cheap shots

Name calling, in humour, or not, makes this article not worthy of review. It does not inform, or illuminate any part of the spectacle; something I read the Tyee for. Maybe time to switch horses….

This article, the way it is worded leaves the writer on the same level as the people he is writing about.

Sigh

Only a newspaper so supremely confident that right-wing libertarians and paleoconservatives do not and will not read it could be so supremely confident in making fun of Ron Paul's principled, effective libertarian stance and long honorable life and career. I feel alienated.

Braxton

You aren't concerned with the anti-gay and racist articles published year after year in a newsletter bearing Ron Paul's name and signature at the bottom? Does this Washington Post columnist have a point?

'Paul, a man who wants to be entrusted with the presidency, owes the American people a clear accounting of how hatred came to be scribbled regularly in publications bearing his name and how he had no knowledge of it,' The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart wrote Thursday in an op-ed.
'His dismissive disavowal of the matter is beyond inadequate. As is the ad from supporters,' Mr Capehart writes.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080834/Ron-Paul-video-Racist-newsletters-Advert-shows-aiding-African-American.html#ixzz1ihBB3J8P

The trouble with the American

The trouble with the American Federal election is that it goes on and on in nauseium. Of course this gives all the talking heads (and their distant cousins, the writing heads) a chance to express their views. And there's the rub; the present set of Presidential candidates aren't worth a word or the ink: they're pathetic.

"Name calling, in humour, or

"Name calling, in humour, or not, makes this article not worthy of review" - pianosaurus rex. Exactly.

I'm sure we could just as well poke fun and name-calling at the sanctimonious Tommy Douglas, the late pompous Jack Layton or the dinosaurish pontifications of Iggy too. But that wouldn't add anything to the debate, either.

Funny!

Nice piece of writing -- many Americans are saying exactly the same kinds of thing. This is the weirdest primary season in living memory and Burgess gives the candidates all the respect they have earned. It is Christmas every day for humourists.

forgetting

I have been watching the USA and the BS... It really gets me that they forget who started the problems they are now having.. And WHO is really paying for the GREEDY things that have gone on in the USA

forgetting indeed

“And WHO is really paying for the GREEDY things that have gone on in the USA?”

The very same people who are paying here in Canada.

Instead of Tyee writers (and editor) finger wagging about what goes on in American politics perhaps it would be better to spend time writing thoughts on improving our lot here.

Like what, exactly, do we have to be proud about in Canada or BC politics at the moment? Harper is any better? Clark is any better? Any of them any better?

Name one.

Name calling could never be considered humour. Fun at someone else expense is not humour.

Is this the best the right wing can come up with?

One must wonder about the intelligence of the American right wing if this group of clowns is the best that they can come up with. The Republican party seems only to serve the role of being obstructionist bullies in Congress, making sure that next to nothing gets accomplished. They don't know how to compromise, as opposed to when their president was in power, the cause of the financial mess that Obama has been struggling with.

I too am disturbed by the characterization of Dr. Paul

I do not subscribe to the Austrian School, but anyone who wants to audit the Fed, reduce the Empire and restore the Constitution would get my vote if I lived there. The charge of racism against him is grasping at straws.

"Ron Paul is acutely aware of the new Jim Crow laws that is called the "War on Drugs" in name.

"Inner city minorities are punished unfairly in the 'War on Drugs,'" Paul said, adding that black and whites do not have "equal justice" under the drug laws. He, therefore, supports repealing "most of the federal law on drugs." He is also opposed to the federal death penalty because it unfairly targets inner city minorities and gives a pass to the rich. As president, he said he would support the pardoning of non-violent drug offenders of all races."
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/275652/20120103/ron-paul-2012-why-deserves-black-america.htm
The establishment is scared witless and reacts by not allowing him equal time in the "debates" and trying to pretend Romney & Santorum really got those votes.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2012/01/grand-theft-iowa/

Cartoon

Come on folks look at the image above. This is a written cartoon, a caricature, an exageration perhaps, but based on some truth in every case.

Ron Paul is opposed to the

Ron Paul is opposed to the NDAA (google it), the Patriot Act, the bank bailouts, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the dumb wars in the Mid-East.

Trivializing Ron Paul as a "racist" is an insult.

Ron Paul would slash government spending/redistribution and social program spending. He would allow a free market in money, abolish the central bank & let interest rates be set by the market. He would close dozens of military bases and end financial support of other governments, including that of Israel.

Our politicians - Clark, Harper, Dix, McGuinty etc., are pompous business-as-usual windbags in comparison.

Canada DESPERATELY needs a Ron Paul of its own!

a laugh a minute

Great caricature at top! I would hardly expect anyone, especially Mr. Burgess, to write a serious article about this gang of weirdos. What a show! Sorry Sarah pooped out.
C'mon folks, this is comedy at its best! Stay tuned, it will get more demented as time rolls on. Grab a sense of humor and hang on.

The situation really isn't funny.

Not when you consider the possible ramifications of the NDAA for Canada. The only one of the candidates to speak out against it is Dr. Paul.
As Gerald Celente points out,“They just passed a law in the United States, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),” he said. “It now gives the president the right to identify a person like me and call me a terrorist and that I’m against the government. And the military can come and break down my doors—the military—and arrest me, charge me with nothing, give me no trial, no rights of habeas corpus, no jury, no judge, and they can kill me if they so choose, torture me; they can send me to any country around the world.”

Or Mo'bama?

America's only other option is Obarmy. What they'll get is higher unemployment, massive deficit and a complete lack of focus (and action) as a president. A trillion dollar 'stimulus' package that didn't stimulate is followed by a half trillion dollars of more of the same. What, pray tell, does anyone think will change?

Obambam was marginalized by the EU in Libya, tossed out on his duff in Iraq and his only positive results have been continuing the policies of George W!

Seriously, does anyone know what Barry has accomplished other than the multi-state challenged Obamacare?

The Left fails because of its ignorance

I'm with everyone else here concerned about how ignorant this article is. You have so poorly characterized Ron Paul's stance it's laughable.

The left will perpetually be marginalized, alienated and relegated to the grandstands of economic and political life if it can't figure out how to engage intelligently with libertarians. Braxton, I'm with you.

Who initiated the initial stimulus package?

GW Bush of course, but it seems as if some have a very short memory as to who caused this. The trouble is that people are expecting Obama to be a total magician and undo this total mess that wasn't of his making. The right wing conveniently forgets the truth when it is suits them. They like to portray themselves as good money managers, and then rack up huge debts,... and then the tea baggers get all self-rightious with the their attitudes.

Awh lighten up, eh!

It sounds to me like the folks who don't like Steve making light of the flakes in the race for top Republican across the border are Republicans themselves. All of the major issues facing the U.S.A. and not one of them has a clue of what to do because they can't bring themselves to admit how and who got them there. That might involve looking at themselves in a mirror. What a hoot it is just watching. To take any of the candidates seriously you first have to convince yourself that Bill O'Reilly knows what he is talking about.

Kreditanstalt

I will wager you a nickle that, should Ron Paul become president and initiate all that he promises to, his assassination would just be a matter of time.

The M.I.C. is about the only "industry" the US has left.........

Kreditanstalt

Seven Days in May:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058576/plotsummary

David Beers

QUOTE:

'Paul, a man who wants to be entrusted with the presidency, owes the American people a clear accounting of how hatred came to be scribbled regularly in publications bearing his name and how he had no knowledge of it,' The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart wrote Thursday in an op-ed.
'His dismissive disavowal of the matter is beyond inadequate.

Accountability for our own acts is paramount. With this in mind, the issue is whether Paul is accountable for the newsletters published, on and off, under his name?

I've followed Ron Paul rather closely the last half dozen years. I've listened to him speak countless times on the 'net. I've read his articles in a variety of media outlets. And I've read a number of the controversial newsletters bearing him name. What is clear to me is that the 'voice' in the controversial parts of the newsletters is not that of Ron Paul.

Many of these parts (though some are downright incontrovertible) are clearly cherry picked, taken out of context and viewed with a jaundiced eye. Only someone unfamiliar with the man's thinking would, or even could, attribute them directly to Ron Paul. The others Paul has addressed.

Ron Paul has repeatedly condemned the content in question, and explained his role:

Paul described his role as publisher, not editor of the newsletter. [Although he was listed as 'editor' in 1988?]

"There were some very bad sentences put in. I did not write those," he reiterated. "I did not review them. And that was an error on my part. But I condemned them. I don't know exactly who wrote them — you know, I had eight or nine people working for me back then, and a lot of people wrote a lot of different things."

Now I am not a libertarian nor theologically bent. So I am not likely to line up mindlessly behind Ron Paul (nor anyone else). But if the masses refuse to investigate for themselves, as they invariably will, the State of Propagandistan will sway them away from one of the only candidates who offers a workable solution. (Two others being Nader and Kucinich.)

G.W. Bush never had to publicly account for his cocaine, his drinking and driving, his disappearance through the Vietnam times, or his four-peat insider trading controversy.

Obama has never accounted for the missing years (~1982-86) in his life; nor provided something as simple as his birth certificate at the outset of that controversy.

But these are golden boys to the insiders. Both very marketable for their own reasons.

Ron Paul is the 'wild man in the wings' of the GOP. And this is why Paul will be derailed by the Machine. He is a threat to the established order. Not just to the general order, but to its foundation: the geo-politically driven, military killing machine that is US government.

So what do you want: a public repentance? Paul's long and consistent record clearly answers this controversy.

gsarahs

Are you seriously making excuses for Obama's despicable, unconscionable and traitorous behavior upon taking office?

Obama has exacerbated just about every problem he inherited. He came to office with more international political capital than any President I recall, and he squandered it.

There was one way out of this mess, only one true way forward that would have re-set the table, and that was/is strict adherence to the rule of law. For the rule of law being applied equally to all is all the people (who are the democracy) can rely upon for protection. When the rule of law no longer exists, the social contract is void.

Instead of investigating the outgoing regime for its conduct, as every competent Constitutional authority walking the world would agree, Obama followed the orders of the men who got him into office.

The rest has been downhill.

Washington is remembered for leading the war for American Independence and the US Constitution.

Lincoln is remembered for freeing the slaves and the Civil War.

Wilson is remembered for passing the Federal Reserve Act and 'forgetting' to keep America out of WW I.

Franklin D Roosevelt is remembered for the New Deal.

Obama could have been remembered for returning some semblance of democracy to the USA by opposing all pursuits of empire; instead, he will likely be remembered as the first black 'Uncle Tom' President.

Another poster's Matt Taibbi link, above, cites Obama's top 20 donors list for the 2008 election: Goldman Sachs ($1,013,091), JPMorgan Chase & Co ($808,799), Citigroup Inc ($736,771) WilmerHale LLP ($550,668), Skadden, Arps et al ($543,539), UBS AG ($532,674), and Morgan Stanley ($512,232).

Who's the boss, President Obama? Who's Your Daddy?

Enjoy the spectacle. It's a sold out show and all the usual actors are in place. Too bad the people don't have a ticket.

IQ deficiency

Isn't "Republican Braintrust" an oxymoron?

@RickW

That's fiction. Doesn't matter who is in charge - civilian or military, whatever: all western welfare states are on a one-way trip to financial insolvency anyway. Problem solved.

@igbymac

You are looking at American politics from a Canadian perspective. Obama has not had a majority in both houses, something that he needed to do what people expected. If he can not rely on all elected Democrats to support his actions then he can't simply forge ahead. He has to compromise like most of them have had to do.

The American system is locked in inertia. It is this way for the single purpose to protect the status quo and the capitalist system and to prevent exactly what you expect to be done. Even Americans don't seem to understand and they will blame Obama for not cleaning up George W. mess in one term. They expect that electing one single person and then shackling him with a bunch of Republican nutbars is going to change things.

Kreditanstalt

Can't disagree with that.

But it means there is little "hope" for "salvation" through Ron Paul either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots#Failed_assassination_attempts

We need a good chuckle

I thought Burgess's article was surprisingly good. I had a few chuckles and not ashamed to say so. Looking seriously at the GOP line up of presidential candidates should actually give reason to cry for the dismal state of affairs facing voters in the US. I would like to have a laugh once in a while to break the depressing reality washing across our border. My opinion is that the list of candidates for the GOP is no less a list of fundamentalist loons. Yes Ron Paul included whom thinks that a group of dividing cells should be considered and have claim as a human being among some of his other views. http://danielmiessler.com/blog/5-ron-paul-quotes-that-scare-me

Amazing

I saw the article on the front page and noted the writer...my instant prediction was "here we go, I'm gonna see 'conspiracy theories' and Ron Paul mentioned in the same breath. What a surprise coming from this writer *sarcasm*

I agree with David Beers. Research Paul's actual record:

10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/

I don't think I am, Skywalker

Skywalker: @igbymac You are looking at American politics from a Canadian perspective.

____

I am not talking about the general muck and mud thrown about between the houses by bantering children in the usual course of political events.

I am addressing the initial days of Obama entering office where he could have taken strong advantage of the political capital in the USA as well as around the world to strong-arm the rule of law into application.

I am talking about, first and foremost, the President and all congressional members and senators being sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Who would dare oppose Presidential action taken to address this issue head on in the early days? Their constituents would revolt in the next election if they did.

This is the all too typical failing of representative democracy. We do not seem to remember the daily events too well, but we do remember the outrageous conduct of members which offend us. I think with 'hope and dreams of change' on the minds of all, anyone opposing the Constitution being upheld, at that special time, would be on a political suicide mission.

Of course, Obama is bought and paid for and this was never going to happen. But an honest man would have moved along these lines. And I believe self-serving elected members would have had to, if even grudgingly, acquiesced, especially if it was marketed to the public simply and concisely: the rule of law and Constitution apply equally to all.

But I do see your general point.

Ron Paul

Anybody who takes the Republican Party seriously (except in the way you take potholes seriously when you are driving down the road)will take offence at this article. Of course.

I take issues like racism seriously, something that Republicans and their supporters don't. That means that if someone were making racist statements under my name, I'd act quickly to remove and disavow those statements and ensure that the person making them was not in a position to make more. That Ron Paul did not do these things says enough about his character, and about his attitude towards racism, to satisfy me that he does not care sufficiently about these issues.

That makes him a person of comparatively low character, in my estimation, not a man of principle as he is being portrayed by his supporters.

How a person acts is a much stronger indication of who a person is than what he or she says, because a person can say anything. Words are cheap. Actions--and inactions--are real.

lynn

How do you suppose these ten reasons to not vote for Ron Paul -- of which only one: unrestrained property rights vis-a-vis pollution -- have any geo-political bearing on making the world a less better place?

The rest are all domestic sovereign issues. And their 'badness' needs to be weighed against the 'goodness' of a huge contraction of Empire and its warring adventures globally.

To my way of seeing the world and the harm done by Imperial ambition, let the Americans work out their own domestic issues, but stop blowing up people and the world.

Of course, most folk are going to worry about their rights to have gay weddings, or abortions, or whether they can have a firearm and the like before concerning themselves with the gross atrocities and unbelievable crimes against humanity inflicted on others out of sight.

There is simply no sense of proportionality in making these collateral arguments as to why Paul is not a far better choice than most others on the American political screen.

About 95 of them are...

...reasons that I would never consider him as anything more than a wing nut.

The character of men ....and nations......

In my opinion it would be disingenuous of anyone to imply that domestic US issues do not affect the world in a global sense.

Certainly, Canadians would be wise to pay attention. Trudeau said it rather well in his quote about sleeping next to an elephant.

How much, for instance has the domestic issue of US Homeland Security affected the lives of Canadians.....especially the rights of Canadians?

What both a man and a country are internally, is their true character, is their true measure. It would be unwise to casually dismiss how a country or a man is from within - as if it doesn't affect or determine how he or it will 'act' from without.

(I see that the link I provided is already "not available". And so it goes. You can reach it by googling creatively.)

lynn

If this is so, then Manifest Destiny is alive and well in the USA - regardless of governance. And we have many willing Quislings in this country.

Cheap shots perhaps, but completely justified

Steve, the piece is indeed long on cheap shots and short on substance. This is not your fault. The GOP race is a complete joke with no substance whatsoever. One would have to be brain damaged to take any of these so-called GOP hopefuls serious.

BTW, I think Obama is an abject failure as President.

CBS is showing blatant bias yet again

"in the entire 12 and half minute segment, the names dropped are Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, John Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, and even Rick Perry. Ron Paul's name is not mentioned one single time, even though he is polling second in New Hampshire at 24%, and even though John Dickerson, the man who CBS assigned to cover Ron Paul's Iowa campaign, is present in this 3 person discussion. The other 2 people are Jan Crawford, who CBS assigned to cover Mitt Romney's Iowa compaign, and Nancy Cordes, who said in the discussion that Mitt Romney is "completely inevitable" as the nominee. These media whores were paving the way for Romney and pretending that Ron Paul didn't even exist. But they knew full well who he was."
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video
/viewVideo.php?video_id=17241

If there were no irregularities in vote counting, I have no doubt Dr. Paul would win against Obama.

We are in revolutionary times and people are sick to death of war. Like it or not,Dr. Paul is the only Peace Candidate, and no smears by association or media blackouts can derail the pull of that.

I would sadly agree, Rick W

Here in Canada and in the US, ugly domestic policies born out of lack of character, substance, and human decency, cannot but result in ugly foreign policy.

Our ever-increasing military/industrial/security state is proof enough.

No matter how you shuffle the cards, you can't be a Peace candidate when your domestic policies are not based on social justice and equality for all.

Ron Paul thinks it's wrong

Ron Paul thinks it's wrong for the U.S. to bankrupt itself paying for stupid wars in the Mid-East. He thinks bombing Iran might be a bad idea.

Braintrust, oops, but still a huge obstacle

The Reublican Braintrust oxymoron starts with so many of their weird names & cadences, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh & so many more.

Then there's the general ignorance of candidates (and audiences), amongst other issues, that forced Michele, Rick & Hermann out, despite their bravado.

But they understand power. Obama should win the presidency this time, but the congress and/or senate, if kept in Republican hands, may handcuff him. (Much the same complaint as Harpo's bitching about minority government. Then again, it might have been better if his government was bogged down in Ottawa).

And I suspect that B.C. cartoonists will have a field day when the provincial Conservatives come on.

They won't have someone like Harper to gag them, their true colours are already "coming out" and might even make the Stuart-Colbert shows one day.

U.S. - Canada shifts

More seriously, I will not repeat the points made by Igbymac, Lynn, Father Theo, Skywalker and others about Paul and Obama. Really good stuff.

But looking at the broader picture of comparison, it seems that the U.S. is making a better, updated, progressive shift in general policy than Canada, although from a more regressive starting point, and despite their conservative's outcries, these regarding alternative energy, cuts to military procurement, food inspection, prisons, the war on drugs and so much more.

Also consider that their states have much more power than our provinces, vis a vis, the Feds.

Long way to go but the Reagan Bush shift just might be grudgingly reversing. Can't say the same in Canada.

As Chris Hedges pointed out in a CBC Ideas program, the U.S. makes errors that take time to fix, but Canada seems to repeat them 10 years later.

Why Ralph Nader likes Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI5Xs2kyjvI&feature=related

lynn says

"Most of the time I find Ron Paul's Congressional record and policies to be as scary as those of Stephen Harper in Canada."

Wow, that is quite the assertion. Care to elaborate?

An essay on RP from naked capitalism reproduced/republished? on Alternet:

http://www.alternet.org/story/153692/why_ron_paul_challenges_liberals_to_come_up_with_real_solutions_on_finance_and_war?page=entire

A terrific article by Glenn Greenwald

...discussing Ron Paul versus Obama, the issues - large and small, and progressives who are having to face matters head on.

The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

War and privatization

Amazing to me that any progressive could not see that the privatization policies of Ron Paul look ghostly similar to the intentional privatization of Canada under Stephen Harper.

The lives of the poor will be the same in both countries. And so will the loss of human rights that privatization ensures.

How can one profess to be against corporatism and yet not see that it could not exist without privatization?

For those chanting peace here, the privatization of the natural world is already a world war..... where corporate monopolies are privatizing and profiting from that which should be free to all..... The public commons. It is naive to think any privatization policy will be one of non-intervention...foreign or otherwise. Surely privatization has proved itself to meddle and intervene....and attempt to control and monopolize everything. Surely one should be able to see that the widespread war and misery of the world today is fed by the privatization of the natural world and the subsequent privatization of human rights.

And yet privatization and a dislike for taxation (taxation that is a cooperative and noble necessity in upholding our vital social system) are the feet of clay upon which Ron Paul's economic policies rest.

So I do not understand the logic of progressives in defending Ron Paul. But I do understand why Ron Paul endorsed Pat Buchanan for the presidency in 2008.

Here are the same corporate entities that ought to be despised because of their malicious and devastating actions, here is the same vile privatization and corporatism now making their come back under the libertarian guise of Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a joke candidate

For a joke party in a joke country.

OK, lynn

I agree that libertarian thinking holds property rights paramount, but the reality of our western jurisprudence is founded on property rights. All laws flow from that base.

Dismantle corporations and we still have privatization of property. And what use can you make of your property which another could not conceivably complain of it being an infringement on his or her rights?

So you tell me how we move from where we are to a complete abandonment of privatization? Who is offering up such a manifesto?

What is offered, however, is to cease the perpetual warfare, a return of all US troops to protect only the sovereign homeland itself, and a turn toward somewhat legitimizing the banking institutions.

It's certainly not that I don't see problems with Ron Paul on various grounds, but he is (one of the) lesser of many other evils being showcased.

This all said, the usual problems prevail throughout western politics: a gamed and thus flawed banking model, global militarization and the security/surveillance state, the political party system, corporate rights, propagandistan on the run and ecological destruction.

The solution still does not reside in political office, but in us folks making those in office afraid to conduct themselves in a way contrary to our collective interests.

G West

so who offers you hope? USA or Canada?

Neither

Hope comes from the human spirit - not from entities like political parties or countries.

Good article Steve

I'm not sure how long it took you to come up with that 3rd paragraph but I thought your writing was brilliant. Reminded me of those first columns of yours in the Province where I chuckled to myself for hours afterwards.

And I agree with lynn about Ron Paul, without taxation our society will come apart at the seams and it will be the weakest that will suffer the most. Not the likes of Ron Paul.

As for Obama, he has accomplished something, he's kept America going. He stopped the bleeding and has even lowered unemployment while at the same time introducing a bad medicare plan if compared to ours but he did get it put into law. And unlike Clinton he hasn't declared war on welfare mothers.

Obama will get a second term, the Americans are not going to vote for the party that put so many in the line for food stamps.

Gwest

"Ron Paul is a joke candidate
For a joke party in a joke country.

I disagree. I think Ron Paul represents perfectly the schizophrenic thinking of the average American voter. Any perusal of the LA Times or the NY Times will offer a range of opinion from columnists, reporters and letters to the editor that Ron Paul nails squarely in his platform.

That it happens to coincide with reality not at all is entirely beside the point. I think American voters could be very well represented if they voted for Ron Paul.

The world, on the other hand, would have absolutely no clue about what is going on in America after that... A reserve currency printing its debt into oblivion for new fighter jets and submarines when its own people can't get health care or housing is not a model even for Zimbabwe or Kazakhstan to follow.

zalm

This is what you think Ron Paul's platform is:

"A reserve currency printing its debt into oblivion for new fighter jets and submarines when its own people can't get health care or housing is not a model even for Zimbabwe or Kazakhstan to follow"?

Frank

QUOTE: without taxation our society will come apart at the seams

So who is suggesting no taxation?

To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs and massive cuts in spending - most particularly to the war machine which eats up over 55% of the revenue.

Considering roughly 45% of the federal funding is derived from income tax, cutting it but substantively axing the military machine (55+% expenditures) would an improvement; perhaps it's just a wash where essentially the same level of government could exist.

Prior to 1913, America survived without federal income tax; soon WW I kicked it, the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax, and all hell broke free. A little more than mere coincidence, no?

Ron Paul is opposed to the

Ron Paul is opposed to the NDAA (google it), the Patriot Act, the bank bailouts, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the dumb wars in the Mid-East.
Sounds ok.

igbymac

Did you read the 10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul?

He seems to oppose progressive taxation and wants to abolish a lot of social supports, perhaps even the minimum wage.

Prior to 1913 America was a tougher place for the working class, even tougher if you didn't own a farm. I doubt too many people want to go back to that level of poverty.

You can have progressive taxation without a big military.

Paul

To interpret Ron Paul, one must acknowledge that he, on principle, opposes any federal Constitutional overstep into state matters.

Similarly, here in Canada, the Supreme Court recently reminded parliamentarians that self-proclaimed federal leadership in provincial areas of jurisdictions leads to constitutional dead ends.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1112925--hebert-liberals-top-down-view-of-federalism-out-of-date

So Frank, yes, I read the ten reasons article. Did you read my reply? Many of the controversial votes against social programs, as he sees them, are simply outside the federal jurisdiction according to the Constitution. The essence of his message is, 'Look, these programs are state matters. I do not vote for them not because I do or do not support them fundamentally, but because they are ultra vires the Federal Constitutional mandate.'

Looking at his voting record through those eyes one sees, in effect, that he is returning democracy to the state on numerous matters erroneously usurped by the Federal branch.

No, Ron Paul is not perfect. But who, Democrat (Kucinich aside) or Republican, is addressing the rule of law, extravagant and illegal foreign policy as well as its burden on the poor, the preposterous and racially discriminatory war on drugs, the security state and the invasion of privacy on all fronts including the Patriot Act, or the corrupt banking system and its bailout and the unseen inflation tax?

(cont)

Frank quote

"Prior to 1913, America was a tougher place for the working class"

What does that even mean?

Today,

50% of Americans are unable to meet their needs;

people do not have friends or family to retreat to back home on a farm any more because they have been driven off the land;

most folks are without life sustaining skills or even places to employ such skills;

American-led wars are breaking out all over the globe,and tens of millions of its victims are facing worse lives than anything imaginable on the domestic front as a result;

millions of non-Americans are literally dying from this warring adventure of Imperialism; and

the suffering American public is being forced to pay for these atrocities while the modern robber barons of the M-I complex and banksters are laughing their asses off.

And all this with three times the population since 1913, rampant pollution and stresses on the environment, threats of nuclear warfare looming, and the disparity in wealth at an all-time high.

But according to the Central Intelligence Agency (whose patriotism I hesitate to question), income distribution in the United States is more unequal than in Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador

Yes, there have been some significant gains made since 1913 but there have been some significant losses incurred as well.

My point is this: Ron Paul has an upside that no Republican and only one Democrat (I am aware of) offers. The rest are all lickspittles to the Empire.

Knowing this, every voter needs to think it through, on balance, globally and domestically, whether Paul will exacerbate or alleviate the problems?

Yes, its a sham democracy, but there are still believers who think it matters. And those who do vote should at least think it through. What we do know is clear: most any other vote guarantees the hegemonic pursuit of global domination through warfare -- and that alone is ginormous and a complete affront to any progressive.

igbymac

igbymac : "What does that even mean?"

It means that in the 19th century the plight of the poor and working class was worse than it is today. Things aren't great right now but its better than it was in the 1800s. All the fights by unions and others sympathetic to workers has been to correct the abuses heaped on that class in the 1800s.

Going back to that while still embracing things like globalization would be a disaster.

I don't see anything that Ron Paul has on offer that is good for the working American. But he would be great for the top 1%.

"Confederate, rich-white-guy libertarianism"

Great stuff from a blog called "Political Context":

"The essence of the tension is this:

To be on the left means to put working people, victims of oppression, and the natural environment above other priorities. “Left” is an orientation, not a list of policies. The policies emerge from the orientation. That similar policies may emerge from another orientation does not justify forming a political coalition with the far right. Working people, people of color, and the poor, cannot and should not latch onto Confederate, rich-white-guy libertarianism just because it converges with progressives on anti-imperialism and the war on drugs. And in fact, it really doesn’t converge. Ron Paul has no problem with states and localities (run by rich, minor aristocrats) locking up poor people and minorities. He’d have no problem with imperialism if it was filtered through the Constitution–which it can be. Electing millionaires and lackeys of millionaires is no way to solve the crises created by capitalists."