Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
 |
| 05/15/2007 8:48 PM |
|
I noticed that you, Mr. Mulholland, are on the Ron Paul website. It is well known that I am pretty liberal, but of the Republiacns I strongly suppot Ron Paul, since he is closest to my views of all the candidates there. I wonder whether it might be good to get together and at least attempt to get involved on his behalf.
|
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/16/2007 8:59 PM |
|
| Sounds like a good idea to me. Send me a personal email at mulhollandj@gmail.com. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/18/2007 7:18 AM |
|
I found it interesting how Fox News twisted what Ron Paul said it their spin. They turned his statement of saying that he thought that US foreign policy was a cause of the 9/11 attacks to calling him a conspiracy nut.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273343,00.html
Read the response to Rudy from his web in the May 16th entry.
http://www.ronpaul2008.typepad.com/
We must remember thought that Paul is a Statesman and Rudy is only a politician who doesn't mind misleading the people and using emotion to get his way.
|
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/18/2007 9:53 AM |
|
We must remember thought that Paul is a Statesman and Rudy is only a politician who doesn't mind misleading the people and using emotion to get his way.
I'm curious what marks the distinction between a statesman and a politican (answer: one is a student newspaper and the other is a person who gets people to vote for him).
Apparently his remarks made him the second most popular candidate at the debate in South Carolina, after Romney (the poll referenced on his site is actually from May 16, not March 16 as the date says). This relative popularity aside, it seems that his presidential ambitions are doomed since only one member of the House (Garfield) has ever been elected president (two if you count Santos, although he only got one vote and was fictional, and Ford who was a member of the House prior to joining the executive wasn't elected and had become vice president first). For that matter, the last time a senator got elected president was in 1960 with Kennedy.
|
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/19/2007 7:27 AM |
|
Here are two interesting reads about the media ignoring Ron Paul.
http://jbs.org/node/4003
http://jbs.org/node/4005
The Michigan Republican Chair seems to have changed his position after getting a lot of pressure from people who still want to hear from Paul.
As far as the difference. I define a politician who does something because he wants to advance his political career. A Statesman does things because they are right and best for the country and the people he is trying to serve. Unfortunately due to the Good Ol Boys club back east Statesmen have short political careers.
This example of a Statesman was found in the LDS Ensign in January 07
An example will illustrate the kind of moral courage I mean. Some years ago a persuasive, able individual with great influence in the U. S. Senate leveraged legitimate concerns for the defense of his country for personal ambition. Some of his colleagues became concerned with allegations made against him. They decided that an investigation was required to determine whether his actions were justified and honorable or whether he should be censured. Discussions were held concerning who should participate in the search for truth.
A relatively unknown senator—but a good man with faith in God and unquestioned integrity—awoke from a nightmare and told his wife that he had dreamed he had been put on the committee.
She responded, “Oh, no! That would be political suicide.”
He went to the office and returned home after a long day, ashen white.
His trembling wife said, “No! You’ve been put on the committee.”
He responded, “Worse than that. I have been asked to be its chairman.”
Then, with characteristic devotion to duty, he and other valiant men began the difficult, trying evaluation of evidence to discover truth and to put an end to false practices. It was not an attack against an individual but against wrongdoing in high places. Though that action did later cost him his political career, I will ever remember him for his courage, integrity, and willingness to sacrifice personal gain for the greater good he gave his nation.
Another great example was Larry McDonald. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_McDonald
But this man who stood against the Communism was later 'accidentally' killed by Soviet Jets. I believe he was the only member of Congress killed during the Cold War. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/19/2007 8:53 AM |
|
Here is another link to a story about silencing Ron Paul.
http://www.slate.com/id/2165673/entry/2166590?nav=ais |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/19/2007 9:36 PM |
|
I think that there are two reasons why Ron Paul hasn't received more widespread attention.
The first is that there are a lot of people who are considering a run for the presidency, and the only ones mentioned have been ones that are inherently well-known. Typically, they have either been former presidential candidates (Edwards, McCain) or else people for whom presidential buzz has been going for years (Obama, Clinton, Romney). If the public hadn't already heard about them prior to their candidacy, then they haven't been newsworthy enough to be more than a byline in the election stories. Paul, as a congressman, isn't on most people's radars.
The other reason is that, as a (relatively undistinguished) congressman, he's only a viable presidential candidate if you ask Aaron Sorkin. The country (at least for the last century) prefers governors or, in a pinch, senators for the office (although they probably prefer non-politicians over senators). Essentially, his political resumé isn't enough to qualify him for the job of president.
His remarks during the debate appear to be a master stroke. While he was a minor, inconsequential candidate prior to the debate, he's now the candidate to talk about (this week, anyway). Plus, his position can win him some broad support from opponents of the war (even though he didn't expressly oppose the war). The problem that he faces is that the party won't support him since it would require them to repudiate their position from the past several years. Instead, he is poised to be this election's Howard Dean (I was wondering when we'd find out who that would be). He'll be the candidate to talk about, especially with his strong online buzz, until he is discarded in favor some more mainstream candidate.
I would appreciate the way that he has expanded the debate, except that it appears that the debate is still too polarized to actually involve the discussion of any ideas. Alas. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/22/2007 8:09 PM |
|
The problem with these debates is that the major media supports people like Rudy, even when he is dishonest. What Rudy claimed he had never heard was in the 9/11 commission report. It was interesting how Hannity tried to slam Paul in his usual "I can yell louder than you" style. Colmes was a little nicer but Fox has made major efforts to make Paul like a loony. Just read http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273343,00.html.
I think that Paul is doing a pretty good job at expanding the debates and is starting to get a larger following. How well will he do overall? I don't know. If he were to be elected I imagine he would be assassinated in his first few years though. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/23/2007 6:24 PM |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSk4SUpWVuY
This is a funny video. I believe the quotes were taken from the 2004 Republican Convention. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/24/2007 8:14 PM |
|
At the heart of the arguments against Ron Paul is that he at least sympathizes, if not fully agrees, with people who believe that the US Government destroyed the World Trade Center towers and attacked the Pentagon.
I'm not sure if this is true (of course he officially denies that degree of skepticism, and his opponents are eager to associate him with crackpots, so there's reason to doubt any statements regarding what he really believes), but it raises some questions. One is a question that I've seen asked regarding Mitt Romney's irrational religious beliefs, which is, "Can we trust a president who has deeply held irrational beliefs?" Ultimately, this one is moot since everyone (including all religious people regardless of which faith) has at least one deeply held, irrational belief.
The more interesting and relevant question is, "Can a person who holds a deep hatred/distrust for our government lead it as the President?"
Again, I point out that I am not convinced that Ron Paul hates or distrusts the government. On the other hand, I know several people who both work for the government and harbor an intense hatred and/or distrust of it. It doesn't make that much sense to me, except I suppose there are a lot of people who hate the companies that they work for (they all read Dilbert). |
|
|
|
|
lenardburton
Posts:0
Online Status:
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/24/2007 9:29 PM |
|
| I think that Paul understands the nature and disposition of almost all men. The more power they get the more they want and without limits to that power it produces tyranny. I think that he sees this tyranny all around him and knows that we can do much better as a nation. I think that he loves this country and sincerely wants what is best. I think that he holds the attitude that men are agents unto themselves and not a mass to be manipulated by a legislature that is somehow above everybody. |
|
|
|
|
Carissa
Posts:14
Junior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/16/2007 9:14 AM |
|
I think that Paul understands the nature and disposition of almost all men.
He absolutely does! We all need to have a healthy skepticism of those in powerful positions over us. The founding fathers understood this well. Our loyalty does not and should not run to individuals alone. Theodore Roosevelt said:
"Every man who parrots the cry of ’stand by the President’ without adding the proviso ’so far as he serves the Republic’ takes an attitude as essentially unmanly as that of any Stuart royalist who championed the doctrine that the King could do no wrong. No self-respecting and intelligent free man could take such an attitude."
Ron Paul actually does have a good chance (if he can get his name out) because there are many Republicans, Independents, and Democrats that all agree with his position. He could be very unifying for our country. I can't wait to vote for Ron Paul, he is such a breath of fresh air! |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/16/2007 10:02 PM |
|
I think that Paul understands the nature and disposition of almost all men.
I disagree. That, or else his understanding is completely useless to him politically.
This election cycle looks like it is going to show us two distinct phases. In the first phase, candidates must appeal to the extremists in their own party in order to win the nomination. To Democrats, this means that they have to bash Bush and condemn the war. This, they see (in spite of Kerry's campaign in 2004) as a sure ticket to victory. To Republicans, this means a lot of things including being pro-life and anti-immigration (they can merely be anti-illegal immigration if they need to, but it's a perilous position). Being pro or anti-Bush may or may not help at this point, but being critical of our country in any way isn't going to win the necessary support. The second phase comes after the parties pick their candidates at which point they have to try to appeal to the broad field of relatively moderate voters in the hope of swinging the election in their favor.
Ron Paul, if he weren't irredeemably awkward to listen to, might have a chance in the second phase of the election. It won't matter though because he has absolutely no chance of making it to that part. There is no way that the Republican party will support him as their candidate. He could make it as a candidate for the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party, but then he would be a third party candidate and thoroughly defeated in the general election.
I can't wait to vote for Ron Paul, he is such a breath of fresh air!
Perhaps you'll get a chance to.
I give Congressman Paul a hard time, but I appreciate his involvement in the race thus far. While he is unelectable, he is stirring (agitating?) the debate and that may go a long ways towards helping us get to know the candidates. It remains to be seen how long he can keep this up before he runs out of funding and has to drop out. Until then, we can all enjoy Mr. Paul's Wild Ride. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/29/2007 4:11 AM |
|
(in spite of Kerry's campaign in 2004)
To be fair, I think that Kerry's campaign had a lot more wrong with it than simply being anti-war.
|
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/29/2007 9:38 AM |
|
To be fair, I think that Kerry's campaign had a lot more wrong with it than simply being anti-war.
I absolutely agree. The point in mentioning his campaign is that being anti-war isn't enough, regardless of how popular of a position it may be. |
|
|
|
|