressed Southern slaveholder".  The Civil War was something Russert brought up which has NOTHING to do with the 2008 election.  What I saw was someone who couldn't believe that he was being asked yet another INCONSEQUENTIAL question.  Paul is almost desperate to talk about subjects that MATTER such as the war, monetary policy, and civil liberties.

            Just remember, Kerry's "dogwhistle" perked up the ears of some unsavory types in th 2004 election.  Kim Jong-Il, Yasser Arafat, and Hugo Chavez all endorsed Kerry.

  •  I wonder (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    How do you think Ron Paul is going to do in Iowa? I can't really imagine he has a ton of support there. I think he'll do better in New Hampshire. He's got enough money to hang around for awhile. I'm just curious what you all think.

    "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"

    by Kestrel on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:02:02 PM PST

  •  Of Course (4+ / 0-)

    If Paul were just an anti-war, anti-Patriot Act libertarian critic of the Bush Administration, he would be a Democrat.

    It's his odious views on race--and his odd views on abortion, given that he's a libertarian--that explain why he is a Republican.

  •  The support for Paul on my campus (6+ / 0-)

    scares the shit outta me.

    People don't wanna see the news-it's boring. People wanna see animals. Close up. With a wide angle lens.

    by PLCOT on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:02:10 PM PST

  •  I like "Paulbots" (10+ / 0-)

    ... the term, not the strange zombie-like entities in question.

    I get the impression that many of the Paulbots are brand-new to politics. Their sentences often have the general form "RON PAUL is the only candidate who [X]." Which in most cases is only true if you've never actually listened to a single word any other candidate has said. I mean, ever.

    I think there's also a tendency among people who've never thought about political issues to become confused or overwhelmed by the complexity of even fairly straightforward real-world problems. So a guy like Paul, who dispenses with things like nuance, analysis, and consequences has a lot of appeal. Don't like taxes? I'll get rid of them! Worried about the Federal Government snooping into your affairs? I'll shut it down!

    It's all pretty stupid if you think about it -- which is why I think Paulbots, in general, have never given politics a moment's serious thought in their lives. This election is their coming-out. God only knows what shape they'll be in when it's over.

  •  not sure I see the point of this line of attacks (8+ / 0-)

    Since Paul isn't particularly likely to get the nomination, I don't see the point of "going negative" and attacking him personally, especially at this stage (is there another Republican you'd prefer?). I could see it in the general if somehow he won the primary, but I don't really see what purpose it serves today.

    It seems to indirectly imply that someone with Paul's policy positions who didn't have the racist baggage would be ok, which I wouldn't think most progressives agree with. I think a more effective, clean, and directly way of attacking him would be to point out the policies he holds today, openly, that are anathema to progressive causes, rather than attacking a newsletter he wrote 15 years ago and comments that could be construed as racist. Why not focus on his pledge to abolish the public schools, for example?

    "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

    by Delirium on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:03:10 PM PST

    •  Me, too. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Delirium, Prachar

      I was going to say something similar.  Good thing I read the comments first.

      Focusing on his racism implies that racists statements from twenty years ago are the only reason to object to him. Lots of people said things twenty years ago they're not too proud of today. Giving Paul the benefit of the doubt on racism is a small step, especially when he's so hardcore anti-war. When all of his policies are about as anti-progressive as you can get why not focus on those policies instead? Even his anti-war position isn't about the immorality of this particular war. It's part of his anti-diplomacy, anti-UN, anti-engagement and, yes, anti-military positions. Why not discuss those issues, as well as his bizarre neo-feudal economic theories? Are progressives too dense to understand such things?

    •  Ron Paul is not a racist. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Quequeg, Prachar

      Yet both Kos and redstate are accusing him of being one.  

      I have a feeling that even if a black man ran on libertarian values that you would accuse him of being a racist Uncle Tom.

  •  "Ron Paul's Time Machine" (5+ / 0-)

    By Kossack and YouTuber Stranahan:

    -6.88 -6.31

    "They're all crazy. They're all crazy except you and me. Sometimes I have me doubts about you." -- Garrett Fort

    by Spathiphyllum on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:04:18 PM PST

  •  Wasn't He Wounded Alongside ML King? (3+ / 0-)


    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:05:53 PM PST

  •  That sort of compartmentalization is typical (7+ / 0-)

    of so many groups including some of the Libertarians.  After reading all of Ayn Rand's works and the Journal of The Cato Institute for many years I got used to the way the compartmentalization and fragmentation of things that were intimately connected to each other made for a set of meaningless cliches about the evils of taxes.  Anyone who puts property before people is even worse than a racist in my book.

    An idea is not responsible for who is carrying it. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:08:02 PM PST

  •  Is it true that you wrote this article in 1993? (9+ / 0-)

    Military Right
    which I find homophobic and would guess most others would too.

    I'm assuming that you would only naturally hold yourself to the same standard that you demand of Ron Paul.  Can you point me to where you offered an apology, retraction or correction for these remarks?

    •  Yeah (7+ / 0-)

      Just read the archives of this site. My conversion from Republican to Democrat is not a secret, nor is the fact that my views changed accordingly.

      Paul's conversion from racist to, er, still being a racist speaks volumes.

    •  Its very interesting to see (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DemocracyLover in NYC

      what we accept as a true change of heart.  I mean there is a real change in opinion based on new information or gained experience, or there is flip flopping.

      Conveniently changing your stripes to please a crowd or a demographic ala Romney and McCain is a normal symptom or alot of politicians.

      But growing up and learning and revising or changing your view is called maturity.  I think we aspire to that don't we?

      "Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." Carl Sagan

      by dogheaven on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:43:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, being able to change your mind (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and see the light sure is a lousy thing, ain't it? Much better to keep defending the racist drivel you wrote in vanity newsletters twenty years ago.  Paul's a rock, he is, never stands down on those old convictions. When he says something mind-numbingly stupid, he keeps it duct-taped to his forehead for life.

      •  I haven't actually seen an explicit retraction (0+ / 0-)

        It'd be a little more reassuring if Kos were to come out and say that he no longer thinks "don't ask, don't tell" is a good policy, and that he no longer thinks it would be harmful to the military if gay people could serve in it.

        "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

        by Delirium on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:37:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I guess he conveniently forgets... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, Lobsters, Ballard Mutt

    ...that if Lincoln hadn't gone to war we probably wouldn't have "The United States of America".

    I  mean, we'd have at least 2, possibly more separate smaller countries.  "A house divided..." and all that.


  •  I am by no means a Ron Paul supporter ... (9+ / 0-)

    And wikipedia is by no means the definitive word on anything. But it does aim to be impartial, and here is what it has to say on the "Ron Paul Report" charges of reacism.

    Morris ran numerous attacks, including publicizing issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) that included derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians.[53][54] Alluding to a 1992 study finding that "of black men in Washington ... about 85 percent are arrested at some point in their lives",[55][56] the newsletter proposed assuming that "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", and stated that "the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black males, who commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers".[57][58]

    In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by an unnamed ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[59] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[34] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own,"[9] but added that Paul's "response to the accusations was not transparent."[9]


    Ron Paul may very well be a racist, but the possibility at least exists that he simply didn't exercise sufficient editorial supervision over his own newsletter, and only realized what had happened when it was too late to print a retraction.

    •  Then he should release all his newsletters (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, grimc, ShaunMcDonnell

      Let the American people read what he published for at least 10 years.

      What the hell is he hiding/

      Is he Cheney?

    •  lol (7+ / 0-)

      Stuff written under the Ron Paul byline in the Ron Paul Political Report shouldn't be ascribed to Ron Paul? Only in Ron Paul world does that make any sense.

      He should release the copy of the newsletter where he retracted those statements, if it exists. But of course, it doesn't because he didn't.

      •  He probably didn't print a retraction ... (3+ / 0-)

        If I understand the time-line correctly, he didn't know about the stories until several years after the fact. Here's what one article (that I'm sure you have read) has to say about the newletter:

        At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.

        "This was a big operation," says one source. "And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either."

        This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a "Ron Paul" column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

        Says one source, "Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them."

        Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.


        I'm not sure what kind of retraction he could or should have made under those circumstances. Perhaps he is reticent about coming up with copies of all his newsletters (assuming he has them) because is a crotchety old coot who is sensitive about being called a racist.

        •  Not credible IMO (3+ / 0-)

          Would you publish something with your name on it w/o even reading it? Basic responsibility really.

          Even if true that would seriously call into question at least his political acumen & maybe says other things about his competence.

          "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

          by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:27:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course I wouldn't write ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            a newsletter with my name on it w/o reading it. But then again, I'm not a doctor/US congressman/cult figure.

            But I have in the past ghostwritten a newsletter (the author was and is a fairly minor political figure) and I know for a fact that ostensible author did not bother to read what he had supposedly written.

            •  With that little regard for the public face they (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              present, that person will always be a minor political figure.

              Even if the candidate/office holder doesn't him/herself read it doesn't that person have staff?

              Wouldn't somebody bring something that serious to his/her attention?

              "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

              by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:06:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well it seems that it wasn't (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                a widely distributed newsletter, given that people can't seem to get their hands on extant back issues. Maybe nobody picked up on it until his opponent Morris did some serious oppo research and dug up those obscure newsletters.

                •  If you publish it with your name on (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  it is IMO relevant, and if RP was willing to stand behind what is written in them he'd release all of them now rather than making it some "serious research" issue to get them.

                  His office/organization would have received printing proofs that had to be signed off on, so he has them, no? If not, why not?

                  What about the issue of staff? Does he really want us all to believe that no-one in his organization read the damned things? That's absurd. Why'd he waste money printing them?

                  "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

                  by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:28:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He didn't waste money (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    printing them. He lent his name to an outside venture, from what I've read tonight.

                    •  Well, that's some judgement for ya (0+ / 0-)

                      Staff? Staff? Nobody from his office bothered to read it, ever? C'mon.

                      "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

                      by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:55:23 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You keep acting as if he's a typical (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Prachar, buckrogers1965

                        mainstream politician. He's not. Why should his Washington staff be vetting a newsletter that was apparently written for a small bunch of libertarian survivalists? They probably didn't even know about it.

                        Btw, apparently the dickheads over at LGF are even more upset about comments made in Paul's newsletter than Kos is.

                        •  Mainstream politician? (0+ / 0-)

                          No he's waaaay outside the mainstream. Is he a public figure? Does he have staff?

                          He's a friggin' moron if he leant his name for christsakes and just said "oh, fuck it, nobody's gonna read it anyway" are you really serious?

                          "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

                          by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:22:21 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm just saying he was probably (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Prachar, buckrogers1965

                            busy with other endeavors. At least that makes more sense than the proposition that he wrote several articles that were in a completely different style from all his other writing and were also racially inflammatory.

                            Definitely a stupid mistake--you'll get no argument from me on that.

                          •  I've gone along with the idea (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            that he didn't write them, though I don't have any verifiable way to know one way or the other. But "busy with other endeavors" for a small-time pol? Staff? Nobody read it?......g'night.

                            "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

                            by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:37:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He's written a lot (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Prachar, buckrogers1965

                            of books, ran for president on the Libertarian ticket, given hundreds of speeches, all beyond his congressional work and any work he might have performed as a doctor (I have no idea about that).

                            So yeah, I still believe it's possible.

                            In any case, happy new year!

                        •  Just a completely ridiculous argument (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          and I'm sure that the LGF crowd is scared of him, he's way more likely to split the rethug vote. He's a rethug, and there have got to be some of them who would be intellectually honest enough to vote against the war (at least in secret), the regular old "just-douchebags" (non-neo-con) rethugs, y'know?

                          "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

                          by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:26:15 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  If this had happened several times (0+ / 0-)

                    I think it would be at least a close to watertight case.  If it only happened once, I think it's conceivable that whoever should have double-checked the edition had had just fallen in love, and cut corners to get home early, or some similar scenario.

                    •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      I think you're right, that's why I made the point about printing proofs. I have worked in that industry on & off over the years, and proofs are kept both by the csr & by the printer, for years (for a variety of reasons).

                      He has the rest of them, or could certainly put his hands on them to make his case (if it could be made).

                      Of course mistakes are made sometimes, I'm not perfect & wouldn't expect a candidate to be, but it seems like an awful lotta rationalizin' goin' on 'round here on this issue, IMO.

                      "I ran outta beer once... it was *UGLY* "- the Badger

                      by Independant Man on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:14:53 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I like your appeal to "Twue Luvvvv" though ;) (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      "I ran outta beer once... it was *UGLY* "- the Badger

                      by Independant Man on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:15:59 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Smell test: FAIL (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Independant Man

              How much other stuff did Paul "write" that kept him from reading his own newsletter that came out once a month and was 8 pages long?

            •  Problems with Ron Paul's story (0+ / 0-)

              From my Ron Paul blog:

              You can't prove that Ron Paul even read that article!
              We've established that the newsletter went out under Ron Paul's name, with Ron Paul's permission. At some point, we need to assume a basic level of competency for Ron Paul over his own name. If we can't assume competence, then why in the world should we elect this man as president?

              This attempt to shift the burden of proof is yet another evasion tactic:

              A=B: The only way to prove that Ron Paul is responsible for his own newsletter is by proving that Ron Paul knew about it.
              B=C: The only way to prove that Ron Paul knew about it is if Ron Paul personally admits to it.
              Therefore, A=C: The only way to prove that Ron Paul is responsible for Ron Paul's own newsletter is if Ron Paul personally admits to it.

              This burden of evidence sounds ridiculous, where the only way Ron Paul can be proven guilty is if he admits to it. The funny thing is that Ron Paul actually has admitted it, back in 1996. But for some reason, his 1996 admission doesn't actually count. Why not?

              But let's pretend, for a moment, that the denials are true. That doesn't explain why Ron Paul couldn't have issued a retraction. Nor does it explain why Ron Paul would wait until 2001 to renounce those statements. Even if Ron Paul didn't write the article, and even if he didn't read the article before it went out, he still should have read it when it arrived to his mailbox, or in 1996 when the local newspapers asked him about it. There is no way that Ron Paul can plead ignorance in 1996, after he had been confronted directly and publicly with the contents of his writings.

              Ron Paul was a full-time Congressman and Doctor, he didn't have time to work on that newsletter.
              The first part is false. Ron Paul left congress in 1985 and returned to congress in 1997. The second part is irrelevant. Having a full-time job is not the same thing as having a full-proof alibi. We're talking about an 8-page newsletter that would have been distributed once a month. Even if Ron Paul was working 40 hours a week, that would still give him 128 hours to work on a newsletter which, again, only printed once a month. At the very least, he should have received the latest issue in his own mailbox, and he should have been able to issue a retraction.

              Ron Paul's official website proudly boasts that, "Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress." Since 1997, Ron Paul has written 350 pieces of legislation, and that he has voted over 7000 times. Yet we're supposed to believe that as a civilian, Ron Paul can't find the time to write one 8-page article? That as a civilian, Ron Paul can't even find the time to even read his own 8-page newsletter?

              This literally does not add up. 350 pieces of legislation over 10 years translates into three pieces per month. Does Ron Paul hire a ghostwriter to write his legislation as well? Will he start using that excuse when his legislation proves unpopular? Where exactly will it end? Again, at some point, we need to assume a basic level of competence.

              •  You're right about his not being a congressman (0+ / 0-)

                during the dates in question (as you can probably tell, I'm not an expert on Ron Paul--I'm simply defending him against these particular charges of racism because a few sources that I generally put some trust in have looked into these charges and more or less exonerated him of them). The fact that he wasn't a congressman at least puts an end to the argument that his congressional staff should have vetted his newsletter and given him a heads-up.

                And I can only repeat that he did write a lot of the articles in his newsletter, but that at other times, according to various sources, his newsletter was ghostwritten. That comports with my own experience as someone who has at one time ghostwritten the newsletters of a minor political figure who was often too busy with other projects to even bother reading what I had written in his name. (Fortunately for the figure in question, I'm not a racist.) ;^)

                •  The strongest evidence against Ron Paul (0+ / 0-)

                  But I have a newspaper article where the writer says that he believes Ron Paul!
                  Appeal to authority fallacy. Don't just tell us that people believe Ron Paul, give the reasons behind their opinion. The person writing that article could be wrong.

                  And even though Ron Paul didn't have a congressional staff when the newsletter was being published, he also didn't need one.  Why?  Because the newspapers already alerted him of what the newsletters said in 1996.  No matter what you try to say to excuse his newsletter, it still doesn't address his 1996 comments.  Neither do the sources that you've listed.  They simply say that they believe his 2001 denials, without going over the strongest evidence against them:  Ron Paul himself.

        •  1992-93, not the 1980's (0+ / 0-)

          is the timeframe for the comments referenced in kos' diary.


          He was questioned about it in 1996 by the Houston Chronicle, but did not mention a ghostwriter until 2001 in an interview with Texas Monthly.

          Moving it out of the 1980's renders some of what you blockquoted irrelevant.

          "My heart found its home long ago in the beauty, mystery, order and disorder of the flowering earth." ~ Lady Bird Johnson

          by Over the Edge on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:08:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Paulbots Spam Wikipedia (0+ / 0-)

      The problem with Wikipedia is that it is easily manipulated.  The problem with Paultards is that they like to manipulate things online.  Put those things together, and a small group of Paultards can make it so that Wikipedia spins things as favorably towards Ron Paul as possible, just like the manipulate CNBC polls to give Ron Paul 75% of the vote.

      The magazine defends Ron Paul's right to protect the confidence of a ghost writer who's very existence is at debate.  How convenient.

      And the statements he made regarding the Barbara Jordan piece in 2001 contradict earlier statements in 1996.  Have you ever said something bad about another person and regretted it afterwards?  Have you ever tried to lie about it if you could?  Well, the same goes for Ron Paul.

      •  Maybe then you'll trust the New York Times (0+ / 0-)

        a bit more then. I thought the Christopher Caldwell article on Ron Paul was fairly interesting. Here's what it had to say on this whole bruhaha.

        In the 1996 general election, Paul’s Democratic opponent Lefty Morris held a press conference to air several shocking quotes from a newsletter that Paul published during his decade away from Washington. Passages described the black male population of Washington as "semi-criminal or entirely criminal" and stated that "by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government." Morris noted that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul’s newsletter as a laudably "racialist" publication.

        Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. "Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, ‘Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,’" he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.

        What is interesting is Paul’s idea that the identity of the person who did write those lines is "of no importance." Paul never deals in disavowals or renunciations or distancings, as other politicians do. In his office one afternoon in June, I asked about his connections to the John Birch Society. "Oh, my goodness, the John Birch Society!" he said in mock horror. "Is that bad? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well educated, and they understand the Constitution. I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with. Because they’re real strict constitutionalists, they don’t like the war, they’re hard-money people. . . . "


        •  The New York Times could be wrong (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          They have been wrong in the past.  Judith Miller, anyone?

          The article doesn't explain the fact that Ron Paul didn't deny the newsletter until 2001.  It also doesn't clarify what the author means when he says "since the style diverges widely from his own."  Compared to what?

  •  Markos has gone from (8+ / 0-)



    True, I don't think much of Dennis, but at least his anti-war creds aren't sullied by noxious views on any number of other issues.

    I'm watching this space for the upcoming endorsement.

    The end game is the presidency not the nomination

    by stevej on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:11:18 PM PST

  •  Isn't it true that buying the slaves would have (5+ / 0-)

    been cheaper than the entire Civil War, though? I never really thought of this before, or considered it as a bizarre Realpolitik exercise in math.

    I came in peace, seeking only gold and slaves

    by revenant on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:11:31 PM PST

    •  yes (5+ / 0-)

      not to mention the 600,000 lives lost.

      Enterpriser; Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41

      by jimsaco on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:33:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  wasn't going to happen (4+ / 0-)

        The southern aristocracy wouldn't have wanted it because they were in a minority in many slave states. Emancipation meant political destruction.

        Their actual desire was to expand slavery, even out to California. There were major debates and political compromises over this.

        Slavery in Europe existed in their colonies, not on their 'homeland' except to a small extent. This created a totally different economic and political dynamic.

        •  Maybe it was in a Howard Zinn (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          balancedscales, Prachar

          book, or a Michael Parenti one, but one of the main motives of the South secession had to do with the wish to conquer the Caribbean and South America specifically for slaves and resources.

          I think "Manifest Destiny" was sort of a reconciliation of Northern & Southern interests.

          Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

          by Jim P on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:21:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree it couldn't have ended that way. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sparhawk, James Kresnik, Prachar

          But I do take issue with the idea that saying 'There were ways to avoid the civil war and free the slave' is racist.

          It's probably wrong, we were not Europe and slavery was a very protected institution, and it's funny to see a supposed libertarian assert that the Federal government could require the sale of all that property against the owner's wishes.

          Or is he proposing this would be some voluntary program, which would be even less likely to work?

          Regardless, slavery could not end 'peacefully' as long as the South still based its economy on it, period. Peacefully in quotes because it probably could have ended without literal all-out war, though. Anyone who thinks otherwise is misinformed historically...but that doesn't make them racist.

          If kos thinks that's some sort of racist code, OTOH, he needs to say so, and not just assume we think that postulating anything about the civil war is racism.

        •  Lincoln scared the hell out of the south. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          livy, Prachar

          I think that there was some kind of personality clash between Lincoln, and his powerful Northern supporters, and the elites in the South and that scared the South into leaving the Union.

          I believe that if Lincoln could have assured the elite in the south of keeping their place, while still phasing out slavery over a few years and compensating people for the loss, maybe building factories in the south as compensation and letting the elite run those factories, then we might have been able to not only end slavery, but advance the south even with the North economically.

          However, the North liked being more powerful than the South and were not willing to compromise on anything, anymore than the south was.  I think the North saw stripping the uppity Southern elite of their workforce as a way to break them.  And of course the Southern elite were not going to take this sitting down.

          The result was the death and injury of millions and an economic collapse in the US that lasted decades. Certainly for most Black people after the civil war their lives didn't change much, just becoming share croppers instead of slaves, often working for the same person that owned them before. They were not welcome in the North, which was every bit as racist as the South ever was at that time.

      •  Then why wasn't that seriously considered ? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Nowadays we have S&L, airline, etc. etc. bailouts that would probably make Ending Slavery a piker.

        (Note: the previous question is a transparent, weak-tea attempt to get out of doing my own research, which I realize is inevitable.)

        I came in peace, seeking only gold and slaves

        by revenant on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:44:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  part of it (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Delirium, Over the Edge, Prachar

          was you had 3 of the worst presidents in US history in the 1850s (Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan).  One after the other.  Well, worst before you-know-who anyway.

          One of the more interesting theories I've seen had to do with the election of 1860.  Lincoln was anathema to the south.  If there had been a mechanism like (I think it's called) approval voting, perhaps Stephen Douglas or John Bell would have won, and been able to negotiate a settlement with the confederates.  All speculation.

          Enterpriser; Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41

          by jimsaco on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:01:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It was considered (5+ / 0-)

          Henry Clay, for one, advocated buying the slaves and shipping them to Africa. Lincoln favored it too at one point. Problem is, nobody wanted to pay for it. So we wound up with the Civil War.

          Clay was dead by the time the war came. So were Calhoun, Webster, and even T. H. Benton. Those who believe the war could have been prevented talk about the "blundering generation" that started the war.

          My complaint about Paul's line here, though, is the old canard that Lincoln started the war. South Carolina was the state that started the war. They shot first, and no one in the federal government forced them to do it.

          "The War of Northern Aggression" is a lie. They have a case with "The War between the States" because most of the military units were state units. They have no case with this "War of Northern Aggression" crap that Paul apparently buys into.

    •  I doubt the Civil War would have been (0+ / 0-)

      averted. John C. Calhoun would have seen it as a states right issue and South Carolina would have led the secession hysteria over any such proposition.

      "My heart found its home long ago in the beauty, mystery, order and disorder of the flowering earth." ~ Lady Bird Johnson

      by Over the Edge on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:41:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Iraq war is now a distraction? (7+ / 0-)

    To me, the biggest story of the primaries is that the fantasy world of the political classes has become so entrenched that only two marginal candidates Paul and Kucinich focus on a war that has consumed 4000 dead and tens of thousands of wounded Americans, 10 to 100 times that in Iraqis, hundreds of billions of dollars and most of the safeguards of a democratic government. The third biggest story is that the liberal bloggers who were galvanized into action by the war have accepted the narrative and spend their time bickering about the most minor drivel that the MSM and the "don't talk about the war" candidates consider important.

    The second biggest story is that most of the public is not buying it.

  •  I fail to see how this proves Paul is a racist (13+ / 0-)

    This is entirely within the philosophical principles of his libertarianism.  Slavery is wrong.  Race has nothing to do with it.  He is advocating a market solution to slavery.  Where does he advocate racial superiority of whites, or inferiority of blacks, or suggest a double standard, or any other racist thing?  If you're going to make this kind of outrageous claim, you at least have to make a rational argument.

    Kos and most of the other front pagers have been WAY over the top lately in their smug name-calling and pompous self-righteousness.  Bleah.  

    This blog reminds me increasingly of The O'Reilly Factor.

    •  Um, slavery would seem to be anti-freedom, ya (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skywriter, balancedscales


    •  "Race has nothing to do with it." (4+ / 0-)

      Yeah, it was just a coincidence that all slaves were black. Had nothing to do with race at all.

      People don't wanna see the news-it's boring. People wanna see animals. Close up. With a wide angle lens.

      by PLCOT on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:16:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Buying" people is repugnant, (7+ / 0-)

      It enforces the deplorable concept that people can property.

      "My heart found its home long ago in the beauty, mystery, order and disorder of the flowering earth." ~ Lady Bird Johnson

      by Over the Edge on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:31:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  can be property. n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nasarius, Independant Man

        "My heart found its home long ago in the beauty, mystery, order and disorder of the flowering earth." ~ Lady Bird Johnson

        by Over the Edge on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:34:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Killing people is worse than buying people (6+ / 0-)

        Slavery came to an end in the United States as the consequence of war.  It came to an end in the rest of the West as a consequence of not-war.

        •  Point taken. (0+ / 0-)

          I don't think the Civil War could have been averted, though.

          "My heart found its home long ago in the beauty, mystery, order and disorder of the flowering earth." ~ Lady Bird Johnson

          by Over the Edge on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:01:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not entirely true (3+ / 0-)

          The southern slave owners were not absent landlords in London or Amsterdam. They were native to the place, and entrenched in it, culturally and economically. Getting them to change in place is quite different than fleeing a troubled colony (such as Haiti).  

        •  The rest of the west didn't have (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Over the Edge, balancedscales

          anything really equivalent to the plantation south.

          "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

          by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:32:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How are you defining "west" here? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Didn't Brazil have slave plantations? Jamaica?

            •  Y'know I almost included (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              " and the triangle trade ". Most of the shipping for which originating here in my native Rhody, since those things were all related. The cane-rum-slaves economy would've fallen apart without the market for slaves in the southern states. No southern plantation culture, no cane plantations either.

              "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

              by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:02:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Isn't your timeline off? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                The Caribbean plantations were first. The future US states were a sideshow, settled largely to provide food for the Caribbean in the case of South Carolina, whose first big crop was rice. Virginia grew tobacco but it relied mostly on indentured servants until about 1700.

                •  OK, but my timeline relates to slavery in the US (0+ / 0-)

                  the ending of same. Honestly I don't know about relative numbers of slaves between the southern US & Caribbean plantations(and Brazilian slavery is certainly not on my radar) so where do they rank? Since you seem to have more info. And when where they emancipated relative to the US?

                  "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

                  by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:22:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's a lot of info (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Over the Edge, James Kresnik

                    Let's see, Haitians emancipated themselves in the French Revolution. The British Caribbean slaves got freedom in 1833. Brazilians had to wait for the 1880s. Small numbers of slaves were imported to the future US, but during the long time between the end of the legal slave trade from Africa (1808) and emancipation (1863) they were bred relentlessly, and anyone with the least drop of African blood was assumed to be a slave unless they could prove otherwise.

                    As for the Atlantic slave trade, here's more than you wanted to know, from the DuBois Institute at Harvard.

                    •  I'm sure that is more than I needed to know (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      so for the sake of consistancy in the argument, how many of those slaves were "purchased to freedom"?

                      The idea that the US gov could buy (still missing the moral point anyway) and emancipate ALL the southern slaves seems not to be credible. Paleowingbat boondoggle anyone?

                      How exactly was the southern economy supposed to survive if they suddenly had to pay wages to people they previously only gave a subsistance level of support?

                      I'm not even close to wanting to think about being an economist but what would be the effect? Seems like it would affect things negatively from  several different directions to me.

                      "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

                      by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:52:30 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  To try to answer the questions (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Over the Edge, buckrogers1965

                        How many were purchased in the US or Haiti? Damn few, although Henry Clay and others did have the idea to do it. British slaves were supposed to be apprentices for a period of years before becoming free, so their owners could recoup their losses. I don't know about Brazilian slaves.

                        I never said Henry Clay's idea was practical, many people at the time scoffed that it wasn't practical, especially since slave prices kept rising despite growth in the slave population, because demand for slaves kept growing faster than supply.

                        This next question surprised me. It isn't counterfactual.

                        How exactly was the southern economy supposed to survive if they suddenly had to pay wages to people they previously only gave a subsistance level of support?

                        That's exactly what did happen, and the southern economy survived so well on sharecropping that poor whites were gradually reduced to sharecroppers themselves. Cue the southern populist movement. And the rest (as they say) is history . . . ;-)

                        •  I'm sorry, I don't think (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          most observers would say that the south's economy was wonderously strong. In fact, I believe that the multi-generational setback to the southern economy is the factual root of continued north/south factionalization, isn't it?

                          The economic & social aftermath of the war was the impetus for the northern migration of blacks to the Northeast & Chicago areas wasn't it? There was no work for decent money (and they were still treated like n*****s), so they left.

                          "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

                          by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:34:54 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Please, I didn't say (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            the southern economy was "wonderously strong." AAMOF I said it "survived" and did well enough. The south's economic falling behind was one cause of the war, not its result, and one reason for increasing calls for emancipation, since more and more, even in the south, felt that slavery was what was holding back the south.

                            Also, we should not forget the important role of the tariff in causing the war. The southern ruling classes resented the idea that they should pay high tariffs on their imported European luxury goods to support northern industry and internal improvements that benefited industry over agriculture. They wanted equal numbers of slave and free states so they could block tariffs in the Senate. The Republican party wasn't abolitionist, but they were high tariff and they promised to admit no more slave states so they could pass high tariffs and industrialize the country. The war led to emancipation because there was no other way to defeat great generals like R.E. Lee.

                            Personally I think that if Lee had done his duty and stood by his oath to the Union the war would have been over in a few weeks, Lee would have been the next president and slavery would have been entrenched in the Constitution. The Lord works in mysterious ways, though, and

                            the crimes of this guilty land: will never be purged away; but with Blood.

                            until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether'.


        •  Says who? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Kresnik

          Killing people is worse than buying people


          Murder is a rejection by one man of another man's humanity. What do think slavery (buying people) is?

          What I got from Sheridan was a bold denunciation of slavery, and a powerful vindication of human rights...The more I read, the more I was led to abhor and detest my enslavers...It had given me a view of my wretched condition, without the remedy. It opened my eyes to the horrible pit, but to no ladder upon which to get out. In moments of agony, I envied my fellow-slaves for their stupidity. I have often wished myself a beast. I preferred the condition of the meanest reptile to my own. Any thing, no matter what, to get rid of thinking! It was this everlasting thinking of my condition that tormented me...The silver trump of freedom had roused my soul to eternal wakefulness. Freedom now appeared, to disappear no more forever...I often found myself regretting my own existence, and wishing myself dead; and but for the hope of being free, I have no doubt but that I should have killed myself, or done something for which I should have been killed.

          ...I did not hesitate to let it be known of me, that the white man who expected to succeed in whipping, must also succeed in killing me

          I found among them [former slaves] a determination to protect each other from the blood-thirsty kidnapper [slaveowners/white men], at all hazards. Soon after my arrival, I was told of a circumstance which illustrated their spirit. A colored man and a fugitive slave were on unfriendly terms. The former was heard to threaten the latter with informing his master of his whereabouts. Straightway a meeting was called among the colored people, under the stereotyped notice, "Business of importance!" The betrayer was invited to attend.


          "~Friends, we have got him here, and I would recommend that you young men just take him outside the door, and kill him!~" With this, a number of them bolted at him; but they were intercepted by some more timid than themselves, and the betrayer escaped their vengeance, and has not been seen in New Bedford since. I believe there have been no more such threats, and should there be hereafter, I doubt not that death would be the consequence.

          Familiarize yourself with Frederick Douglass.

          2 for future reference:

          One, do not speak of what you do not know.

          Two, and this is most important, do not speak for others.

          The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

          by callmecassandra on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:20:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  "Give me liberty or give me death" (0+ / 0-)
          -Patrick Henry

          "I'd rather die on my feet then live on my knees."
          -Emiliano Zapata

          "Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe."
          -Frederick Douglass

          As a result, on July 17, 1862, Congress passed the Second Confiscation and Militia Act, freeing slaves who had masters in the Confederate Army. Two days later, slavery was abolished in the territories of the United States, and on July 22 President Lincoln (photo citation: 111-B-2323) presented the preliminary draft of the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet. After the Union Army turned back Lee's first invasion of the North at Antietam, MD, and the Emancipation Proclamation was subsequently announced, black recruitment was pursued in earnest. Volunteers from South Carolina, Tennessee, and Massachusetts filled the first authorized black regiments. Recruitment was slow until black leaders such as Frederick Douglass (photo citation: 200-FL-22) encouraged black men to become soldiers to ensure eventual full citizenship. (Two of Douglass's own sons contributed to the war effort.) Volunteers began to respond, and in May 1863 the Government established the Bureau of Colored Troops to manage the burgeoning numbers of black soldiers.

          By the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men (10% of the Union Army) served as soldiers in the U.S. Army and another 19,000 served in the Navy. Nearly 40,000 black soldiers died over the course of the war--30,000 of infection or disease. Black soldiers served in artillery and infantry and performed all noncombat support functions that sustain an army, as well. Black carpenters, chaplains, cooks, guards, laborers, nurses, scouts, spies, steamboat pilots, surgeons, and teamsters also contributed to the war cause. There were nearly 80 black commissioned officers. Black women, who could not formally join the Army, nonetheless served as nurses, spies, and scouts, the most famous being Harriet Tubman (photo citation: 200-HN-PIO-1), who scouted for the 2d South Carolina Volunteers.

          Because of prejudice against them, black units were not used in combat as extensively as they might have been. Nevertheless, the soldiers served with distinction in a number of battles. Black infantrymen fought gallantly at Milliken's Bend, LA; Port Hudson, LA; Petersburg, VA; and Nashville, TN. The July 1863 assault on Fort Wagner, SC, in which the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers lost two-thirds of their officers and half of their troops, was memorably dramatized in the film Glory. By war's end, 16 black soldiers had been awarded the Medal of Honor for their valor.

          Sorry folks. It's not politics as usual.

          by James Kresnik on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:19:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Read the Ron Paul Political Report (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Independant Man

      Baldfaced racism in there with his name on it. If someone sent crap like that out in my name, I wouldn't wait years to fire people and would make it as clear as humanly possible that I don't tolerate anything of the sort.

      Deranged neoconservative militarism isn't the solution to nuclear proliferation; it's a cause. -- Glenn Greenwald

      by factbased on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:35:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Racism evolved as a justification for slavery. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      In Mexico and parts of South America they also had African slaves.  But they also had white slaves and indentured servitude.  They were primarily Catholic nations and had a pretty relaxed attitude about slavery.  When it was decided slavery was wrong they just freed everyone, end of story.

      However, in the U.S. the country was primarily protestant and enslaving other human beings was considered morally wrong.  The 'corporatists' of the time were the plantation owners and in order to justify using slave labor they had to promote the idea that the Africans were not really human beings, therefore it was not immoral to own them.  Hence, racism arose in this country and we have had a devil of a time stamping it out.

      At least that's how it was told to me.

      •  Oversimplified but good (4+ / 0-)

        and you can't do anything but oversimplification in these comments.

        The story is often told as an argument about which came first, racism or slavery. Did colonial Virginia slave owners invent racism to justify slavery to the English settlers? Or did the English have pre-existing racism that led to permanent slavery for blacks.

        From 1620 to 1640 there is no evidence of permanent slavery in Virginia, and good evidence that blacks were indentured servants treated no differently from whites. From 1640 to 1660 there is ambiguous evidence that scholars argue about. From 1660 on there is clear documentary evidence of permanent slavery for blacks, and the development of a full caste system by 1700.

        The best survey is probably still Winthrop Jordan's White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812

      •  MacCaulay, who wrote a history of England (0+ / 0-)

        and campaigned to end slavery, was vehemently anti-Catholic.  But when it came to describing racism and slavery, he went out of his way to explain that the "Catholic" attitude in places such as Rio de Janeiro was far superior to the "Protestant" attitude in places like DC.  Incidentally, the first African-American to preside over a major American university was a Jesuit father in the 1860s at Georgetown who was of mixed ancestry.

  •  Not a Paul supporter, but (8+ / 0-)

    I cannot see what makes that first quote racist in any way. If that's racist, well, let's just say there are a whole lot of racists running around, then. Whatever.

  •  I might believe Ron Paul IF... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ShaunMcDonnell, PLCOT

    he stopped turning down all requests to release all of his newsletters. He published the Ron Paul Political Report from 1985 to 1992, then changed the newsletter's name to the Ron Paul Survival Report in 1993.

    Let's see the newsletters, Rep. Paul.

    Or are you a graduate of the Cheney School of Secrecy?

    You want people to vote for you and to money-bomb you, and yet you want to keep secrets about your beliefs.

    What are you hiding, Rep. Paul?

    We weren't born yesterday. We want to trust but verify.

  •  russert does a good job (0+ / 0-)

    it was about time that someone stood up and finally pointed out some major flaws in this guy, the one or two media stories he gets a month make it seem like he is some washington outsider hero...nothing could be farther from the truth

  •  Lies, damn lies, and... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics.

    You mean you got the other two?

  •  hey kos,whats your problem with dennis (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizen k, Atheinostic, Prachar
  •  skipping the racism comments... (7+ / 0-)

    Would it have worked to buy out the slaveholders?  Practically, with the deep south being 40-60% slaves, I don't know that a southerner would have believed that the economy could have survived without slave labor.  

    That being said, the labor would have remained and have had to be paid.  The plantation owners would have had a good deal of cash to invest in labor saving technologies.  Would the post slave world have been less ugly than the post war south?  It is unlikely to have been worse. There would not have been a KKK.  

    Paul raises an interesting question for which I don't have the answer but I would not dispense with the thought as racism.

    11/7/06. America won. The Republicans lost. Our duty is to earn that trust.

    by Dave from Oregon on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:25:24 PM PST

    •  It wasn't just the South that was built by slaves (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Prachar, buckrogers1965

      parts of NYC, all of historic Washington DC was built by slave labor.  Slave holders in the North leased out their slaves for work well into the 1830s before slavery was abolished in most of the Northern states.

    •  I truly think that if (4+ / 0-)

      slavery had ended in this country in some other way than the civil war.  Say the founders had had more courage or money to start out with, we would not have the disgusting racism and results we have today.

      All wars have long lasting and negative consequences even when they are won.

      Those curiously straight lines drawn on maps all over the middle east are proof of that.

      "Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." Carl Sagan

      by dogheaven on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:58:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lay off Paul, for god's sake (9+ / 0-)

    Not for tactical reasons, but because he's not a racist.  White supremacists like him because he defends their right to be white supremacists, and because he would strip a government they see as illegitimate of many of its current powers and prerogatives.  Politically and ideologically he is a few fries short of a Happy Meal, but as I've said earlier in support of his basic integrity, if my life depended on the integrity of any of the presidential candidates, I'd pick him.

    "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

    by Rich in PA on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:29:05 PM PST

  •  Kos, Some GOP are making similar charges on HRC's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    campaign. Which I may not agree with but I have not heard a peep from the Big Name Liberal Bloggers calling them out on race Baiting.

    Sheheen (sic) fellow called Obama a drug dealer, Mark Penn mentioned Cocaine repeatedly on Hardball even against the Objections of Joe Trippi. I did not read frontpage diary condemning the act as race baiting.
    Ken Blackwell, the former secretary of State said the following about race baiting and the Clinton campaign:

    I could not disagree more with Barack Obama’s pork spending, tax raising, and defeat-embracing liberal agenda, but a recent attack by the Clinton campaign on Mr. Obama was the worst sort of the politics of personal destruction. It was one based on racial stereotypes. Such an attack is racism in all of its ugliness. Though the Congressional Black Caucus has yet to condemn this vicious racial smear, I can’t help but respond. Perhaps the Black Caucus’ silence is concrete evidence of the silliness of the Left’s notion that racial identity is determined by ideology. You know the logic. Clarence Thomas is conservative, therefore not black.

    Perhaps Caucus members are victims of this mindlessness and believe the Clintons are incapable of waging racist attacks on blacks because they are 'black.' Excuse me, I digress. Hillary Clinton has a big problem. It’s not because her Christmas ad was perhaps the single worst political ad in this presidential primary season.

    It’s instead that Mr. Obama has put Mrs. Clinton on the ropes, and so in desperation her New Hampshire co-chairman insidiously suggested that Mr. Obama was a former drug dealer. Mr. Obama confessed in his earlier writings that he used recreational drugs as a young man. Not able to stop his momentum, the Clinton camp latched onto his drug use.

    When that failed to get traction, Clinton’s co-chairman Billy Shaheen said—without evidence—that Obama may have been a cocaine dealer. It’s hard to believe in an operation as professional and tightly disciplined as the Clinton campaign that such an attack was unauthorized. Mr. Shaheen was deliberately testing that attack. It blew up in their faces, Mrs. Clinton publicly denounced him, and he resigned in disgrace. He’s the fall guy for one of the most despicable political attacks in modern presidential politics."

    Mr. Blackwell continues his commentary: "These attacks turn back the clock on race relations. How terrible to see the wife of 'the first black president' playing the race card in a ruthless effort to crush the man who may become our first African-American president. As the primaries heat up, these attacks are only going to get worse. Mrs. Clinton is worried right now, but not yet desperate. Though this attack is a desperate act, it’s only a foretaste of what’s coming if Mr. Obama wins in some of the early states. Mrs. Clinton knows that 2008 is the only chance she’ll ever get in her life to become president. She’s the frontrunner, with every advantage possible. If she is derailed by the eloquent community activist from Chicago, the party will pass her by. Right now she is the 'co-president,' painting herself as a key player in the Clinton White House, and fully able to take the reins of power. If she doesn’t prevail now, the conventional political wisdom will instead be that the only reason she was ever a possibility was because of who she married, that she never had the gift herself."

    The so called big name Bloggers looked the other way. Don't preach to me about Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a racist and we all know that. He is not even denying it, he is overt about it and I respect that. To me the worst form of racism is the covert one.

  •  Markos is getting pathetic! (5+ / 0-)

    I used to really think you people were "progressives" and "liberals" but all you are are suck ups for the Democratic Party.

    If you really cared about ending this war, you would get off your ass and hit the fucking streets like the rest of us anti-war Americans.

    Your party has done nothing to end this war. Back in November they said "if elected we will end this terrible nightmare in Iraq".

    Well, its been 882 American lives later and the war is still going on.

    I know, I know...but you need 67 votes in the Senate to do anything....BULLSHIT!!!

    When George Bush says he needs more money for his war, why do the Democrats have to write the check...just don't write the god damn bill!!!!

    But they do...why? Because Democrats are either PRO-WAR, or their pussies!!!!

    You attack Ron Paul for being a bigot, but do you also attack Democrats for being murderers Markos? You help murderers!

    How Pathetic!!

    •  lol (9+ / 0-)

      Dude, Ron Paul has been enabling this administration and its congressional cronies. Or did I miss the part where Ron Paul didn't vote for Tom DeLay for House Majority Leader?

      •  who cares? (9+ / 0-)

        Paul is a Republican - bad by definition. But it is absolutely criminal that Paul is leading the charge against the war and the war state. Dennis has been totally marginalized on the Democratic side and the Big 3 are evading the issue. The shameful fact is that Ron Paul is the most visible and effective voice against the war and the liberal bloggers are content to bitch about insults to trial lawyers, argue about whether Hillary tips or not and pretend that they can make Paul go away by insulting him.

        Solzhenytzen was a complete nutter - a religious zealot with all sorts of crazy ass ideas. But he spoke the truth to power like Paul is doing. And the smart people who pointed out that Gulag Archipelago was written by a loon didn't leave an honorable legacy.

      •  Your 100% correct about Delay (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Prachar, buckrogers1965

        You are comparing voting for Tom Delay as the majority leader to helping kill 882 of our fellow troops in this war?

        Do you even speak with your former friends that served with you.

        I do, everyday! and some I don't have the opportunity to anymore since they are no longer with us.

        I blame their deaths on George Bush and his enablers (that includes Republicans and PRO-WAR Democrats). Ron Paul has never voted for this war, nor voted to fund this war.

        We've all done many things wrong in our lives. I guess you haven't.

        Will Hillary end this war?
        Will Barack end this war?
        Will Edwards end this war?
        Will Biden end this war?
        Will Dodd end this war?

        Well by the looks of their voting records, I don't think so.

        You keep comparing voting for Delay to the deaths of our troops, good job Markos.

        My friends and their families thank you!

    •  Amen to that, brother (6+ / 0-)

      Anyone remember 2006? We gave the Dems control of both houses of Congress with the mandate to do something about Iraq. A year on the Dems are still sending Bush whatever he wants. Seventy billion more just the other week!!! And they're going to run on the same platform in 2008. "Vote for us so we can get this country out of Iraq!" Excuse me? The Dems already set the agenda. They don't need a veto-proof majority to take on the president. They just need some courage and some leadership. Unfortunately the American people evidently have to look elsewhere for that.

      Imagine Hillary or Obama in office in 2009. Bush leaves with Iraq in shambles and well over 100,000 troops still in-country. What to do? "Well, we can't leave now. The Republicans will call us weak." The same arguments Pelosi and Reid make now will be the same arguments that keep us there for God knows how much longer with our 14 military bases and embassy the size of the Vatican.

    •  Wrongo mi boy. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We all own this war and we always did.  Not just the troops or their families although they bear the brunt, but also the kids of our kids who will be paying it off.  

      I am off my ass and I don't agree with what the Dems in congress are doing right now by a long shot but we are not the sole owners here.

      "Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." Carl Sagan

      by dogheaven on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:05:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If you don't believe illegal immigration is good (3+ / 0-)

    then you're anti-brown, according to Kos. Some on left question the wisdom of a FLOOD of illegal immigrants on the working poor. And we're not racist.

    The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence. - John F. Kennedy.

    by Pork Sword on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:33:38 PM PST

  •  I am not a paul (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OregonCoast, Quequeg, sk4p, Prachar

    I am not a ual supporter but I understand it.  And Iactually welcome it.  This country's government is BROken,  so what is the harm of tossing it on its head?

    In the US of A, you don't matter, only your wallet does.

    by udontmatter on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:34:57 PM PST

  •  Multiple reasons, not just one (6+ / 0-)
    The Iraq war is not the only reason for his support from some democrats, though it is a significant one.

    It's the Iraq War, the policy of pre-emptive war, the drastic erosion of civil liberties, and the impending financial crisis facing this country, and the freedom message of tolerance for all points of view.

    Why some Paul Democrats don't turn to a Democratic candidate is partly because of the Democrat's weak position on war in general, their tendency to continue piling more government on top of the bloated government we already have, their absolute failure to even address the coming dollar meltdown and its impact on the poor and middle class, all on top of a very strong streak of anti-Christian sentiment emanating from their liberal supporters.

    You can dig up one or two alleged Paul quotes from 15 years ago, and point to a handful of blatantly bigoted supporters to try to smear his name, but for every acknowledged racist throwing their support behind Paul, I bet you I can dig up 20 anti-Christian hatemongers for each of the Democratic candidates.

    So let's review: some Democrats support Paul because (1) he confidently addresses the war, (2) civil liberties and (3) the "unitary executive" issues better than any other candidate on the stage, bar none, while also (4) presenting a plan to brace us for the financial iceberg this ship is barreling into a breakneck speed by shifting enormous amounts of spending from our overseas obligations to shore up our domestic obligations, and (5) he welcomes EVERYBODY to support him no matter what their beliefs are, which is the epitome of tolerance, and is vastly more welcoming to the independents and democrats who are tired of their faith being attacked from all angles just about every other day.

    These are five solid reasons absent from any Democratic candidate that are causing some democrats to turn to Paul.

  •  Libertarians Are Like Children (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If not for grown ups, they would shit their panties and have to smell it till the painful red rash on their wee asses opened into pustulent sores exuding a foul yellow slime, which they would in turn whine about and blame on liberals. But we wipe it off for them, and tell them a happy story, and they get back to mindless oblivious complacency in no time.

    Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers? -Mike Huckabee, 12/07

    by easong on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:40:04 PM PST

  •  History of racism? (5+ / 0-)

    Are you kidding?  You drag up one obscure article not even written by the man and this is the basis of your condemnation?

    I'm sorry, this is a horse that won't run.

    Why don't you post a thoughtful critique of his positions?  You might disagree, but I dare you to find a more principled, decent candidate.  

    Kucinich has much respect for Dr. Paul.

    And the war in Iraq is issue number one.  Kos has been wandering between Edwards and Obama lately, but they cannot be trusted to get us out of Iraq, at least not before 2013.  And Hillary?  Puh-lease.  She won't even distance herself from the war in Iraq authorization bill.

  •  Just Because KOS says it, doesn't make it true (7+ / 0-)

    Does it seem odd that Kos has written about a Republican candidate that has about 4% of the Republican vote nationally.

    He has not only written about Dr. Paul once or twice, but he's actually written about him 3 times within the last 7 days.

    Wonder why?

    Could it be that some of us on the left actually want this war in Iraq to end now instead of backing a candidate on the Democratic ticket that can't even tell us that they would have all the troops home by 2013?

    Even if Ron Paul doesn't win (unfortunatly he's a long shot), We anti-war lefty's will be at the convention in Denver showing our disgusts for the PRO-WAR Democrats.

    •  Because nimrods continue to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      harangue this community about how we should all "get it" about how wonderful the guy who wants to dismantle public education is. Yup, you sure sound like a lefty to me.

      "I don't mind being called a pinko, faggot or coward. It says alot about whoever's doing the calling"- the Badger

      by Independant Man on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:47:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sad (13+ / 0-)

    I've lurked on this site for a long time and generally find it to be at the very least interesting, but this strand of Paul-bashing is really sad, to say the least.

    First of all it looks increasingly desperate.  I mean, we're all upset with the Dems not doing the job they were elected to do and basically bending over for Bush, but does it really go so far as to be afraid of Ron Paul so much that you need to slander the guy?  Are you worried that he'll pull voters away from the Democrats because he's been more against the war than the Dem front-runners, and that he's most likely to actually bring the troops home?

    I would hope that this site was better than this.  That we'd actually try and understand a person's positions while arguing against them in a legitimate, intellectual fashion.  Instead, what I'm seeing is blatant ignorance from Kos and most posters here on economic policy and really stretched attempts to tie this guy to racism.  His quotes make it clear that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act was a part of his libertarian tendencies to keep the government out of private property.  

    But instead of taking that for what it says, you're acting an awful lot like the Repugs that argue that you're not a patriot if you don't support the Patriot Act!

    Come on, I'm not saying you have to like the guy, hell there's a lot that I don't agree with him on.  But the generalizations and simplistic attacks on the guy, especially when these racism charges have been repeatedly debunked is looking desperate and pathetic.  Let's take what this guy is doing, which is really impressive, and encourage our candidates to also push hard for bringing the troops home and decreasing corporatism!

    •  "afraid of Ron Paul"? Is there an alternate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MahFellaMerkins, jay w

      universe in which he polls out of the single digits? We might be afraid over there, but for now, we're over HERE.

      He's just a pathetic, racist right-winger, the current darling of the armchair libertarian set, and lots of fun to mock. That's about it, I'm afraid.

      Libertarianism is often used to justify racism. They libertarian supports specific policies which impact a particular race and then claims some sort of pure philosophical intent. Not all libertarians are racists, but almost every single one I've known personally is. At some point we have to acknowledge that the libertarian's tendency to dismiss moral concerns is more of a tool to mask immoral behavior than it is a political philosophy in and of itself.

    •  The false generalizations are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      used all the time.

      You did it in your comment about the dems. You watered something down to a simplistic version of "they didn't do what I wanted them to do" without even mentioning the "super majority" and the problem that has created.  Many refuse to acknowledge that perhaps some senators and congressman are representing states that while wanting to end the war, do not want it done too haphazardly, do not want another genocide situation. I know some of the anti war people see ending Iraq quickly as their only issue.  And condemn any who do not make that a priority and generalize that one is either anti war and if not they are pro war.  Some here do that with R. Paul on issues of race. One is either totally racist or not and there is no gray area.  

      Now personally, I think racism and bigotry have no gray areas.  However, some feel the solutions, the means to end racism are much more complex. Some are against legislating to solve the problems of racism and sexism while some of us feel that without legislations those things will remain institutionalized.

      Personally, I simply do not like much of what Ron Paul stands for regardless of whether or not he really is a racist.  His libertarian views, to me, are not good for democracy.  I believe democracy requires a sense of community.  Yes, I do believe "it takes a village."  And his anti war stance is not enough to make him a viable candidate.  But then, for me, the war is not the ONLY issue.  For some it is.

      •  All of that makes a lot of sense. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, Quequeg, Prachar

        Paul is the diametric opposite of a communitarian, and if you're a progressive / communitarian you should not support his candidacy.  Damn right.

        But I would wonder why saying that isn't good enough for Markos, too.  He's gone off on a crusade here the last few days, in some cases using really sketchy material to buttress his claims.  Isn't the libertarian stuff ENOUGH to criticize Paul on?  Isn't there enough material there to convince progressives to not support him?  Does he really need to repeat Giulani camp BS?

      •  The feds are not part of your community. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The local community and the state where you live is where the rubber hits the road.  All the feds do is give you back a nickel to help you out of every dollar they take from you. And they make you beg to get that little bit back.

  •  Brainstorming while a public figure (13+ / 0-)

    Now first of all believe me.  I will not now or ever support Ron Paul for President.  His Libertarian side is so over the top that it is truly indefensible.  

    However, something riles me up when a person is attacked for fantasizing a different past and being labeled based on that brainstorming.  I think one reason this bothers me a bit is that I've come up with similar "what-ifs" in conversations to try to point fingers at the consequences of all wars.  

    Warfare cannot ever be judged as an all good solution even if the eventual outcome seems to remove evil.  There are always unintended consequences.  The Civil War is no different.  In spite of the fact that slavery was abolished, hundreds of thousands of people on both sides lost their lives including probably the finest President we ever had.  Animosity continued for decades afterwards and the freed slaves remained economic pariahs.  The nation encountered it's first bout of governmental debt.  

    Now the conditions that brought on that war by 1860 were probably irreversible at the time but one can certainly imagine ways that compromise and an ethical renaissance in the preceding decades could have possibly fixed the wrongs without the bloodshed.  Slavery was beginning to decline at the start of the Civil War because of the huge growth of the black populations.  Eventually they would have revolted on their own or the pressure from the rest of the world would have forced the South's hand as happened in South Africa.  

    I've also challenged debate on how the world would look had we not entered WWII.  Of course the consensus is that our involvement stopped Hitler and Japan's advances but I can also imagine that their greed would have done them in without our assistance and probably would have resulted in no need for the Cold War.  Eventually huge and bloody battles between Hitler and Russia would have decimated both sides.  The feud between Japan and China would have also destroyed both of those countries leaving only the US as a sole superpower.  Now is one scenario better than the other?  Who the hell knows but I will debate fiercely anyone that claims to know for certain.

    The point here is we only know what happened based on one set of events.  Nobody can accurately say how things would be today had events gone very differently.  Remember, a great deal of our history books are written by people that felt a need to rationalize past decisions.  

    At one time the area of Iraq was considered to be a center of intellectualism and culture and relatively at peace.  That culture did not morph naturally into the chaos we see today.  It was altered from the outside by militants who chose to carve up the area into strange pieces not supported the years of history.  I've read countless books that claim the wars that created those divisions were "won" by the good guys.  Wouldn't winning equate to better eventual conditions?

    As far as tearing down Paul for his bizarre views on other issues I'm all for it.  The man scares me in most of those areas but I think it's counter-productive to take him to task for being absolutely consistent in his view of the futility of warfare and not be afraid to explore alternatives to the use of force to solve problems.  

    I tend to agree with him that slavery would've died a natural death without our bloodiest war.  It may have taken longer but possibly some of the transitions in subsequent years would have been smoother without the intense hatreds battle and death cause.  Point is once again - who knows?  Certainly not I.

  •  He was right about the civil war IMO (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jimsaco, Prachar

    Just sayin'...

    Ignorance is not strength. See Hillary's progressive record at Vote Smart

    by SleepingWillow on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:06:15 PM PST

  •  Isn't this kind of "stooping to conquer"? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delirium, ShaunMcDonnell, Prachar

    It's hardly like Paul is anything more than a fringe candidate. It would really take an earthquake for him to get nominated, let a lone elected. I do hope he runs as a Libertarian independent. There's a nice anchor to throw to the GOP nominee.

  •  RP defenders' user IDs above 145,000 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spathiphyllum, ShaunMcDonnell, jay w

    Check it out. Hover the mouse over the user name and see if you can find an answer to why these johnny-come-latelies are showing up en masse.

    Are we being spammed?

    •  I love how they try to claim... (4+ / 0-)

      ...they're true liberals and we're all just democratic war enablers (or something like that - hard to find a coherent point in the pro Dr. Ron Paul [gotta have that Dr. in there] anti-democrat self-righteous rhetoric). I haven't seen any democrat who supported the war get a free pass on this site and we're working to get anti-war netroots democratic candidates to take their place. But for some reason that's unacceptable to the point where electing a anti-war, anti-government, racist, homophobic, misogynistic Republican IS acceptable and makes them the only TRUE liberals on this site. Heh - talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

      -6.88 -6.31

      "They're all crazy. They're all crazy except you and me. Sometimes I have me doubts about you." -- Garrett Fort

      by Spathiphyllum on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:25:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Everyone check mine (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Atheinostic, SleepingWillow

      Then check Skywriters.

      Got Left off the Blogroll so I'll Pimp it Here NorthCoastOregon

      by OregonCoast on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:55:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I've looked over and over, and I don't know how to see my own or anyone else's UID.  I'm curious in this case because I am a Paul defender (against the specific charge of this diary, at least) and I've been here for a while.  If anyone could tell me what my UID is, and/or how to find it, my thanks in advance!

      "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

      by Rich in PA on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:05:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How many black Republicans/right-leaning indys (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delirium, ShaunMcDonnell

    is Paul actually getting support from?

    All I know is that Deroy Murdock (who considers himself libertarian actually) supports Rudy.

    I'd think Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, and Condi Rice would hate Paul's anti-war stance...

    "You want to live in this world the way it is? No? Then do something about it!" --Celes Chere, Final Fantasy VI

    by BlueEngineerInOhio on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:18:59 PM PST

  •  Did Markos support Apartheid???? (5+ / 0-)

    When Markos said "It was my fealty to the notion of personal liberty that made me a Republican when I came of age in the 1980s."

    Did he also mean he supported Ronald Reagan's war on Central America?

    Is he a racist?

    Did he also support the Reagan Administration's policy towards South Africa and Apartheid?

    again, is he a racist?

    Did he support the Reagan Administration's policy towards HIV/AIDS and homosexuality?

    again, is Markos a racist/bigot?

  •  why the obsession (3 front page stories) (11+ / 0-)

    with attacking a candidate whose campaign only helps US by wrecking the neocons from within, draining enthusiasm from any of the other Republican candidates, possibly even KNOCKING OUT VIABLE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES by finishing ahead of them in early contests.

    We should be cheering on Ron Paul to finish 3rd in Iowa and embarrass McCain, Rudy, and Thompson.  (he is well within striking distance in most polls).

    Hell, FOX is trying as hard as it can to ge rid of Paul before NH so his antiwar message doesn't ruin the pro war GOP candidates there.

    But then again, I thought this site was about electing democrats.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:22:27 PM PST

  •  Why does Ron Paul say nothing about impeachment (3+ / 0-)

    if he is such a "strict Constitutionalist" If he really believes in the Constitution...seems like he would be on the "impeach Bush and Cheney wagon"

  •  I am not a Ron Paul supporter (11+ / 0-)

    But I certainly cannot support these baseless and petty attacks on him. I'm a Gravel supporter and my second choice is Edwards. I'm nowhere near Paul in my ideology. But the man has integrity and I respect him.

    The people I don't respect are jackasses who are now smearing anyone who has the temerity to defend Ron Paul.

  •  Pathetic failure of the liberals (7+ / 0-)

    This post is a jumble of cheap point scoring and tendentious attacks that's worthy of being in the Washington Post. Combined with todays serious treatment of the Post's stupid "trial lawyer" fake controversy about Obama it shows how pervasive the trivialization of politics is.

    What's interesting about Ron Paul is not his kooky libertarian economics or foolish remarks about the civil war. What is interesting and what is responsible for his current visibility is 100% his unstinting opposition to the war and the national security state. But we are forbidden from discussing this. Instead, we get haircuts, tips, slurs on poor trial lawyers.

    •  Don't forget Paul's support for civil liberties (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citizen k, buckrogers1965

      He not only voted against the war, but also has introduced the American Freedom Agenda.  Yes, he's joined by some right wingers like Bob Barr, et al.
      but I sure don't hear too many Democratic candidates talking that up.  Obama comes closest, and I fear that Paul voters in NH may hurt Obama.

      Meanwhile, Fox has scheduled a forum for the GOP candidates--excluding Paul.  Unbelievable.

  •  you already know the answer to this kos (7+ / 0-)

    Well, if that's the case, why don't these people support Dennis Kucinich. True, I don't think much of Dennis, but at least his anti-war creds aren't sullied by noxious views on any number of other issues.

    Because Kucinish has zero chance of making an impact because of the big Dem 3 of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

    I think you have given Kucinich the analysis of "Ugh."

    While on the GOP side, NONE of their candidates are strong.  I think you are well aware of the numerous articles stating that none of the above is the mood of GOP voters.

    I'm sure you are aware that NONE of the GOP candidates have over 17% support in the latest Rasmussen polls.  So Paul's 7% support is not that far behind ANYONE on the GOP side, which is full of a bunch of clowns.

    Now the GOP won't let Paul on their ticket, but they could have a severe problem on their hands going into convention with Paul having some delegates, and those delegates raising all sorts of Hell over whatever GOP nominee brings up the convention.  

    Paul could easily finish 3rd in Iowa and NH based on current polls.  All of this is GOOD for democrats, by the way.  The splintering of the GOP big tent, with the libertarians, paleoconservatives, and plain right wing people who hate neoconservative foreign policy splintering off will only ensure GOP defeat next fall.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:36:55 PM PST

  •  View from the Pacific (4+ / 0-)

    I came to Daily Kos in its first year as I liked the way members would argue ideas with a liberal biase. I understand that the KOS mission has changed since the 2006 elections so I haven't been around for a while as I don't vote in the US.

    I have been following Obama pretty closely but have been a Gore Supporter since 2000. I believe in the power of netroots and also the big tent.

    That is probably why i have been following Ron Paul with interest as he seems to have the biggest tent and also the strongest netroots support.

    I live in Fiji and Ron Paul is bad for us as majority of remittances come from British Army, soldiers in the Middle East and illegal immigrants in US.

    Ron Pauls views on evolution, race etc are disturbing but I have lived all my life with people looking down on me because my race. Reality is we live in a world that the majority of people judge us on how we look and our beliefs what really matters to me is the quality of life and opportunities for my kids.

    To me the three most important things for our future are resolving the middle east crisis, environment and economic opportunities.

    I really hoped that that 2006 US elections would have changed the way US was moving forward but its seems that not much has changed.

    We live in a global village where currently the US has the most significant influence. What I see Ron Paul can do is significantly affect the perception concerning
    -Immediate Withdrawal of  Iraq.
    -Dependence of oil
    -Influence of Israel on US Politics
    -Internet Regulation
    -Decriminalization of Marijuana (example in Fiji it is automatic two year sentence)
    -Influence of MSM
    -Power of Netroots

    I am not sure about his IRS and gold standard views but would guess that there are too many vested interests to let him screw up the US economy.  But is the US economy really looking good at the moment

  •  Single digits (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delirium, ShaunMcDonnell

    Is there universe in which [Ron Paul] polls out of the single digits?

    Nope. Soon RP supporters will thankfully go back to their failed income tax evasion schemes, gun fetishes, and World of Warcraft. A little poorer but wiser.

  •  Can anyone answer (8+ / 0-)
    1. Why there is only one newsletter that Paul produced that had supposedly "racist" sentiments? He put out the newsletter for years - surely there must be other newsletters that also express the same ideas. (The newsletter in question was released during a 1996 congressional campaign. Are we to believe that the ONLY one leaked just happened to be "racist?")
    1. Paul refused Medicare and Medicaid for medical services. Is there any credible report of Paul denying medical treatment to a member of a minority group? If the man delivered 4000 babies, he must have had several thousand patients. Where are the cases of discrimination?
    1. Has anyone read (in entirety) the newsletter in question? I did but it was a while ago. It seemed to me that the writing was describing the perspective of the "average" person in the wake of the Rodney King riots. Paul's economic theories are Austrian and therefore consider psychology far more important than highly mathematical models in explaining economic behavior.
    1. Both the NY Times and the Texas Monthly (neither big fans of Ron Paul) have looked into this issue. They concluded that Paul's explanation was credible.
    1. Is there any credible report of Paul making racist statements. I have never known a bigot able to keep it inside.
    1. Now, can anyone answer why Clinton, Edwards, Dodd and Biden voted for the Patriot Act AND the Iraq War?
  •  Paul diaries hit raw nerves here. Why? (11+ / 0-)

    For a man who has virtually no chance of getting the Republican nomination, Paul sure generates a lot of heat here at dkos.   Far more it seems than, say, Tom Tancredo  (a nasty, hateful bigot for sure)  ever generated.


    Might it be that Paul reflects to us our own failures as a party?

    Or is it that maybe we're not comfortable, deep down, with an "R" stealing the thunder which should most rightfully belong to us?

    It would be music to the ears of many of us Democrats if one of the "big 3"  renounced NAFTA,  the World Bank, the WTO, the Department of Homeland Security, corporate welfare, the Patriot Act, the corporate-military establishment,  etc.

    But rather than confront the Pelosian-Clintonian causes of our own failures, maybe it's far easier to simply turn away from the ugliness in the mirror and attack Paul. The river of denial runs deep.   Like impeachment, addressing the systemic failures of our own party is "off the table" in any meaningful sense.  Ranting diaries at dkos about Democratic Party capitulation do not count as "meaningful."  

    I'm a Dennis (ugh!) Kucinich supporter, with my second choice being John Edwards. (The lack of respect Kucinich has been given at this site is disgusting, btw.)  But regardless of who our nominee is, this upcoming election will not be a cakewalk.   So rather than ridicule Paul's supporters,  wouldn't it make more sense,  given the Democratic Party establishment's demonstrated ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, to try to attract  those supporters instead?  

    "World peace through non-violent means is neither absurd nor unattainable. All other methods have failed." MLK

    by SmedleyButlerUSMC on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:36:31 PM PST

    •  'Cuz some of us see RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGY (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Over the Edge, Independant Man

        For what it is?

      •  Right-Wing Populism in America (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Over the Edge

          the cesspool that paul appeals to,
        By Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons
        New York: Guilford Publications, 2000
        Chapter 14: Battling the New World Order: Patriots and Armed Militias

      •  Paul's most important positions (6+ / 0-)

        are opposition to the war and the military-industrial complex, rejecting the notion that third world Islamic countries pose an imminent danger, ending the world policeman role of the U.S., and restoring civil liberties.  But the mainstream press and some here want to talk about his "fringe" ideas as if he could implement them by fiat.

        What's WRONG with a candidate whose most important positions--and ones that he or she could realistically push through Congress--are those stated above?  

        I wish we had a Democratic candidate who would adopt that agenda.

        •  I'll take a stab at this (0+ / 0-)

          You're new here so I'll take a stab at this.

          It's difficult for me to stand next to someone who may oppose the war today but is a mouth frothing free market zealot who believes that say.. taxation is "theft" and gun control is tyranny and the only human rights are the right to own property

          Setting aside the question of which candidate would fuck up the GOP more,

          I would rather see one of the other Republican candidates elected over "Dr. Paul" and his rabid crew of climate change denying, gummint-hatin’, Enron-investing, "The Fountainhead"-clutching, corporatist, gun-collectin’, Greenspan-worshipping, tax-evading, free-market-fundamentalist militia nutketeers.

          I'll tattoo Rudy's name on my ass before I vote for RP

        •  Restoring civil liberties??? (0+ / 0-)

          ... and restoring civil liberties.

          That's just plain silly.  Ron Paul's policies would remove civil liberties, not restore them. Treating the Bill of Rights, and rights in general, as simply things that the federal government is prohibited from doing to people while stripping the federal government of the power to prohibit state and local governments and business from violating these rights is most definitely not supporting civil liberties. If the state you live in can impose a religion on you or censor your speech, if your employer can choose to hire or fire you because of your religion or race you don't have any civil liberties. This is the world Ron Paul advocates.

          Ron Paul, like all Libertarians, seeks the abolition of civil rights.

          •  Which of Paul's "policies" are realistic? (5+ / 0-)

            End the war.
            End the world policeman role of the U.S.
            Ditch the military-industrial complex.
            Restore the civil liberties that Bush/Cheney have trashed.
            Roll back the "Unitary Executive".

            Most of those trashing Paul here seem to believe that he somehow enacts his extreme Libertarian scheme by fiat on January 21, 2009,whereas he is in fact almost the only candidate in either party who is saying that the President needs to respect Congress.

            No President can roll back a hundred years of  civil rights jurisprudence, though the current GOP contenders will try, through judicial appointments.

            I do not support Paul.  I support Obama.  But Paul has some ideas that could use some attention from Demmocratic candidates.  And these include some respect for state and local solutions and states' freedom to deviate from nationally imposed programs, whether in the field of environmental standards or medical marijuana.

            With all the hostility toward Libertarians here, that would make an interesting poll.  How many agree with Paul that the war on drugs should be ended?

            •  Which war on drugs? (0+ / 0-)

              Ron Paul doesn't want the war on drugs ended. He wants the federal government's involvement in the war on drugs ended. Should people living in Texas be denied access to medical marijuana while those in California have it? Do my rights change depending on what state I live in? Am I a citizen of the United States or of the state that I live in?

              Legalizing drugs would be great, in my opinion. That's not what Ron Paul's policies would accomplish. Those policies would simply turn those decisions over to state governments. Giving states that kind of power, the power to trample people's rights, is what allowed Jim Crow to flourish in the south. Libertarian policies are platitudes that hide barbaric policies.

              Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, are proof that it's unwise to elect those who claim to distrust government.

              •  States rights (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a brain, livy, Prachar

                You ask, "Should people living in Texas be denied access to medical marijuana while those in California have it?"

                This is easy.  If the people in Texas vote to make medical marijuana illegal, while the people in California vote to make it legal, then yes, they should be denied medical marijuana in Texas.  

                Because that is what we the people decided.

                Don't like your states policies?  You can try to change them, if that fails, then vote with your feet and move.

                If you disagree with your neighbors about medical marijuana, there are probably a lot more things you disagree with them on, and you and they will probably be a lot happier with you moved to a place more to your liking.

                Right now there are a lot of people that are unhappy about policies and because they are only 30% of the nation, they can't change anything.  

                Give the states more rights and let them make their citizens happy and everyone will be happier.

          •  Freedom Agenda about those trashed by Bush/Cheney (4+ / 0-)

            Paul seeks to restore the liberties that have been trashed by Bush and Cheney--with considerable help from "liberal" Democrats.

            Paul acknowledges that he cannot attain his Libertarian "ideal world".  Most of us Libertarians or Libertarian-leaning realize that.  We'd like to see a world where the most successful economic enterprises are those that do not discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

            But voluntary organizations have to have some rights to associate or not to associate.

            A fundamental distrust of government is a healthy thing.  Just look at what Bush/Cheney have done.

          •  leo leo leo (0+ / 0-)

            The declaration of Independence and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  Period.  All rights provided in the Constitution cannot be infringed upon in any way by the states.  All things not provided by the US constitution will be left to the states.  Do you understand this meaning?  Let me spell it out for you and hopefully you can understand.  The states cannot usurp of infringe upon the rights given to you (as an individual) by the US Constitution.

            Do you really think that a state will enthusiastically start changing their State Constitutions because they have the 'perceived' power to do so?  In reality, they have that right now.  

            •  States can and should protect MORE rights (0+ / 0-)

              The whole point of my comment--and a recent diary--is that the current so-callled "conservatives" want to infringe upon states' AND individual rights, such as, for example, their movement for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

              And states are not free, under current law, to experiment with legalizing drugs such as marijuana.

              On the judicial level, some of these so-called "conservatives" reject the clear meaning and intentions of the founders and claim that the only rights individuals have are those "granted" to them by government.  In fact, the sole purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to contradict that notion and any contention that a right not enumerated in the Constitution does not exist.

              So unfortunately, the way things have gone, it might be a good idea to amend the Constitution to reinforce the right to privacy recognized in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas.  If the GOP wins in 2008, you can bet on those decisions being overturned.

      •  Unsatisfactory explanation (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Delirium, J M F, Prachar, buckrogers1965

        Yep.  He sure has right wing ideology.  Like believing that environmental regulations aren't needed because the "invisible hand"  will cure all.   And Paul's hypocrisy on not supporting impeachment is obvious.

        But that totally misses my point.   Tancredo never generated this much heat at dkos.  And Paul's support of the concepts I've listed above is not "right wing" at all,  assuming you wish to continue viewing the world through a "left - right"  prism that no longer provides clarity.

        "World peace through non-violent means is neither absurd nor unattainable. All other methods have failed." MLK

        by SmedleyButlerUSMC on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:59:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The League of Conservation Voters gave Paul (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quequeg, Prachar, buckrogers1965

          a lifetime rating of 30%. The next highest was McCain at 24%. Certainly, nothing to brag about but far from being a total disaster.

          There is no perfect candidate. Castro offers national health care, abortion on demand and universal education to the college level. Just a small lack of civil liberties, however.

    •  Right on. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Delirium, Prachar, buckrogers1965

      I think lots of Paul supporters would vote Democratic if some Democratic candidate would have the nerve to take really strong anti-war and pro-civil liberties stances.  

      But the Democratic candidates are still cowed by the post-9/11 business.  

      Only one or two have dared question Guiliani's alleged "national security" credentials, even though Olbermann paved the way for that months ago.

      •  Paul hurts Repubs more than Dems (0+ / 0-)

        There isn't anything too extraordinary about Paul -- the political scene produces a similar candidate every few cycles or so. People predicted Ross Perot would hurt Clinton, but in fact he split the Republican vote just enough to put Clinton in the White House. Paul would probably do the same if he ran as a third-party candidate.

        Paul is the only one Republicans can turn to for an anti-war candidate whose views on social issues are similar to theirs. Those folks would never vote for any kind of Democrat, and if they didn't have Paul to vote for would probably not vote at all.

    •  Good points Smedley (0+ / 0-)

      Instead of posting lies about Ron Paul, it would be more productive to see how much he has in common with you on the principles of liberty.

      I'm voting for Ron Paul next week in NH in small part because the Democratic Party has failed to reign in Bush. Paul in not my perfect candidate because he is human but I like his principles, the notable being non-intervention and liberty.

      What yea reap so shall yea sow.

  •  Ron Paul is a free market nut case (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Ron Paul is a nut case who believes that "free markets" can solve every problem. Paul would abolish Social Security, Medicare, all environmental regulations, the minimum wage and child labor laws. Despite such crazy views, I am cheering Paul on in his Republican Presidential campaign as he will likely continue on as a third party or independent candidate. Paul might just be the Republican Party's Nader in 2008.

    •  How exactly does Paul abolish SS, etc.? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Prachar, buckrogers1965

      The same way that Obama and Clinton dictate local education policy?

      The Democratic candidates were asked in one of the debates if second graders should be taught about homosexuality, etc.

      Instead of dodging the question or deferring to local school boards--or anything--some of the candidates appeared to endorse the idea.

      Does anyone think that Congress is going to make federal funds for education contingent on a uniform sex education policy?

      Even if Paul would like to end SS, or anything else, like the Dept. of Education, etc. he cannot do that.  He's not running for dictator.

      •  Then why is he running? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        If he's not running to use the office of President as a means to see his political policies implemented then why is he running? The office of President of the United States is not a ceremonial position.

        When it comes to dismantling government the Bush administration should have shown everyone that the President has a great deal of practical power in doing that.

        •  He says the one area where he could have (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Prachar, buckrogers1965

          immediate effect is on the deployment of troops and foreign policy.

          Here's a thought: What if Paul directed military commanders to withdraw all US forces from Iraq as quickly as safety permits. Would congress actually stop him?

          •  What was his motive for seeking (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            the Libertarian Party nomination in 1988?

            "My heart found its home long ago in the beauty, mystery, order and disorder of the flowering earth." ~ Lady Bird Johnson

            by Over the Edge on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:19:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Why would he stop at Iraq? (0+ / 0-)

            Why wouldn't he give the same order regarding Afghanistan? Should we allow the Taliban to regain power in Afghanistan while we ignore the instability in Pakistan?

            Iraq is not the only issue. Ron Paul's policies, including his foreign policy, are dangerous.

            •  What could be a more dangerous (6+ / 0-)

              foreign policy than what we have seen over the past 50 years? Covert operations overthrowing elected governments, assassinations, torture, propping up one tyrant only to then support an opposing tyrant when the first strays off the reservation, billions in foreign aid either unaccounted for, simply wasted or worse.

              And if thats too sane for you, how about nuclear saber rattling, spending more on weapons than anyone else on the planet, supporting Islamic militants then scrambling to find a way to stop them when they turn on us.

              These and more have happened under BOTH Democratic and Republican administrations. Both draw their foreign policy advice from the same think-tanks.

              We would do well to just stay out and not make things worse. We can't even make Washington DC a safe place. And we think we have the wisdom or even the money to do  better for the rest of the world?

            •  It's a game of connect the dots (0+ / 0-)

              Can't you see how our interference leads us down these paths of self perpetuating entanglements.  Simple fact: we can't continue to force or coerce sovereign nations into becoming what we want.

              Ron Paul's foreign policy will make great strides in establishing peace.  

    •  Free Markets Hardly Existed in the US (0+ / 0-)

      Since Alexander Hamilton's time, a 'free market' never existed in the US. Hamilton won the debate with Jefferson and the US has had a central bank and protective tariffs for US industries. Jefferson wanted local controls not a Federal system.

      so capitalism is distinct from a free market system.

      Capitalism needs the state to survive while a true free market system doesn't.

  •  Markos, do you think that... (8+ / 0-)

    ...he holds both of these positions because he hates blacks, or because they've been libertarian ideological dogma since Murray Rothbard first articulated them?

    Once again, your previous assertions that Democrats and libertarians have common ground rings a little bit hollow if you're also going to assert that EVERY SINGLE LIBERTARIAN, EVER is a racist.

    Because the Civil War stuff may be a niche interest among even libertarians, but not accepting the concept of a public accomodation is not.

    So on the basis of this diary, we can say that you had at one point made overtures to a group of people you yourself find to be racist.  Are you going to call Don Black up next and hit him up for a donation?

  •  You actually think the "Civil War" was (7+ / 0-)

    a good idea? How odd, especially given Lincoln's record of violating the Constitution (that in many ways is disturbingly similar to Bush's).

    I wonder why this site focuses so obsessively on a candidate who obviously won't win his party's nomination. Myself, I'm more interested in what will happen if a Democrat is elected. In that event will Daily Kos decide that the "unitary executive" is a good idea after all?

    If you're really worried about the likes of Ron Paul maybe you ought to pay attention to those questions. Those questions are the reason Paul is drawing support, not just the Iraq war. There is a genuine concern that once in power the Democrats will not roll back Bush's power grabs but rather are salivating over how they will use them for their own purposes.

    Crazy? Maybe. But no Democratic candidate has convinced me that they will undo what Bush has done. I don't just take it as a given; it has to be directly addressed.

    If I worry, will the future change?--Quai Chang Caine

    by Enjoy Every Sandwich on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:47:16 PM PST

  •  Paleo-Cons on the Civil War (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Over the Edge, Prachar

      More RW agitprop,
      Lew Rockwell, btw is the boyfriend of Cindy Sheehan.

  •  What inarticulate nincompoops! (0+ / 0-)

    Tell me.  Was this a transcript of Ron Paul's being interviewed by Tim Russert, or was it a Mel Brooks/Carl Reiner skit?  I hope it was a skit.

  •  Gone to war? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Prachar, buckrogers1965

    Lincoln went to war because the southern states were seceding. If the original intent of the republic was that any time states want to secede, just let them go, then maybe Paul beats Lincoln.

  •  YUP KOS you're right! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Prachar, buckrogers1965

    Ron Paul is  a racist, Mother Theresa a porn star, and I'm the tooth fairy!

    You have nothing else so you have to harp on this manufactured accusation and it's not working.

    God, you must have NO LIFE.

  •  Ron Paul is correct in that (5+ / 0-)

    every other country stopped the slave trade and then slavery without going to war.... so, obviously, it could be done.

    And should have been done that way..... but Americans seem to love their violence.


    by dancewater on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:54:51 PM PST

  •  fringe views do not equal wrong views (4+ / 0-)

    Every great leap forward in human history started as a fringe view.

  •  Ron Paul considers BLACK running mate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rainmanjr, Prachar, buckrogers1965

    In this Washington Post interview "racist" Ron Paul considers Walter Williams a potential good running mate.
    Uh oh, he's black. Maybe he's keeping his enemies closer?
    Pathetic, Kos.

  •  Re (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rainmanjr, livy, Prachar, buckrogers1965

       MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

       REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the–that iron, iron fist.

       MR. RUSSERT: We’d still have slavery.

       REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them.

    THIS is racism? What a joke, Kos. Because he doesn't agree with Lincoln's decision to invade the south?

    Britain managed to get rid of slavery with almost zero bloodshed, they didn't fight a war on the level of the Iraq conflict to do it like we did. Hmm, is Paul wrong about that?

    I agree with most of what you write in most cases, but come on. I wish you'd address Paul's actual positions instead of coming out with this garbage. I strongly dislike how you quote him, claim it's 'racist', then don't bother justifying your position. The Repubs would be proud.

    I don't know what the right call should have been for Lincoln either, but this is a perfectly legitimate and non-racist position to have.

  •  Yep, Kos is still using neocon talking points (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rainmanjr, Tommy Paine, Prachar

    Talking points that have been disproven as a lie, again and again.

    Amazing how Paul is getting attacked by people using the exact same talking points on both the "left" and the "right."  Almost like they were one team.  Hhmmmm.

    Who do you support Kos?  Hopefully not one of the AIPAC/Israel supported candidates...  

    Oh you do?

    How neo-conservative of you.

    All of these neoncon democratic candidates are exactly the same as their neocon republican counterparts.  None of them are going to bring the troops home.  None of them are going to reduce spending.  All of them are going to kill Americans and just throw our money down a hole.  

    And no, Obama will not bring the troops home, he will talk about a time line for a couple of years and then be "forced" into having more troop surges. Regretfully, of course.

    •  I'm leaning Obama, now, but this is true. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      He's said it will be a phased withdrawal and that won't work.  It's get out or stay in.  Still, I think he's the most likely to succeed in office, has the best record, and seems a hell-of-a-guy.
      As for Paul, I think he will take Dem's away from the Primary.  So what?  Paul won't win the nomination and those voters will come back to Dem. Party, for the G.E., or not vote at all.  I wouldn't blame them, either.
      But, I think Kucinich offers everything Paul does and more.  Why not vote for him?

      Being bipolar means that I sometimes lose control and speak in generalities. Sorry if I offended anyone.

      by rainmanjr on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:51:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is that a fact new user 145783? (0+ / 0-)

      You know, I just love diaries like this one. They are more effective than a buglight for attracting all kinds of interesting new participants.

      "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

      by Bouwerie Boy on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:37:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why? Do? You? Care? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rainmanjr, livy, Tommy Paine
    Why do you care kos?
    he's not a democrat, and you keep putting up these front page posts that draw attention to him.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: you are worried that Paul is going to drain Independent votes from the democrats, because the democrats have not kept their promises to end the war and restore the constitution.

  •  It's a Ron Paul supporter swarm! (0+ / 0-)

    Who knew?  lol.  

    First Amendmently Yours,

    by lightiris on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:25:11 AM PST

  •  Apply the same standards... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tommy Paine, Prachar

    Oh, another point since some Paul supporters seem to think that Ron Paul is blameless in all the problems foisted on us by the GOP majorities this past decade and somehow he's the only one that can fix things: Ron Paul enabled the GOP congress, voting for Tom DeLay as majority leader during the DeLay era. He could've quit the GOP and gone Independent or Libertarian, but instead he choose to cast his lot with the warmongering and free-spending Republicans. Perhaps the $6,000 he received from DeLay's ARMPAC was enough to buy his loyalty?  

    Apply the same standard to Democrats, too - how many are left standing?

  •  I wrote a detailed FAQ regarding the Newsletter (0+ / 0-)

    I got tired of constantly explaining to Paultards why Ron Paul's excuses don't hold much water, so I wrote out a detailed FAQ outlining most of their arguments, as well as my rebuttals.

    The biggest piece of evidence against Ron Paul is Ron Paul himself.  Ron Paul, to this day, has never come up with a single plausible explaiation on how he responded to the scandals in 1996.  If you were innocent, then it would take a monumental situation to convince you to plead guilty.    Ron Paul's explaination of "well, I thought it might be confusing at the time" doens't meet that standard.

    •  There are thousands (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      of KNOWN mainstream Ron Paul interviews and books. Media files galore -- dating back twenty or thirty years. No racism in any of these. Oh, but as you say, it's part of his secret code, uh... to only say it in a thirdhand way. Nice try.
      And in this interview    
      Paul considers Walter Williams a potential good running mate. Williams is BLACK.
      And RP objects to some aspects of the civil rights act on private property and constitutional grounds. Being pro-private property and constitution is not racist. It is simply being smart and loyal to his oath, respectively.

      •  More talking points that have been refuted (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Over the Edge

        You say that there are thousands of Ron Paul interviews where he isn't racist.  You mean  like the Tim Russert one where he opposes the civil war and says that Lincoln was a tyrant who was trying to destroy the republic.  There's the fact that when Ron Paul was asked about these articles in 1996, he defended the content and tried to complain that he was taken out of context.

        You bring up the fact that "Ron Paul's best economist pal is black."  That doesn't disprove that he's racist.  If I say "Most black people are [n-word] and lying sacks of shit, but you happen to be alright," then that's still a racist comment, even if you made an exception for this one particular person.

        How does the fact that Ron Paul has suggested a black VP contradict the original newsletter?  The original newsletter states that "Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people."  In other words, the original author has black friends who are staunch libertarians, just like Ron Paul has black friends who are staunch libertarians.  So why is it so hard to believe that Ron Paul might be the author?

        From my FAQ:

        Ron Paul has a solid record that stretches 30 years!
        what? Again, Ron Paul refuses to release his archives from that time period.

        However, let's assume for a moment that this claim is true. Would that prove his innocence? No. You can't un-ring a bell, and you can't un-write a newsletter. Even if Ron Paul never writes another racist statement in the future, that wouldn't change the fact that he has written racist statements in the past.

        Ron Paul voting record is proof that he isn't racist!
        This is another claim we hear a lot. Unfortunately, the people who make this claim never follow up on it. Ron Paul was against the Civil Rights Act, against the Voting Rights Act, and he has voted in favor of voter suppression.  How does that prove that he isn't racist?

        But if Ron Paul was really a racist, then why don't we see more of that in his interviews?
        People who are racist aren't necessarily going to admit to it in public.  There's a reason why Ku Klux Klan is known for wearing hood, and why white supremacist organizations have rules against being outed.  In most cases, people aren't even aren't even aware of their own racism. So when overt signs of racism does break through the social stigma, you know you're just seeing the tip of the iceberg.  Just look at what happened to George Allen, and Trent Lott.

        Ron Paul, like most other politicians, will say different things to different people.  Look at his recent flip flop on evolution. If Ron Paul can't even admit to being against evolution during the debates, then why would anyone expect him to be express overt racism without even being provoked?

        Apparently, Ron Paul feels more comfortable expressing his racist view points to an audience of 7,000 like-minded subscribers, just like Ron Paul feels more comfortable expressing his anti-evolution views points at the Spartanburg Executive Committee Meeting The fact that Ron Paul might be less comfortable expressing these views points in front of other audiences doesn't change this.

        Didn't you read "Government and Racism," by Ron Paul?

        Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

        This article is frequently brought up in an attempt to "debunk" the newsletter piece.  However, there is nothing in the piece that actually refutes the newsletter. In fact, his current writings and his newsletter writings are completely complimentary to one another. In the above writing, Ron Paul is writing in defense of Don Imus. Ron Paul also makes the same argument, nearly word for word, in a 2002 article where he defends Trent Lott.

        But Ron Paul said that racism is bad!  Doesn't that disprove that he wrote the newsletter?
        Yes, but when Ron Paul criticizes racism, he is defines "racism" as "promoting diversity."  This is not the same form of racism that Ron Paul himself is being accused of.  Therefore, his statement only supports the accusation.

        As David Neiwert explains, "This is, in fact, just a repackaging of a libertarian argument that multiculturalism is the 'new racism' -- part of a larger right-wing attack on multiculturalism. This is, of course, sheer Newspeak: depicting a social milieu that simultaneously respects everyone's heritage -- that is to say, the antithesis of racism -- as racist is simply up-is-down, Bizarro Universe thinking."

        •  Oh lord... (0+ / 0-)

          What you don't know about Lincoln and the Civil War could fill a warehouse. I'm certainly not going to debate the civil war with you, but Lincoln was BOTH a white supremacist (CONFIRMED Lincoln quotes posted above by KARA28277 -- see "... [I] am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white man." quote) and in favor of making slavery an "express and irrevocable" institution ... at least from a federal govt. perspective (first inaugural address).  
          Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a defender of private property rights and the constitution, SO he objects to portions of CRA for that reason -- NOT for racist reasons. The same can be said of protecting free-speech -- it necessarily means protecting (but not endorsing) racist comments. I will not take the time to defend the constitution and private property rights here. Socialists are, in my opinion (the only opinion that I will express) akin to cult members who worship the state instead of god. All the same ignorance and magical thinking is present.
          You have no grasp of epistemology, and hence, you will continue to draw incorrect/unwarranted conclusions from the given data. Again, if RP was a racist, you should be able to find VIDEO or AUDIO of racism coming out of his mouth. He has been very outspoken for many years. But no verbal slipups. I feel sorry for you that you are unable to evaluate the credibility of various sources. It seems you are generally unable to get past government propaganda and bill names.

          •  Lame burden of Proof (0+ / 0-)

            "Again, if RP was a racist, you should be able to find VIDEO or AUDIO of racism coming out of his mouth."

            Both the Houston Chronicle and the Austin Chronicle asked Ron Paul to comment on those articles in 1996.  Are you saying that we should throw that out, because it's not on video?  Stupid.  Are you telling me that there was no such thing as racism prior to the invention of video tape, because there was no one to capture it on film?  Just because it hasn't been caught on film, that doesn't make the accusation false.

            George Allen is a racist.  The fact that he was caught on tape was a fluke.   Just because a similar fluke hasn't happened to Ron Paul, that doesn't discredit the evidence we have already.  Most people in the public eye have learned to watch what they say, and yes, that includes Ron Paul.  Otherwise, he would have been more upfront on being against evolution when he was asked about it last May.

            Nice try with the civil war evasion, by the way, which had absolutely nothing to do with my post.

            •  Oh Lord II (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Do you see how I used and highlighted the word "should". This was so you could be certain that I was not saying or implying *"must"*. To be precise, the degree to which one should be able to find racist statements is directly proportional to volume of statements in general. RP has a very LARGE volume of recorded statements, yet no evidence of racism can be found in them. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that he is racist. Of course, no one can prove that anyone isn't a racist -- proving a negative. One simply has to weigh evidence -- both in volume and in quality. Sparse second or third hand evidence limited only to internet ramblers is trumped by mainstream confirmed books, audio, and video. I'm sure you know this. This must be quite the heartbreak for you.  Again, there are no confirmed racist statements by RP.
              AND ... you brought up the "blasphemous" comments about Lincoln, so I was simply demonstrating his white-supremacist tendencies.

  •  Kos: Still Swift Boating Ron Paul (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    McGirk, Prachar

    What is with you? Why are you still spreading lies about Ron Paul?

    Remember when the Swift Boaters spread lies about john Kerry and you complained?

    You were right, it was wrong to do this.

    But now you are doing the same thing to Ron Paul.

    Have you no decency?

    If he is gaining support from many Democrats and independents maybe the fault lies with the Democratic Party and not with Ron Paul who supports liberty and non-intervention.

    What you reap, so shall yea sow.

    Grow Up!

    •  Bad comparison (0+ / 0-)

      The best evidence used against John Kerry in 2004 came from people with strong ties to the GOP funding who never actually served with John Kerry directly.  Obviously, this didn't hold much water.

      The best evidence against Ron Paul is Ron Paul's own newsletter signed with Ron Paul's name with Ron Paul's permission, along with Ron Paul's own responses to complaints about his newsletter in 1996.  If you can't trust Ron Paul's own writings and Ron Paul's own responses, then why should we trust Ron Paul at all?

      This is not the same thing.

  •  Kos: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tommy Paine, Prachar

    It's time to graduate from a pseudo journalist to a real one.  Why don't you do an interview with Ron Paul, tape it and post it.  Do you think you could pull that off without it being a hit piece?  Let's see if you could be more "fair and balanced" than Faux news.

    From where I stand, you see a lot of your own subscribers supporting RP.  I realize that this must irritate you to no end.  Everyone knows that when you start losing credibility, whether you are in the media, politics or business you start attacking your opponents (RP is not even your opponent).  You are proving yourself to be part of the machine; the status quo.

  •  He was against the Civil Rights Act (0+ / 0-)

    As a Black person, I don't need a SECOND reason not to like Paul.

    This is my #1 and only reason.

    I don't need to research him. I don't need to know his views on anything else.

    If this is my First reason for not liking Paul...

    I don't think I need a second.

    •  Racial Quotas (0+ / 0-)

      RP objects to portions of the civil rights act based on constitutional and property-rights issues, not racism. Being pro-private property and constitution is not racist. It is simply being smart and loyal to his oath, respectively. Companies like FUBU could not exist if this doctrine were taken to its logical conclusion.
      And again, in this interview    
      Paul considers Walter Williams a potential good running mate. Williams is BLACK.

      •  Quotas? Are you kidding me? (0+ / 0-)

        Quotas were already ruled unconstitutional in the 1970s.  Yet you and Ron Paul still rally against them in the present tense.  Either you're relying on a strawman, or you have no idea how race relations work in the real world.  Probably some combination of both.

        And congratulations, you inspired me to add a new entry to the FAQ:

        Ron Paul has suggested Walter Williams as his running mate, and Walter Williams is black! (New!)
        This is a modern variant of the classical "I can't be a racist, some of my best friends are black!" argument. Having a black friend doesn't disprove accusations of racism, any more than having a female wife would disprove accusations of misogyny.  Being racist doesn't mean that you  hate all black people. Being racist simply means that you are being unfair to black people as a general rule.  There's a difference.

        This is another evasion tactic. It does disprove the fact that Ron Paul wrote that newsletter. Quite the contrary. Here's an excerpt from the original text:

        Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.  They are, however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

        The fact that Ron Paul has a few black friends doesn't disprove the fact that he authored the newsletter, because it the author of the piece had a few black friends as well.

        Furthermore, if your argument is "Ron Paul has black friends, therefore he can't be racist," then you would also have to conclude that the newsletter author can't be racist either.  Obviously, no one is going to make this argument, because it would reveal the underlying flaw in their logic.  If you can't apply this argument to the newsletter, then why should you apply it to Ron Paul?

        •  Quotas (0+ / 0-)

          Quotas arose from the EEOC established by the CRA, which is what we were talking about, right? Nobody mentioned the current state of affairs. But of course, quotas were the issue in the University of Michigan case in 2003, so you have no idea what you are talking about.
          But this is all semantics anyway. The issue is the constitutionality and economic soundness of employing  government force in preventing discrimination --- by age, race, gender, etc. RP takes the correct constitutional stance that the govt. has no role in this. FUBU is harmless, constitutional, and discriminating. Same with Hooters. No racism here. Sorry.
          And the Williams points are equally pathetic. No one said this proves anything. It is simply more confirmed AND accurate evidence that he's not a racist. You go on to assume that the newsletter quotes are accurate without evidence. Again, your inability to evaluate the credibility of sources and to weigh mainstream interviews (audio AND video) against third-party hearsay will be your undoing.  

          •  Way to lie (0+ / 0-)

            University of Michigan was struck down because they used a point system, which is fundamentally different from a quota system.  Do I really need to explain the difference?  One of them says "Black students have a slightly better chance of getting admitted," and the other one says "X number of black students will be admited, regardless of the number of black students who are actually qualified."

            Your appeals to the consittution are made worthless by the commerce clause.  And if the Walter Williams is evidence that Ron Paul isn't a racist, then by that logic, the original newsletter article can't be racist either, since it makes similar claims.

            •  I retract that last part (0+ / 0-)

              Apparently, the SC did see the point system as a form of a quota system.  So I was wrong in not accounting for that.

              Still, I disagree with that decision.

              When people hear the quota system, they have a problem with the idea that completely unqualified people are guaranteed a spot.  A point system makes no such guarantees.  You still have to meet a minimum set of requirements, like every other student.  If there are no black students who meet those requirements, then no black students will get in.

            •  Semantics (0+ / 0-)

              Point systems are effectively a derivation quota systems. Nice try though.
              Semantics notwithstanding, objections to all anti-discrimination laws can be made on constitutional grounds AND private-property/economic grounds. Using the commerce clause for anything and everything, as the congress does, is certainly against the spirit of the constitution. BUT, and this is very important, so pay attention ... whether or not the case against anti-discrimination laws is airtight is irrelevant. The point here is that the case against these laws is being made on non-racist grounds. Therefore, opposition to CRA by RP can not be used as evidence of racism.

  •  Ron Paul wants liberty for everyone (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tommy Paine

    Here's what Ron Paul said about the newsletter comments:

    In 1992, I was back in medicine full time, but lent my name to a foundation that published large volumes of material. A staffer wrote some things under my name that I did not approve. I have taken responsibility for these comments and apologized. If you look at my 30-year record and my numerous writings on the subject of race, I think anyone will clearly see that those comments do not reflect my beliefs.

    Here's what Ron Paul said on the floor of the House of Representatives about the end of slavery in America:

    I hope all Americans will take the time to commemorate Juneteenth. Friends of human liberty should celebrate the end of slavery in any country. The end of American slavery is particularly worthy of recognition since there are few more blatant violations of America’s founding principles, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, than slavery. I am particularly pleased to join the recognition of Juneteenth because I have the privilege of representing Galveston.  I thank the gentleman from Illinois for introducing this resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor.

    Here's more by Ron Paul -- a decade's worth of writings.  Let me know when you find anything other than support for liberty for everyone:

    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson

    by Lex Concord on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:46:58 PM PST

    •  Is Ron Paul's newsletter archive on that site? (0+ / 0-)

      No?  Then it's worthless.

      If George Allen did a similar webpage with his own website, would disprove the macaca incident?  (And remember, his excuse wasn't that he didn't say macaca, his excuse was that he didn't know what macaca meant.)  Probably not.  So why is Ron Paul any different?  Oh, because he's "honest," which means that you can accept everything he says without question.

      I'm sorry, but I'm not buying that.

      As for his 30+ years writings on race, I find nothing that contradicts his past statements.  He defends known racists like Don Imus and Trent Lott, and attacks minority groups for wanting to promote diversity.  How does that absolve him?

      •  Is the ACLU racist? (0+ / 0-)

        Is the ACLU racist because it defends the KKK’s right to march?

        Do you hold the same standard for Robert Byrd who joined the KKK in his youth, or Jesse Jackson who referred to Jews as "Hymies" and New York as "Hymietown," as you do to Ron Paul?

        Paul's position is difficult to understand if you think that there is a connection between what he wants government to do, and what he believes individuals should do.

        What he believes is that government can not fix moral problems and that he should not foist his moral responsibilities on others using the government. To imagine how silly this is, remember that Larry Craig favored anti-gay laws, and Bill Clinton was a supporter of sexual harassment laws.

        •  There's a fundamental difference (0+ / 0-)

          Byrd has acknowledged his past ways, repented for them, and now has a 100% rating from the NAACP.

          Ron Paul has done none of those things.

          It's like the difference betwee an admitted former alcoholic who is now completely clean and who works to rehabilitate other people, and a closet alcoholic who still refuses to acknowledge that he has a problem.

          And the problem isn't the fact tha Ron Paul defends racists.  The problem is that Ron Paul defends racists while attacking minority groups for promoting diversity in the very same article.  The ACLU defends everyone.  Ron Paul only defends people who he agrees with.

          •  You only seem to defend people you agree with (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fred Mann


            So if Ron Paul apologized, you would deem him not racist? But in your heart, how could you know that the apology by him, or Byrd, or Jackson was pure? How do you know that the alcoholic who is ‘completely clean’ really clean?

            Ron Paul says he is not a racist and I believe him just as I believe Byrd. And next week I’ll be voting for Paul in New Hampshire.

            If anything, Kos’ grudge over a ‘fringe’ candidate is laughable and shows his petty and vindictive character.

            I’m voting for a president who is a man, not a saint.

            Now if I wanted to be petty I’d call Markos Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga, a CIA deep cover op with orders to destroy the candidacy of a man who is non-interventionist.


            But I won’t. I’d like to think that some would find the good in Paul’s campaign: non-interventionism, US out of Iraq immediately, overturn the Patriot Act, end DEA harassment of marijuana users, shut down foreign military bases in Germany, Japan, Italy , The Netherlands.

            In any event, all the best.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site