Blogs and Stories
Revenge of Ron Paul's Army
Eric Thayer / Getty Images
Ever wonder what happened to Ron Paul’s grassroots supporters? They’re crashing town-hall meetings—often armed—and heating things up as Congress enters its last week of recess.
On the presidential campaign trail, Ron Paul was a grassroots sensation and then a media darling. He broke the record for GOP one-day fundraising online, culling $4.2 million on November 5, 2007. A rabid band of young, contrarian followers seemed to materialize wherever he traveled, setting up organizing camps to get out the vote for their libertarian hero. In the weeks leading up to the Iowa caucus, Paul’s supporters even raised money to fly a blimp from North Carolina to Boston, bearing the words “Ron Paul Revolution.”
One of the Phoenix protesters, a former Paul campaign volunteer, carried an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. “This government is the most corrupt Mafioso on the face of the Earth.”
What the revolution didn’t deliver was votes—Paul’s best primary showing was in Idaho, where he earned 25 percent of the vote. Yet nearly a year-and-a-half after Paul officially dropped out of the Republican primary with a YouTube video, the influence of the Texas obstetrician-turned-politician—a guy still considered wacky and off-base by most in the political establishment—seems only to have grown. As members of Congress prepare for another round of town-hall meetings this week, one thing is becoming clear: Three-quarters of the way through 2009, it is fringy Ron Paul, more so than John McCain or any of his other primary opponents, whose ideology is setting the conservative agenda. Even without the direct influence of their titular leader, Paul’s campaign army is marching on, mobilized by intense opposition to health-care reform.
One of Paul’s main arguments from the campaign, that much social spending is unconstitutional, has become a rallying cry of the Republican base. At a health-care town-hall meeting in Sun City, Arizona, on August 25, a woman asked McCain, “I would like to know how the president is getting by with all of this money. … It’s against the Constitution. Doesn’t he know that we still live under a Constitution?” McCain was booed when he replied, “I’m sure that [Obama] respects the Constitution of the United States.” In part, Paul’s anti-federal ideology has gained traction because conservatives are incensed by President Obama’s ambitious—and expensive—domestic agenda, from health reform to the federal stimulus to bank bailouts. And in part, it’s because libertarian thinking is easier for mainstream Republicans to embrace on healthcare than it is on doing away with the Federal Reserve or ending American imperialism. Right wing poster girl Rep. Michele Bachmann, an originator of the false "death panel" rumor, has promised to schedule a Minnesota town hall meeting with Paul in September.
"I especially want to speak to the 19- to 20-year olds so they can know what their future will be under this level of debt accumulation and spending,” Bachmann said of the event. "They need to know their future. And so I’m bringing [Paul] in so we can have a discussion on monetary policy."
But there’s a darker side to the story: Some of Paul’s grassroots supporters have protested, armed, at health-care town-hall meetings. They are connected in a loose-knit, nationwide network of activists who believe the current federal government is largely illegitimate and unconstitutional. Some have ties to the “birther” movement, which believes—disregarding all evidence—that President Obama is not a natural-born American citizen.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Sarah Drops the Act
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Palin's Gold Mine
Duff McDonald is a contributing editor at New York magazine and a former contributing editor at Condé Nast Portfolio. His book, Last Man Standing, about Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was published by Simon & Schuster in October.
Carly's Cancer Warning
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor and writer at The Daily Beast. Her work on politics, women’s issues, and education has appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, BusinessWeek, The New Republic, and The Nation.
Hollywood's Sex-Slave Crusade
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor and writer at The Daily Beast. Her work on politics, women’s issues, and education has appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, BusinessWeek, The New Republic, and The Nation.
The Wedge Dividing Obama's Health Coalition
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor and writer at The Daily Beast. Her work on politics, women’s issues, and education has appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, BusinessWeek, The New Republic, and The Nation.
So by linking a couple nuts to Ron Paul this article attempts to discredit his entire political ideology. This crummy journalism is just another example of the polarizing media, attempting to make all conservatives look like some backwoods nutjobs. Isn't there any respect for reasonableness in today's world. Instead we concentrate on these fringe movements that never amount to anything, just to make some juicy story out of nothing.
The author is obviously a dupe of the conspiracy between Skull and Bones and the Queen of England.
This from a Conservative nutjob who lives in the woods.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE&feature=player_embedded
Maybe you'll actually learn something uzzz cuntry folk have known since President Jefferson. And how come you guys don't know?
This user is no longer registered.
Agree completey. If Ron Paul was really the "statesman" he considers himself, he would be actively and publicly working to control these nutjobs so no violence results.
But I am glad that he is siphoning off the loonies from the Repubs, so their vote will be split.
Roger37:
These people are maybe 15% of Ron Paul supporters. The majority range from attorneys, doctors, and blue collar workers. I voted for him, and I would again.
Overgeneralization is not necessary.
There are solutions to today's economic problems, they just don't happen to be sustainable or structurally sound. If we ever get to the point as a Nation where The People are smart enough to know when they've been had, by whom, and for how much, I guess we'll have to settle for this idea, for now.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/recession_plagued_nation_demands
schenkel: For someone right wing-enough to vote for Ron Paul to chastise me about overgeneralization is incredibly funny.
Sounds like another smear job from the far left,
lumping in a few dirt balls with an
actual honest conservative Ron Paul. The guy never
advocates or endorses violence or crazy supporters.
Has the columnist ever written about the extreme left
in this country that worships murdering
communists, including their
favorite T-Shirt Guy ( Che Guevara ), or even Mao ?
Two really swell guys if you listen to far left wackos.
Would it be fair to associate these far left extremists
as representatives of the Democratic Party ?
Or how about DEMOCRAT California
Rep. Diane Watson praising Fidel Castro ?
Maybe this left wing delusion comes from too much TOFU ?
Yummy, I think I'll have another bite of a thick juicy, runny steak,
and afterwards loosen my belt made of genuine leather.
And maybe I'll catch me some big "Sea Kittens" and fry them up.
("Sea Kittens," PETA's "sensitive" term for FISH)
Where's your usual bitch about ACORN, sophie?
The trouble with the ruling by the vagueries of the original Constitution, as written, is much exemplified by the number of Christian sects that eminate from the same Bible.
Ron Paul's application of the original Constitution will not be the same as Ronald Reagan's Constitution. So you end up with worse than an Imperial Presidency... you end up with Imperialsim.
That is what you see in the dispersed views of Ron Paul supporters.
From the start I saw danger in the "straight talk" of Ron Paul's views. Why would we even need the Judiciary Branch if he was President? Only he would know what the Constitution really means.
Thanks but no thanks. Give me a system that respects the flexibilty of the Constitution and the complexity of the world which has developed from thirteen colonies to a world unimaginable by the founders.
Hmmm, good interpretation of what you think the Constitution means *sarcasm*
Woah, hold up. Ron Paul believes in a limited Presidency. Your post doesn't adequately reflect his position.
I so agree with you ABROERI
I dont know who Dana Goldstein is, but this is big embarrassing piece of an article. I really think you should give Dr. Paul a big apology, and this is why.
Linking some lunatic's behavior with Ron Paul's idea just because they are a fan of Ron Paul is wrong. Its sort of like accusing Black Eyed Peas as a murderer, because a serial killer is a big fan of BEP.
The connection is weak to claim your conclusion.
I agree with Ron Paul's bail out position
and disagree with Ron Paul's health care position
The saddest aspect of this situation is that people have been brainwashed into believing a completely bankrupt ideology. Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a set of policies to implement. Libs willfully ignore crucial characteristics of human nature just as the communists did in the 20th century.
Some form of government is a prerequisite for civilization. People are not perfectly autonomous individuals, they cannot exist independent of society, and guns are not the solution for violent crime.
The man who said ""This government is the most corrupt Mafioso on the face of the earth" doesn't seem to realize that if our (admittedly corrupt) government didn't exist, he would be at the mercy of whatever local mafia or warlord chose to control his territory. Nothing is certain but death and taxes for a reason. Yes taxes are another form of a protection racket, but I'd rather have a civilized police force protecting me than true mafioso thugs.
It seems that you have libertarianism confused with Anarchy.
What is the end result of Libertarianism? Absence of government. Or, do you create a new, libertarian-based society? Then, the cycle repeats itself.
This user is no longer registered.
In one very narrow sense, yes.
Libertarians are anarchists with money - no more, no less.
Our current two party system does not seem to have a hard set of policies to implement. Both are driven by power and money and of course re-election.
Libertarians do recognize one "crucial characteristic of human nature"...Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The problem with libertarians is that they don't understand economics. In an unregulated free market, the best way to make money is by pushing costs into externalities. Instead of you bearing the costs, someone else does, and they get nothing in return. Government is what forces companies to pay for their own externalities. Without government regulation, the market becomes grossly inefficient. Costs start to vastly outstrip benefits, and why? Because the people raking in the benefits are forcing the costs onto other people, so they have no incentive at all to control the costs. That is why libertarianism fails in the real world.
The biggest externaltie in the world is the government, Your analysis would be correct if you replaced "free market" with "corporatist" model, which is in fact the system we have at the moment, and look what we have, a grossly inefficient market with the costs grosly outstripping benefits, the banks have forced the cost onto the tax payer and look what happens, then liberal use the two step of fucking something up, then blaming it on the "free market" to further enact more legislation, pushing their agenda.
Good point VagrantPhilosopher (wow, for once someone who responded, disagreeing with me, who actually had something valid to say! It's a TBD miracle!). I guess I automatically interpret "free market" to mean "corporate looting," because when the Republicans say "free market," that's exactly what they mean (to wit: the Bush Jr. administration). There's no question that the government has created laws which have in turn enabled corporations to squash the free market quite handily. After all, without the government giving them legal status, corporations would not exist at all.
But your point about the government being an externality... I can't say I follow you. An externality is a cost that one party imposes on another with no corresponding benefit. I suppose you could call taxation without representation an externality, as when the King taxed the colonies and gave them no say in how it was spent. But we have taxation WITH representation (the tea-baggers don't know the difference, but it's important). The costs that the government imposes on us do confer a benefit on us. They create national security, roads, services, public health, public saftey... They're not perfect, but since when is anything perfect? If you demand that the government be dismantled because it's not yet perfect, that's a bit of the Paultard talking. Citizens have to continually work and strive to keep government honest and accountable. It's the same in every society no matter what system you have -- the good and honorable must strive for a better world. If they throw up their hands and go live on their own property and hoard guns, the evil take over. And in the Paultard Nation, where nobody's in charge of anything, that's exactly what would happen. It would be collapse on a scale that would dwarf the great depression. Maybe if Ron Paul could go start a new civilization somewhere and demonstrate the efficacy of his principles in the real world, I'd give them further consideration. But it's an awfully huge gable to take based solely on the rantings of a politician and Ayn Rand.
Tehixe,
I think you are not acknowledging the corporatist factor, and corporatism is our current system.
Which is to say:
capitalism is good, but
capitalism big government leads to decisions that should be made by millions of rational actors in the free market instead being made by politicians and their cronies, which = corporatism
I hear you re corporatism. But I don't think the solution is dismantlement of almost every power the government has and firing a million plus federal employees, like Ron Paul wants. The solution is reform. It won't be easy, and it won't happen right now, but we CAN change the system to where the peoples' voices are amplified and the corporate interests are blunted. People who give up on reform and want to demolish the whole system are just not living in the real world. In fact, when rational people take rational principles and draw them out to an irrational conclusion, it's a great tragedy. I don't disagree with you about corporatism. I DO disagree, however, that the best thing to do about it is to demolish the government. Instead of blowing it up and trying to start over, let's try to fix what we have. Far fewer people will be crushed by the falling rubble that way.
I think the problem FOR libertarians is that nobody understands economics. You suggest that the economy un-regulated would become a bunch of exploitative monopolistic industries, yet that is what you have under GSE's today. Consumers are much better regulators than easily influenced bureaucrats.
As was said, our current model is corporatist. You argue for perpetual reform which brings to mind the saying that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but I think we would be better off removing access to political entrepreneurship and crony capitalism.
The more constrained the powers of government the further removed from corruption it will become. You need to read history to see the nature of power in politics; it cannot be 'reformed'.
When you give an organization with the ability print and distribute money willfully beyond budget (such as with the fed) you have created a system of taxation without representation, not directly but it is ultimately the tax payer who will have to pay for the debt incurred, with little benefit, the only one being its temporary liquidity for a corporation to spend, without representation. However this causes inflation and any trickle down effect the money might have will be negated by the fact that costs rise, for everyone and the only people who really benefit are the people who first got their hands on the money, at the expense of everyone else.
I'm not suggesting we completely get rid of the government, but stripping back its power is necessary if we wish to have a free market and free society. Scaling down government spending wwould mean lower taxes, which would be a boost to the economy and make the united states a better place to do bussiness internationally, simply put, lower taxes= more bussiness. more bussiness=better economy. Better economy=better quality of life, but you CANNOT lower taxes without doing something about the massive amount of dollars being spent, the ones being spent with questionable bennefit (obviously not for everything, we obviously need roads and the like) but do we really need wars for choice? or over a trillion dollar single payer option (single payer= single provider) with less choice? half of the money our government brings in goes straight to paying social security, a system which clearly cannot continue forever and gets exponentially worse every year, the constitution makes pretty clear that this is not the sort of government the founding fathers had in mind.
Er, I guess you really don't know what representation is (none of the teabaggers do). Representation is when you VOTE for your REPRESENTATIVES. There is no such thing as taxation without representation when your votes are actually counted and the leaders have to stand for reelection every term.
I'm also sick of Paulies moaning about inflation. We have the foremost inflation expert in the world in charge of the Fed. And right now, the primary economic fear is DEflation. Inflation is surely a worry, but we know about it. It's not a secret of which only Ron Paul is aware. If you think that the stewards of the economy would just let inflation run wild, then you have a grossly unrealistic picture of their expertise.
Anyway, by your reasoning, Somalia is the best place to do international business, since as a country with no taxes, they have the best economy. Hah.
I think the only thing that the Constitution makes clear is that the Founding Fathers wanted a general code of principles that would stand the test of time. If they wanted one particular, crystalized form of government forevermore, they would have used much more precise language. But at the Constitutional Convention, there was no way they'd agree to freeze the government in place at the very beginning. They used vague, compromise language that everyone was happy with, fully aware that future political wrangling and court cases would hammer out the shape of the nation. If you think that they even agreed on what the government should be, you need to take a closer look (and check out real historical sources and not ones filtered through Paul or LaRouche or their ilk).
sweatshop-fan,
I agree with the thesis of your third paragraph, but the point of the Constitution is that it limits what those in government can do to the people. It's a limitation not to restrain the people, but to restrain the government.
Ergo most Ron Paul supporter do not seek to abolish the government completely, but rather to simply return to a governmental system within the limitations outlined in the Constitution.
In order to do what Ron Paul wants, he'd have to take the rather unconstitutional step of abolishing 200 years of Supreme Court precedent. The President and the Congress do not have the final say in interpreting the Constitution, that falls to the Supreme Court, per Marbury v. Madison. The current form of government is not unconstitutional because it is exercising only the powers that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has determined it can exercise. Supreme Court precedent is the LAW, and if you believe in the rule of law, you cannot pretend that the government as it is today is unconstitutional.
In order to do what Ron Paul wants, to return us to a more limited form of federal government, he'd have to amend the Constitution. If you think 2/3rds of Congress and the States would EVER go along with that, you're living in a fantasy world.
I think you're talking about the philosophy of Anarchy.
sweatshop It is not the police!! How the judicial system woks 101. You buy the best lawyers, paint for the 'Halls of Justice Painted Green"-produced by
Metallica.
We need to expedite the death row deatainess, and move it along. I am for any cost associated with DNA, but the ones ther are no doubt murdered someone or raped a child, in my book, 3 years bye bye.
You coddle these lowlife's in prison, insraed of putting them in cement blocks, bullet proof plexiglass, hose them down if they throw feces, in their cells as the sewage flows into a cpnclaved pit in the center pf the jail. Remote activated stun guns for tearing up your cell. hell a concrete slab and a sheet
toilet sink, thas all.
Then you hit gangs with RICO. Felons can not stand on corners with other FELONS, so if you come up on street thugs, shake them dpwm, and you will have 90% dirty, and violating parole, so back to your cement block.
Bring the troops with agression trouble back to the States, give them 100,000 a year base salary, and take the hardest of the hard prisoners, and let the troops have the scum that are ruining this country they fought for on the outside, now go after the inside invaders.
Both the American people and the Federal government went on an out-of-control credit induced spending spree during the Bush years. We now know as a people that we have to get our own fiscal house in order, and are doing so (see saving rates). What Obama does not seem to get, is that we expect our government to be doing the same.
Wonder how many Paul supporters have withdrawn from Medicare? How many have rescinded their social security numbers or refrained from getting marriage licenses? How many have torn up their driver's licenses? Do they support the legalization of all recreational drugs? Do they believe that Iran has the right to have nukes? Indeed, would they approve of the immediate withdrawal of our troops from the rest of the world?
I wonder how many Paul supporters the federal government will allow to withdraw from paying taxes for that Medicare? How many will they allow to not pay S.S. taxes?
I'm not aware of any federal drivers/marriage licenses it's a 10th amendment issue. Yes on drugs. Iran is a party to the NPT until we withdraw from the UN we might as well use it to control other countries. While there's no "party line" on how far Iran can go. I'd say withdraw from the UN and let them have the nukes. And Yes on the troops.
While preferable these need not occur immediately. There should be a shore "timeline" if you will.
Pam,
Libertarians often hear arguments similar to your first few questions above -- things along the line of, "If you're against Social Security, why not get rid of your Social Security number?" or "If you don't think government should provide schools, why did you go to a public school?"
I think though that in order for these arguments to be convincing you have to consider whether withdrawal from whatever government expenditure is being mentioned is a viable option.
For example, with regards to Social Security, I'd gladly give up any claim to Social Security money in my retirement if I wasn't forced by law into paying into the system now. But the government doesn't allow people to withdraw from the system.
If it's not viable to withdraw from said programs, then it's not viable to not pay taxes, which as far as I can tell seems to be what most libertarians want.
If you live in a rural area, it's unlikely that you will have more than one school within a reasonable distance of your home. If you are an atheist living in Utah, then you will probably be happy if the school is run by the government, not the local church.
Give me my money back and I will be glad to withdraw from both
Don't walk on the sidewalks, don't drive on the roads, don't dial 911 if you need emergency care, don't take unemployment if you lose your job, don't go on Medicaid once you become too sick to work and lose your insurance after the requisite 90 days plus 6 months of COBRA, don't deposit your money in an FDIC insured bank, etc. etc. etc., and you can have your money back. After, of course, the government (hopefully), subtracts a usage fee for services rendered, much like any free-market business would.
Yes C-E but the counterargument is that I am forced by law to pay for the sidewalks and roads so I might as well use them.
Private roads (of which there are a rapidly-increasing number in this country) and sidewalks are maintained much better and more cheaply
than government-maintained roads and sidewalks, as one would expect.
No one's forcing you. You could renounce your citizenship and do what Patri Friedman of the Cato Institute suggests: give up democracy and live in the San Fransisco Bay on a platform. Then you could set up your own government with its own services, paid for by... the Fair Tax?
And are you talking about those roads that are privately run where the government allows the companies who run them to set up tolls? The ones that allow the companies to charge tolls well into the future (usually a 100 years or many decades), well after the road has been paid for many times over by us? It's just a shift in cost and no gain in efficiency. That's short term thinking; in the long term, it is more costly to the citizens.
Myth: libertarians oppose taxes
Fact: It is coercive taxation that libertarians oppose. User fees and excise taxes (both voluntary taxes) are acceptable forms of collecting revenue for state services.
For the most part, sidewalks and roads are paid for voluntarily through gasoline tax and tolls. It is the coercive taxes, like social security and personal income tax, that do us no good.
We believe the people are better at spreading the wealth than the G-Men.
C-E,
While the method governments use to contract out these roads might make no sense or be sketchy, the idea of shifting costs from people that do not use roads to people that frequently use them seems like a pretty reasonable one to entertain.
Ms. Goldstein,
This is a very biased and terribly written article. I am a Ron Paul supporter, and while your article focuses on a few extremists in his movement, you ignore millions of people who believed his was a voice of fresh air.
The key issue that drew me to Ron Paul was his position on foreign policy. 8 months into the Obama administration, and we are still at war on two fronts. These wars are killing innocent people and bankrupting our country. If we can't afford healthcare reform, you can thank the war in Iraq and Afghanistan for that.
Another key issue for Ron Paul is sound money, and his bill to audit the Federal Reserve currently has 282 cosponsors, that cut across party lines. No, he didn't win the election, but his ideas are having an effect.
So while you and your elite clique might consider Ron Paul 'whacky', I can only say that whacky is as whacky does. Personally, I think bankrupting our nation and perpetual war is pretty crazy stuff to me, and on those issues, Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air.
This user is no longer registered.
I was still half asleep when I wrote it, and Daily Beast comments don't have a review or edit option. I'm usually a much better writer.
BTW, I'm so disgusted with this article, I'm deleting The Daily Beast from my bookmarks. See ya!
Boo Hoo Hoo .Tina Brown is no better. She can not discern satire, and actually claims to be a journalist. Maybe back in the day of Woman' Day, Vanity (thy name is woman) Fair, Good Hosekeeping, and other rags more suited to 3rd rate "journalism".
This piece of junk article is right out of the liberal playbook. If you can not find facts to get people on your side, dream up some deep, dark conspiracy, headed up by some extreme right wingers. If the conspiracy theory fails, fall back to the first rule in the liberal play book, label everyone who opposes them a racist, unamerican or mobster. The first word a liberal learns out of the womb is racist. What is even more bazaar is they never get tired of spewing it out. I think I'll come here more often, this stuff in funny. They should go on the John Steward show with this junk. It's where most of them get their information or from Saturday Night Live. Hey, all you liberals and Tina Fey, can you see the 2010 elections from your "front porch?" lol
Right- Left, Conservative-Liberal, Republican-Democrat are one and the same. They have become meaningless banners with which the masses are manipulated.
Did you not see the Republican debates? Did you not see the "conservative" media doing exactly the same thing to Ron Paul during the campaign?
Please wake up and see it for what it is.
How bazaar, how bazaar... do do do, do do do, do do do, do dooo.
Mr. Steward in a funny guy.
I'm curious what do conservatives watch for humor? I've never seen a funny Republican show. Do you have any to recommend?
Dana,
You are obviously just another dirtbag slinging mud with your blinders on and your snout in the trough of big government supporter's slush fund. I guess you don't believe in Karma.
But would she get extra points if she believed that there is no God but God and that Mohamed is His prophet?
Or is it only Karma we're concerned with? What about Hell, or Purgatory?
Dana Goldstein is a NUT JOB.
Ron Paul is a man that just wants to get back to the Constitution. He's against the WAR and want us to STOP spending MONEY we don't have.
I for one find nothing wrong with that.
If you've ever listened to him speak he makes alot of sense. What others say about him is B.S.
This user is no longer registered.
Practical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRek-0vjMtA
I looked into the Libertarian philosophy when I was looking for something else to vote for in the 80's when the Republican's took a hard right turn and I got disgusted with them. As far as I could see Libertarians were further to the right than the Republican's. None of them live in the real world with real live people in it! So I can believe the article. I can also believe it from all the irate commenter's who are obviously clones of Paul.
Nice plant to substantiate the article... Gotta love the paid trolls.
nice catch 86.
Do you honestly believe that TDB cares enough about the comments to these articles that they would pay people money to post here? I like this article, I wish I had a check in the mail.
Y'all libs seriously need to get a grip on reality.
Not being a psychiatrist, I can't say if Ron Paul is insane. But I do think an increasing number of Americans are rejecting his message of less government.
I think Americans are shifting steadily toward wanting a government that can protect our interests here and abroad, and look out for it's citizens well being. Small, weak government can't do that. They want stronger government, not government that sits back and allows s**t to hit the fan without doing anything about it.
Ron Paul, like Ross Perot, represents but a small faction in this country, and their failed attempts to win the Presidency should show that.
Yeah, we tried letting the s**t hit the fan for 8 years, and surprise surprise, the s**t did hit the fan and got on EVERYONE. Economic collapse, unwinnable wars of choice, the middle class under assault, the rich getting richer and even less moral...
I think America wants what Obama wants: not big government or small government, but smart government. Government that works, whatever its size. And you can bet your ass that the Republicans don't know how to deliver that, especially not Ron Paul, whose ideal of government would probably put over a million federal employees out of work, and not stimulate the economy in any way that would let them find new jobs.
If you consider what we had under Bush a "free market" then you are a moron of epic proportions with zero understanding of economics.
tehixe
Smart government seems, well, smart. I hope you're right about America wanting it.
Maybe they do. They're starting to outnumber that teabag crowd at the Town Halls.
wow. i SO laughed at "paultards."
it's perfect.
i like ron paul -- much in the same way one likes a crazy uncle. his supporters are just as crazy but considerably less amiable.
This article is garbage. When you attempt to attack the credibility of one with a flawless reputation, it only undermines your own credibility as a (so-called) journalist. The next time you want to write about Dr. Paul, read "Revolution: A Manifesto", first. Please do real research instead of spending fifteen minutes trying to dig up dirt on a few of Dr. Paul's supporters on Myspace. One can always tell a "journalist" who is trying to write an attack piece on Dr. Paul because they always reference that one article that was ghost-written several decades ago by one of Dr. Paul's writers for his old newsletter that some misconstrue as "racist". The fact of the matter is that Dr. Paul's stances (on the war on drugs, the inflation tax, foreign policy, healthcare) are much more beneficial to minorities, the poor, and middle-class than anything Obama, Bush, or Clinton ever did. He is anything but racist. He urges us to strive for equal justice under the rule of law, which is the most humane legal system possible.
Ron Paul is the greatest American hero of our generation. Nobody else even comes close. Have a little respect.
Dana Goldstein - Posting this as legitimate journalism just turns my stomach. I will no longer visit the Daily Beast. Paultards? Dana you are a dimwit!
I just come here for the comedy. Tina Brown's "Death Panel" of allowed postings are a hoot.
Wow, were did this country take the wrong turn?
This is some of the worst journalism I've have seen or read sense Katie Couric. Admittedly journalism has gone done the tubes as of late, but where is the truth to bind all of her assumptions together? Just because you write it, doesn't make it true. Can anyone tell me where journalistic integrity went? When a journalist was interested in the truth not selling an agenda?
A couple of points, First if you have a problem with legal citizens doing legal things, and saying how bad it is and what radicals they are, you had better go back to history class because your making yourself out to be a moron. People have been protesting in this country from the word go. From flag burning to smoking pot to sit ins to demonstrate against what the government was or wasn't doing at the time.
Secondly, I wouldn't bring up anything about a Reverend, because of other politically connected Reverends (Pastor Wright) and the messages of hate that they have said.
Lastly this country is advance citizenship, you have to want it bad, you have to acknowledge someone's right to stand center stage and scream at the top of their lungs something you would oppose with every fiber of your being. Celebrate that in your life and the way you conduct yourself in everything you do and maybe this country through the debate and the flowing of ideas might be able to solve its problems, are you listening Politicians?
I tried to read you're post, but my primitive citizenship must be making myself a moron. I will cease to protest at all stop signs. Thank you for your life conduction advice.
It is interesting that the same Republicans that ridiculed and demonized Ron Paul in the campaign are now scrambling to get aboard his ship, as theirs seems nothing left but a few scattered pieces of driftwood with Dick Cheney clinging to them.
I would suggest to you (although not as sensational as this piece) would be to write an article about what exactly Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty stands for and why his message is resonating with the people, instead of resorting to cheap smear tactics.
Especially annoying was entering the race-baiting link, although it had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Inserting it after "To be fair" was particularly Faux newslike.
Seems odd that a homophobe, and racist like Ron Paul would have had a gay campaign manager, and follow the "Jewish" economic theories of Von Mises and Rothbard.
If you would listen to the man and read any of his own writings you would find that he is anything but a racist.
I must be a Paultard, as I feel Ron Paul speaks honestly and with common sense. As I see it, he is the only one offering true change.
Obama has become (or always was) just another pawn of the military industrial complex and the banking elite and is he is desperately trying to salvage his populist image by passing socialized health care.
Big Government=Big Business. Our current politicians want nothing more than to keep riding this gravy train.
Ron Paul is the one exception to this rule!
This user is no longer registered.
Why that's just nonsense. Plan 1: Audit the Federal Reserve. HR1207 now has over half of the congress as cosponsors. Plan 2: End the wars and bring our troops home. The current annual deficit 2 trillion dollars, and the cost of the wars makes up nearly half of that. Result? The deficit would be cut in half. Plan 3: No more bailouts or corporate welfare. A few big banks would go under, but new ones that had sound monetary practices would take their place. Plan 4: End the failed war on drugs and the police state it supports. The combination of money earned by taxing marijuana and saved by not sending nonviolent people to jail would be like a massive, self funding stimulus package that wouldn't cost a dime.
I could go on, but there are concrete steps we could take from Ron Paul that would bring REAL change to America. The good kind.
Aw, why'd you guys change the title? Call a spade a spade, or in this case a Paultard a Paultard.
This article has stirred up a tempest which is really what I think was its intent. I do not consider myself a Ron Paul supporter, but I have to admit that I agree with many of Dr. Paul's positions on SOME issues. I also completely understand where Dr. Paul's supporters are coming from because American government does not fulfill its obligation to the people when it is so overwhelmingly influenced by special interests. However, the basic place I diverge from libertarians is that I don't think the answer is little or no government, but rather good government, conducted morally and ethically to keep the country on the course that its founders set. I believe if we had such government those who lean toward libertarianism would not be as stirred up about things as they are (justifiably so). So libertarians I may not agree with some of your positions and outlooks, but I certainly think it is your right to express them, and that every one should consider what you are saying.
The article opens:
"On the presidential campaign trail, Ron Paul was a grassroots sensation and then a media darling."
I don't think it's fair to say that Ron Paul was a "media darling."
Those of us who supported Paul found the media generally hostile (with exceptions, of course) and more eager to write hit pieces than to understand the ideas behind the movement.
I'm glad they got rid of the "Paultard" title too, not because it bothers me as an RP supporter but because it's not real sweet to make fun of retarded people.
Obviously this author doesnt understand libertarianism for it is neither "pro-life" nor is it "hawkish on immigration"
lp.org
This user is no longer registered.
Very poorly touchy-feely written statement of beliefs. Probably written by the libertarian version of Dana Goldstein. You'd do better at other sites. If you are really interested, I would recommend writing an inquisitive post at ronpaulforums.com on the matter. mises.org is good but a bit too heady, with a lot of anarchists. lewrockwell.com is a very funny site but you may find it too abrasive and off-putting to someone not familiar with the lingo.
Good luck!
Anyone stupid and irresponsible enough to take a weapon to a place where the intent is to get people stirred up, shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. It's a right but like all rights it carries responsibilities.
Yep...I guess we need to take all the guns away from the cops and secret service too. You are a clown!
Anything that upsets yuppie whining left wingers, is OK with me.
To the hysteria around the 2nd Amendment activism I sayeth: "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged":
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
From article: "One of Paul's main arguments from the campaign, that much social spending is unconstitutional, has become a rallying cry of the Republican base."
~~~~~
I often hear these folks say that what Obama is doing is against our Constitution, but NEVER hear them quote where, exactly, in this document it outlines that our federal government is prohibited from spending $$ on social programs. And even more alarming is that no reporter who quotes these folks EVER asks them that simple follow-up question: "What section, article, or amendment in our Constitution prohibits this?"
This is just a bunch of hot air spewed by sheeple that don't even know what they don't know. And nobody is calling them on it. How sad.
If the power is not written in the Constitution, it is not a Federal power. See the 10th Amendment.
But of course you could take the liberal view of the "general welfare clause" to mean, "do whatever you want, we're lemmings".
Article 1 Section 8 first paragraph: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,Imposts, And Excises, to pay for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Seems pretty clear. How is this a general welfare "clause?"
indieinva...notice the last part of what you quoted..."shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States." Yes, the government has a right to tax...but what it does NOT allow is for the government to tax one group for the betterment of another. So your liberal philosophy to enforce a tax just on the wealthy is what is unconstitutional. The burden needs to be on every American to pay for the healthcare monstrosity.
Article 1 section 8 of the constitution lists the powers granted to the federal government, the tenth ammendment limits all others legislative power to the states, and the states only.
If you had actually read and studied the constitution you would know that.
Wrong. See above. I recommend you do not rely on the constitutuonal scholarship of a wide-eyed, fringy medical doctor who was elected to Congress by one district in Texas.
indievnva...my comment above has dismantled your argument.
Ok, now that you're finished arguing with a moron, can I punch indieinva in the nuts now?
10th Amendment
Whoops. Better luck next time.
This post made me so irritated I had to create an account. As VagrantPhilosopher noted, the Constitution is document of ENUMERATED POWERS. If the power is not enumerated, the government DOES NOT HAVE IT! You are the public schooled "sheeple" who is blowing hot air, and you don't have a clue that you can't tell the Constitution from your morning constitutional (don't forget to flush). As anyone who had actually read the document would understand, there is no section, article or amendment that PERMITS spending "$$" on social programs like universal healthcare or taking over GM or bailing out Goldman Sachs.
What's sad is that people like you get to vote, and people like me have to live with the consequences.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.