May 2, 2008

“I’ll give the Ron Paul people this much, they sure are persistent”

Filed under: Election 2008
By Feddie (Email) @ 12:50 pm

So, I get back from the gym today to find a package on my desk from Amazon. Now, I love getting packages from Amazon, but I hadn’t ordered anything, so I was baffled as to what it could possibly be.

Well, I opened the box, and guess what some kind (albeit misguided) soul had sent me?

Yep.

I don’t recognize the lady’s name, but I am guessing that: (1) I met her at the GOP congressional district convention I recently attended; or (2) she learned that I was elected a delegate to the national GOP convention, and is trying to persuade me to vote for Ron Paul. That, of course, ain’t gonna happen.

In fact, as it stands, I am bound to vote for Mike Huckabee, who won the Georgia GOP primary. That suits me just fine. He was my first choice, and McCain doesn’t really care what the final tally is, so long as he wins on the first ballot (which he will).

In any event, I wonder whether my receiving this book is an isolated event, or if the Paul folks are purchasing their fearless leader’s book for every national delegate.

Are there any other national delegates out there who have received Paul’s book as a gift?

Update: Ah, I just saw the note with the invoice: “Dear Feddie: Congratulations on being elected delegate to the RNC. Please accept this book on behalf of Ron Paul supporters across Middle Georgia.”

A very nice, polite gesture.

PermaLink | | Trackback/Pingback (1)

Trackback/Pingbacks:

The trackback URL for this post: http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/2594/trackback

Conservative Heritage Times » Messing with the Neocons

[...] of threads I have been participating in that might be both enlightening and amusing to our readers. The first is a post from a delegate to the GOP National Convention. He was sent a copy of Ron Paul’s new book, by [...]

80 Rebel Yells to ““I’ll give the Ron Paul people this much, they sure are persistent””

Nathan Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I believe the intent is to provide you with an opportunity to read and understand Ron Paul’s platform, not to persuade you to vote (against Georgia law) for Ron Paul at the RNC.
Phil Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Freddie:
“Manifesto” is an extremely informative book providing truth and facts as to how our republic ended up where we are. For patriots to restore the republic, the first thing that had to happen is the current crop of neocon supporting GOP’ers need to be educated and take the blinders off. Hopefully, this book will pique your interest and whet your appetite for a return to the founding principles, and not another “100 years”.
There is a lot more where this came from. DYODD.
Semper Fi
Phil
USMC 66-70
Phil Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Opps: sorry Feddie. Please excuse my getting your name wrong on my other post.
Feddie Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Nathan-

You may be right, but there is a national effort going on right now by Paul supporters to take over the GOP national convention and/or embarass McCain.

Needless to say, I don’t have a great deal of patience for those who aren’t willing to accept that John McCain is the GOP nominee.

That having been said, charity dictates that I accept the book as a generous and thoughtful gift, and I will do just that.
Mike Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I doubt the effort to send you that book was for the exclusive purpose of getting you to vote for Ron Paul at the RNC. It’s likely that the gift-giver wants you, and others like you who are easily identifiable as involved and committed Republicans, to at least understand some of the issues that Ron Paul espouses.
Feddie Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Phil-

I agree with Ron Paul on many issues, but at some point his supporters have to realize that their man lost and that it is time to get on with the business of defeating Obama or Clinton.
Nathan Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Defeating the Clintons and Obamas of the world would be much easier if we conservatives policed our own and stuck to our principles.

Enjoy the book, I did!
Phil Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Feddie: As Yogi Berra said: it ain’t over till it’s over. McCain is not the nominee until after the delegates have voted. All he has at this time are a bunch of empty chairs.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” ~ John Quincy Adams

Best regards,
Phil
Feddie Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Phil-

I respect your passion, and I know you have the country’s best interests at heart.
Jesse Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
From what I’ve heard, the conventions used to be for the purpose of selecting a nominee and much more policy/idea oriented.

Regardless of the purpose of the convention, the purpose of the book is to help you understand where the Paulistas are coming from. I personally understand that McCain will be the nominee, but that doesn’t mean my ideals and principles should be clouded by it. Let’s exercise our critical thinking skills rather than playing follow the nominee.

You’ll see that true limited government is popular when you get to the convention, regardless of who the nominee is.

I’ll be reading the book this weekend, it should be a good review. It looks short enough, so please give it a read yourself.
Red Phillips Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I, as a Ron Paul supporter, accept that McCain is going to be the GOP nominee. I just don’t like it. I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party nominee. Baldwin is right on immigration where McCain is a total disaster, and he is right on foreign policy unlike uber-interventionist John “100 Years War” McCain.

If you consider yourself a conservative and you vote for McCain over Baldwin, then you need to turn in your card. Baldwin is clearly the superior, more conservative candidate.
Feddie Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Red-

And Baldwin has zero chance of winning.

Look, all you have to do is look through SA’s archives, and you’ll see that I am hardly an establishment type of guy. I went after Rudy when he was the man to beat, and I began supporting Huckabee when he was in single digits. I have also been very critical of McCain over the years. But he’s the nominee, and he’ll be light years better than Obama or Clinton. And there’s too much at stake to throw away my vote on a third-party candidate (no matter how solid he may be).

If that means I fail the conservative purity test, then so be it.
Mark Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Red: I’m not a conservative (far from it) — so I’d like nothing better than to see conservatives flock to Baldwin. But your advice that conservatives should vote for Baldwin over McCain is plain rEdiculous. McCain is clearly not as conservative as Baldwin on many issues, but by voting for Baldwin, you are essentially handing the election to Obama/Clinton. Again, if that’s what you want to do, I’m all for it, but unless you really want a Democratic president, this seems like incredibly bad advice to give conservatives.
Molon Labe Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Mark, I am a veteran, a patriot and a Republican Party state delegate. I will not support anyone who ignores the law of this land. I did not support Bush for his second term because of his attitude towards the constitution. Maybe if enough people wake up in time we will get our Constitutional Republic back thanks initially to Ron Paul. So what if a dem wins and finishes bankrupting our country, better a socialist than a communist ideology because that’s where Republican policy is headed. After the district convention I can take it no longer. I to will be voting for Baldwin. I will not intentionally be a traitor to the Constitution for any party!
dsanunnaki Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
It is a sad time in US history when the powers that be and the old media have chosen McCain, Obama and Hillary as our presidential candidates. . . .

Unfortunately, these three are all the same — big spenders wanting big government, and supporters of open borders and amnesty.

Thank you to Ron Paul for having the courage to stand up and say something is wrong with the US, something is wrong with our government. Thank you for waking up many people to the truth. You will always be remembered as a great man and the founder of The Revolution . . . . . .
badmedia Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Sorry, but any conservative who votes for McCain isn’t a very good conservative.

McCain also has no chance of winning the election. He is wrong and has been wrong on too many issues. This entire election has been setup for the democrats to win.

The 3 biggest issues today are the Iraq war, the economy and immigration. McCain is on the wrong side of all of these. He’s nothing more than a war happy liberal.

The republican base has shrunk by nearly 50% due to the Iraq war. The war has cost the GOP both the house and the senate. Next up is the presidency.

Finding a candidate that can “beat” another and electing them is one of the dumbest presidential strategies in history. Why is the GOP taking cues from failed Democrat tactics? Don’t you remember that is why Kerry got the nomination? And how did that turn out for them?

So sorry, I won’t be voting for McCain. I’ll have to go 3rd party, cuz I sure won’t be voting for a democrat either. My apologizes if you have no tolerance for that, but 1 liberal isn’t really better than another liberal. And if you are voting for the lesser of 2 evils, you are still voting for evil.

This has little to do with if Ron Paul wins or not. It has to do with voting for someone who has conservative values, or someone who is a big government Statist. And McCain is that big government statist/liberal. Better red than dead? I think not.

And I’d be more than happy to send anyone who will sit down and read it a copy of that book.
Aaron Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Hi Feddie! I understand where you are coming from and that you want party unity. I do, however, think that party unity is secondary to what actually matters. The party platform has changed drastically over the years. Ask yourself, are McCain’s views truly conservative?

The only difference between him and the Democrats is that he wants to continue a war in Iraq. I don’t know what the intent of the person who sent you this book was, but I think it was to show you what an actual conservative platform looks like.

I’m sure it’s not an attempt to convince you to vote for Ron Paul, though, I think it’s an attempt to show you how far the current GOP has treaded from conservative principles.

Thanks
Jay Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I’m surprised that you’re still legally bound to vote for Huckabee, despite his withdrawal from the race. In fact, that seems pretty bizarre to me. Isn’t one of the main effects of withdrawals to shift the support withdrawn candidates have obtained to those still in the race? Does this only apply to the first ballot? I assume people would naturally shift votes if necessary to find a majority nominee eventually.
P.S.–I’m no expert, but this also seems legally questionable. How can a state pass a law requiring you to vote a particular way at a private party convention? It’s not like being an elector in the general election. And I thought there were a number of cases giving parties wide latitude, on 1st Amendment grounds, to run their own primary process. But I’m probably overlooking something obvious, or misunderstanding.
Joel Leggett Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Feddie,

Congratulations on being an elected delegate to the Republican convention. I am sorry that you are bound to vote for Huckabee. If you take away his stance on abortion and gay marriage all you are left with is a politician that loves big government intrusiveness and high taxes, oh and giving pardons to criminals at the cyclical rate. He gave more pardons than all three of his predecessors combined, including Bill Clinton. I guess the only thing he thinks is worth real condemnation is smoking, hence his long time support for a national smoking ban. Oh, I forgot, Mister Opportunist dropped his support for that when he found it was hurting him in the primary.

If you like Huckabee then Obama or Hillary should be right up your ally. At least they are honest about their big-government-can-do-everything attitude and hatred of personal freedom.

There is a lot to like about many of Ron Paul’s positions. However, his claim that the president can’t deploy the armed forces into conflict without a formal declaration of war from congress displays a breathtaking ignorance of the both the text of the Constitution and the history of our republic. First of all, nothing in the text of the Constitution requires congressional approval for troop deployment in conflicts in which the U.S. is involved. Secondly, U.S. forces have been deployed abroad hundreds of times since the very beginning of our Republic to the present. Only 11 times have these deployments been pursuant a congressional declaration of war. A man as ignorant of these facts as Ron Paul apparently is has NO business being the Commander in Chief.

For those Ron Paul supporters who would like some education on this issue I recommend the following report for Congress.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32170.pdf
Gunner Sykes Says:
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:33 am
Mr. Leggit, apparently you are unfamiliar with Article I of the Constitution and prefer to get your information from websites. I suggest you seek the source.
Red Phillips Says:
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
Freddie, as long as you have that attitude the GOP has you in its hip pocket. At some point you have to break the cycle. Is there no line that the GOP can’t cross that would cause you not to support their nominee? What if the nominee had been Rudy? Would you still say the same thing? I know Baldwin can’t win, barring Divine intervention, but the point of a third party vote is to send a message and cast a vote of integrity. McCain isn’t going to win or lose based on your vote either.

Joel, it has always been understood that the Pres can deploy troops in response to an emergency. But the Pres can not just initiate conflict on a whim. Good Constitutional interpretation isn’t just wooden literalism. It is about the original intent of the Founders. For example, could the Pres. just invade Nova Scotia if he took a notion? The doctrine of complete Executive supremacy in foreign affairs is of rather recent vintage. Hence, it is not conservative.
Joel Leggett Says:
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Gunner Sykes,

I am very familiar with Art I, Sect 8, Clause 11 (the power to declare war). First of all, it seems to have escaped your notice that the Constitution distinguishes between DECLARING war and ENGAGING IN war (Art I, Sect 10, Clause 3) or LEVYING war(Art III, Sect 3, Clause 1). The Founding Fathers used these different terms for specific reasons. That is because these words have different meanings and allude to different powers.

Declarations of War are used to spell out legal relationships between combatants, allies, and neutrals. It put nations on notice of the ramifications of dealing with the enemy. They also provided legal protections for actions that would otherwise be illegal during a time of peace, i.e. the nation’s navy and privateers could not be treated as pirates for preying on enemy merchant vessels. Traditionally, formal declarations of war have simply recognized a preexisting state of hostilities. They were not used to initiate hostilities.

If the Drafters of the Constitution wanted to prevent the president from engaging in hostilities without a congressional declaration of war they would have given congress the sole power to LEVY or ENGAGE IN war. They didn’t for a very simple reason. They left it to the legislative branch to control legal relationships like those defined by a formal declaration of war while endowing the executive with the necessary flexibility required to be an effective commander in chief.

If you do not find this textual argument convincing then I would challenge you to find an example in American history that contradicts it. John Adams conducted an undeclared quasi war with France without a formal declaration of war. Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines an Navy into North Africa against the Barbary Pirates without a formal declaration of war.

Since our Founding Fathers, you know those guys that were either around when the Constitution was written or helped write it, did not require a formal declaration of war before the president could engage in hostilities maybe that means something.

I will take the language of the Constitution and the example set by our Founding Fathers over the crazy rantings of Ron Paul and his minions.
MacGhil Says:
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Update: Ah, I just saw the note with the invoice: “Dear Feddie: Congratulations on being elected delegate to the RNC. Please accept this book on behalf of Ron Paul supporters across Middle Georgia.”

A very nice, polite gesture.

I hope to see your update posted on RedState as well. It’s disheartening that the crazy Paul supporters get all the press, while the majority - the sane ones - go unacknowledged. Squeaky wheel syndrome, I suppose.

So thanks, Feddie, for taking the high road less traveled.

Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines an Navy into North Africa against the Barbary Pirates without a formal declaration of war.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Paul actually tried to resurrect that in 2001 and 2007 (HR 3216). Certainly a better option than spending trillions waging nation-building to spread democracy exactly where it’s incompatible.
Aaron Krowne Says:
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I am personally sponsoring sending the book to a number of delegates and alternates in Georgia.

I have no illusions about “converting” anyone over to the “Ron Paul camp,” before or after the convention, but offer the books as a genuine attempt to help the party establishment understand who we are and where we are coming from. Most people, including party old guard, hear about Ron Paul and “Paulistas” through the main stream media, which has portrayed us more or less as if we were space aliens, and Ron Paul himself as a kook.

But we have, we believe, a very legitimate point of view; in fact we happen to think it is truer to the party platform than what typically passes muster these days. Simply put, it is based on following the Constitution.

We would therefore like to be acknowledged and respected as genuine Republicans who are part of the party base and part of all Republicans’ constituencies.

Treating us as “tin foil hat wackos” is counter-productive and has to stop. I understand that most of this reaction comes from the fact that we have been quite effective at organizing at the grassroots level and making ourselves visible, which naturally invokes defensiveness. We are doing our part to attempt to remedy this. The party should seriously consider working *with* all that motivation, rather than against.

best,

Aaron Krowne
Red Phillips Says:
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Joel, so are you arguing that the President can just initiate war anywhere he wants with whomever he wants anytime he wants for whatever reason? The Founders were actually trying to get away from that sort of monarchical power. In your opinion, according to your interpretation, could the President invade Canada on a whim? If not, according to your interpretation, why not?
Joel Leggett Says:
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Red Phillips,

Yes, the President could invade Canada if he wished. However, since congress retains the power of the purse they could kneecap the whole venture by refusing to fund it. Military operations don’t go very far if they aren’t funded. By placing the power of the purse in the hands of congress our Founding Fathers gave the legislative branch a powerful tool with which to check executive power in this area.

The beauty of our constitutional system is that while it contains important checks and balances to prevent centralizing too much power in any one branch it also gives sufficient power to each branch to operate effectively. The President is the Commander in Chief and therefore has a great deal of discretion in how he employs the armed forces. The report I linked to above establishes that Presidents from John Adams on have regularly done so without formal declarations of war. However, this power is useless if it is not backed up with the necessary money to fund the employment.
Red Phillips Says:
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
“Yes, the President could invade Canada if he wished.”

Joel, you’re [wrong].

[Ed. Red, there's no name calling here at SA. Engage the argument, please.]
Joel Leggett Says:
May 4th, 2008 at 9:12 am
For the sake of clarity let me be clear. The discussion of invading Canada is purely academic. Of course there are treaty obligations, not to mention common sense and the natural desire to refrain from political suicide, which would keep a president from invading our neighbors to the north. When I said that the President could invade Canada I was assuming the absence of the above facts for the sake of argument and to demonstrate my point. My point is that the Constitution gives the President wide discretion in how and where he deploys our armed forces. Furthermore, he can do so without a declaration of war or formal approval from congress. This position is consistent with both the text of the constitution and the history of our country since the presidency of John Adams.
Jim Hiland Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 10:18 am
During my junior year of high school, during the Goldwater campaign, I faced off with a liberal over ideology. Seems I’d written a paper on the importance of property rights, and my English teacher took great exception to my notions of individual sovereignty. She angrily critiqued my paper out loud in front of the class, not for grammar, spelling or sentence structure; but for it’s ideology. Her own words seemed to stimulate her fury and she ended her tirade by firing my wadded up essay into my forehead like a major league fast ball. Most of all, I remember the names she called me, the labels she put on me in front of the class, without once giving me the opportunity to tell the class why I wrote what I wrote and why I believed in Goldwater’s ideals.

After a lifetime of supporting the GOP, I find myself being called some of the same names, this time, by fellow members of the GOP. Look back in this blog alone. Not one of Ron Paul’s positions; the border issue, NAFTA, the FED, the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, his position on our health care system; not one of these vital issues is dissected and discussed. Instead, mainstream GOP people call us names.

America’s freedom, sovereignty, and culture are at stake. Read Dr. Paul’s book, discuss the real issues, avoid name calling. We are not “misguided”, Dr. Paul is not our “fearless leader”, and we are not, as MacGhil says, “crazy”. Leave the name calling for liberals; conservatives discuss issues.
Red Phillips Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Sorry. I used the Canada example because I thought the idea that the President could initiate conflict with our friendly neighbor to the north was patently absurd. I used it because I figured such an obvious example would cause Joel to modify his comments somewhat. “Well perhaps the President can’t initiate conflict on a whim, just deploy troops in the case of emergency before the Congress has had time to declare war.” “Or perhaps deploy troops there if invited by Canada to do so.” Something like that. I really didn’t expect him to take the bait and answer in the affirmative. If I had wanted all we know about Canada to be set aside for the sake of the argument, I would not have used Canada as the example.

But your affirmative answer still stands and still condemns you.

To say that the President can initiate aggression against another nation based solely on his say so is to give the President more power in foreign affairs than even the King had. The King had to rely on powerful benefactors to raise money and did not have the equivalent of a modern draft. Was that the original intent of the Founders? To give the President more power than the King they were seceding from?
Joel Leggett Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Red Phillips,

First of all, I am not giving the President any power. The Constitution does that. I have explained my position by reference to both the actual words of the Constitution and the history of Presidential war power as exercised from John Adams to the present. The report I linked to above establishes this. You may not like what this means and it may bother you but that does not mean it isn’t true. If you think I am wrong then address my textual and historical arguments minus the name calling. Let’s not forget this is simply an academic discussion of executive power. Nothing to get emotional about here.

Secondly, it is simply preposterous to suggest that the executive power I described in this area is even remotely similar to the monarchial system we broke away from. To begin with, as I pointed out above, the legislature in our system controls the purse strings and therefore provides a much more effective check on executive war making than existed in Britain at the time of our revolution.

Finally, while I certainly don’t think it would be advisable to invade Canada we have done it twice before when it is was neither necessary nor advisable. Both times the expeditions turned out badly. First time was in the Revolutionary War and the second was in the War of 1812. While the Constitution was not in existence in the first conflict it certainly was in the second. I recognize that Canada was part of the British Empire at the time but that does not mean that we had to invade her. Invading Canada had nothing to do with the reasons we declared war against Britain. Ultimately, that misguided operation was neither decisive to the conflict or all that positive for our war effort (The Brits burned Washington for what we did to the Canadian Capital). Oh, and who can forget President Andrew Johnson’s support for the American based Fenian army that invaded Canada from American soil in 1870. Read about it here: http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv2i3s6.htm
BT Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I have been a 40 year life long moderate conservative republican and a 2 term Bush supporter. What has really surprised me is that being a Christian in the 80’s and 90’s I used to be considered far right by my liberal friends and colleagues. I am/was a Thompson supporter and thought he could do a really good job, but we know where that went. What I can’t get over is the fact that the new right wing is a group of foul mouthed children attacking others because they do not believe as they do, and certainly do not represent the Republican Party I grew up in and respected. Ron Paul currently holds over 10% of the republican base; which is and will be vital for future elections, and the new right or neoconservative liberals (i.e. Redstate’rs) are so full of hate it is to a point of being intolerable. I do not think Ron Paul is a crazy man, but has a large group of possible crazy followers that have allowed the neoconservatives to name call and belittle an otherwise highly intelligent man. I wont jump on that bandwagon and mention the other candidates crazy friends and acquaintances.

I am very active in politics and have watched Dr. Paul since the first debate, and read online these far righters attacking Mr. Paul’s supporters at every turn, and from what I have seen most attacks are unprovoked with little to no substance for debate. What these so called Republicans (neoconservatives) do not realize is that they need the support of the 10%+ that Dr. Paul currently holds, and name calling will not do anything but further degrade their standings within the party. In reading the comments from the anti Paul people on this post alone it is nauseating, as they sound like their true party founders, the liberals. I come from a time when we all sat down and tried to hammer out resolutions and agreements to our woes, not simply calling a person a name because their opinion is different. This is why the party is where it is today, and the neoconservatives thrive in the party, which will be its over all demise.

The current financial situation, the housing bubble, illegal immigration, and things of this nature have formed and developed over time within the two party failed system, which in my opinion is in need of mass overhaul. I am not sure that Americans are ready for such mass change as Ron Paul is promoting, but truth be known the neoconservatives have had their time and failed, and as far as conservatism, it is the neoconservatives that have high jacked the Republican Party, not 30 year republican conservative congressman Ron Paul and his followers. The reason I take up for him is that it makes me sick that anyone that claims to be a conservative Republican can support John McCain, and belittle a true conservative regardless of the contest.

These far righters will learn the error of their ways soon enough, as without Ron Paul’s 10%+ supporters, no republican will take office until there is change, and this is good. So I am asking that all republicans unite, not necessarily behind McCain (no good conservative should be asked to support a liberal) but behind the Republican Party. Perhaps working together instead of flame wars and childish garbage that does not benefit anyone but the admitted liberals, the original home of the neoconservatives.

Congratulations on your book, my nephew has ordered several copies for the family to read. I most likely will not agree with most, if any of Dr. Paul’s ideals, but it will be refreshing to see another view on things. Expand your mind, listen to others, respect all, and we can bring this country back to its once great status.

BT
Joel Leggett Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
BT,

For what it is worth, the only person on this thread that had to have his insults redacted was a Ron Paul supporter. If Ron Paul supporters don’t like name calling then they should refrain from it themselves.
DFCSTech Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I’ve found a LOT of info about the Ron Paul people who have similar viewpoints to Molon Labe, above (Comment #14) on this site:

http://www.ronpaulexposed.blogspot.com

Interesting stuff no matter which side you’re on.
Joel Leggett Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
DFCSTech,

Thanks for the link. I have to say I laughed out loud when I read the term “Ronulans.” Although there are many thoughful Ron Paul supporters I do find that a funny term for the more “ardent” supporters. For some of these people you would think Mr. Paul was the second coming of George Washington.
Samual Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Freddie wrote, “I have also been very critical of McCain over the years. … he’ll be light years better than Obama or Clinton.”

Let’s compare:
votes against tax cuts - mccain obama clinton

votes for unbalanced budgets - mccain obama clinton

associated with Council on Foreign Relations - mccain obama clinton

voted for gun restrictions - mccain obama clinton

And don’t forget how McCain is breaking his own McCain/Feingold campaign finance law. That law, to me and many others, appears to unconstitutionally violate the 1st amendment. Therefore McCain does not honor the oath to uphold the Constitution.
Beyond the violation of our 1st ammendment rights, the “maverick” McCain can’t be bothered to follow his own campaign finance law. If McCain wants to follow his law, he can stop spending beyond the cap, and he can give up his place on state ballots that were granted for free by the FEC as part of his participation in the spending cap.

Let us know what you think of Ron Paul’s new book.

Thank you.
Sean Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Ultimately, that misguided operation was neither decisive to the conflict or all that positive for our war effort (The Brits burned Washington for what we did to the Canadian Capital)

Interesting, so our troops invaded a foreign country, and as a result our capitol was attacked. Sounds vaguely familiar. Just don’t mention this to Guiliani, he might take offense to that notion.
David Rairigh Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Joel,
I’d really like to know where the Constitution gives the President the power to invade countries. I looked through Article II and couldn’t find that information.
Joel Leggett Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
David Rairigh,

Article II does not contain a specific provision that states that “the president is authorized to invade countries.” What it does say is that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. In that role the president has the authority to deploy troops as he sees fit. Now, if his deployment violated a treaty obligation then it would be illegal. However, absent a treaty that would bar such a deployment, the president could, for preemptive self-defense reasons for example, invade another country without prior approval from Congress. Likewise, if congress declared a war contrary to the wishes of the President he could, as the Commander in Chief, simply refuse to order the troops into combat.

As I pointed out above in comment # 22, the drafters of the constitution used different terms to describe different actions and powers, i.e. levying war and engaging in war vice declaring war. Furthermore, if the drafters had wanted to restrict the ability of the president to deploy troops into combat without prior approval from Congress then they could have set up the same sort of arrangement set out further down in Article II, Section 2 for entering into treaties or appointing ambassadors or judges. If that is what they intended then Art II, Sect 2, would have read something like, “The president shall have power, by and with the consent of Congress, to engage in war.” When the Constitution divides executive power it does so very clearly, as in the case with treaties and appointments. Obviously, the drafters of the Constitution could have set up the same arrangement regarding the president’s ability to deploy troops to combat if they wanted to. Since they did not there must have been a reason. Since one of the drafters, John Adams, sent both Marines and Sailors into combat with French naval forces without a declaration of war (not to mention several other presidents since then) from Congress both the text and historical practice establish that the president has this power.
Jim Hiland Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Mr. Leggett: Please understand that those of us who support Ron Paul do so, not out of loyalty to Dr. Paul, but because we want to continue to live in freedom, in a sovereign nation not under the auspices of World Courts, or a World Government.

I don’t know what comments had to be “redacted”, who wrote them, or who decided that they should be removed. As it stands right now, with Feddie’s original comment, and 38 subsequent comments by we the people; you can add the word “Ronulans” to the name calling. Absent of course, is any discussion of immigration, our monetary system, inflated health care industry, or how we can continue to fund the war.

I thinks it is funny to hear mainstream Republicans say that “we can’t leave Iraq, ’cause they’ll follow us home.” This; while McCain wants to grant amnesty and leave the borders open. Other than the Iraq War, what position held by Ron Paul, do you personally find objectionable? Have you read his book?
Joel Leggett Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Jim,

For me, Ron Paul is unfit to be President for two big reasons. First, as he has said repeatedly, he thinks the constitution requires the president to get congressional prior approval before committing troops into combat. As I have pointed out above, neither the text of the Constitution nor historical practice from the earliest history of our Republic supports this interpretation. Consequently, I think this misinterpretation makes him unfit to be the Commander in Chief.

Secondly, Dr. Paul allowed some real ugly racial statements to be published under his name in his news letter. I understand that this trash was actually written by someone else and that Dr. Paul was unaware of it at the time. However, if he is so inattentive as to let racist hate speech go out under his name then why should I have any confidence that he would more attentive as President of the United States.

For what it is worth, I agree with a lot of Dr. Paul’s ideas concerning the size and scope of government. I simply don’t trust his judgment or understanding of Art II, Sect 2.
Joel Leggett Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Oh, I have not read his book. I have seen his debate performances and read his position statements on his campaign web site.
Keith Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I would argue that by nominating McCain the GOP is handing the Dems the White House. The only reason they haven’t begun the attacks on him is that they want him to be the nominee. He is too easy of a target. If the Dems were to start attacks now they would just risk changing the nominee to someone like Ron Paul. Neither of them want to face Dr. Paul in a debate, they would be completely owned on Foreign Policy and economics, which are the 2 biggest issues facing America right now.

I just completed the book and found it enlightening. All American voters and public officials should be given the opportunity to read it. By sending copies out to politically active people the RP folks are educating them.

NOONE talks about HOW the FED lowers interest rates, except Dr. Paul. I think it is because they don’t know HOW it is done.
Jim Hiland Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Thank you for the response. Realize that the key to saving our nation lies in your statement: “I agree with a lot of Dr. Paul’s ideas”. Many of us became Paul supporters because we thought his candidacy would force open debate about our monetary system, the North American Union, and the limits of government under the Constitution. To say that it has been frustrating to watch the media and the GOP, in concert, sideline all of the real issues, is an understatement.

I’m not likely to vote for John McCain under any circumstance. However; any hope the GOP has for success in future elections certainly hinges on their ability to take seriously all of the issues raised in this election cycle by Ron Paul.
David Rairigh Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Joel,
I think that you are employing a very loose interpretation of presidential powers. If the President invades another country by “engaging in war” that IS a declaration of war, regardless of whether Congress declares it or not.
While I understand that the PONUS is also the CIC of the armed forces that does not give him the authority to preemptively drag the country into any war, only in the defense against imminent attack, just as it is for any member of the armed forces. The use of the term LEVYING was for describing the definition of TREASON:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

We must remember that the Constitution is very explicit in enumerating the powers of the branches of government.
Crickett Baker Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I read the book and hope you do, too. I must say this about Huck, however, having lived in AR while he was governor. He was indicted 14 times for misappropriating money for his personal use. He was convicted 5 times. He ruined ALL the state computers in his offices when he left, which taxpayers again had to pay for. He raised taxes left and right, and LIED to my very face when he told me at a Chamber of Commerce meeting that he felt business owners should have their own say as to whether they allowed smoking in their own businesses, then shortly thereafter, abolishing smoking in all AR businesses. Not to mention that judicialwatch.org has him on the 10 most corrupt politician list–a great feat for a governor. At LEAST, KNOW your candidate. That is, of course, if they ever let you know their true selves at all. Our country is being USURPED right now and everyone should read the truth in the Congressman’s book. He was just re elected as the Republican candidate.
PS. Your misguided Huckaphilia not withstanding, you must have made someone happy to spend over $12 on you, so I am sure you must have redeeming qualities.
Thanks
John Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I can never understand why people support candidates who violate their oaths of office and subvert our constitution. Feel free to stand behind those candidates if you like, but I prefer those who have respect for our constitution as well as the integrity to stand up for it.
Joel Leggett Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
David Rairigh,
“We must remember that the Constitution is very explicit in enumerating the powers of the branches of government.”

That is right and that is what I have been arguing. I suggest that you look at my response in comment #39. As I said in that comment:

“Furthermore, if the drafters had wanted to restrict the ability of the president to deploy troops into combat without prior approval from Congress then they could have set up the same sort of arrangement set out further down in Article II, Section 2 for entering into treaties or appointing ambassadors or judges. If that is what they intended then Art II, Sect 2, would have read something like, “The president shall have power, by and with the consent of Congress, to engage in war.” When the Constitution divides executive power it does so very clearly, as in the case with treaties and appointments. Obviously, the drafters of the Constitution could have set up the same arrangement regarding the president’s ability to deploy troops to combat if they wanted to. Since they did not there must have been a reason. Since one of the drafters, John Adams, sent both Marines and Sailors into combat with French naval forces without a declaration of war (not to mention several other presidents since then) from Congress both the text and historical practice establish that the president has this power.”
Shannon (USA) Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Why would you vote for someone because you think they’re going to win? What do you gain from that? Vote your personal beliefs and principles. Even if you stand alone.
Feddie Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I must say, it is always a treat to be lectured to about the original meaning of the Constitution by those with little to no training in constitutional interpretation.
Feddie Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Shannon-

In case you hadn’t noticed, the GOP primary is over, We have a nominee, and his name John McCain. I would have preferred someone else, but Republicans have spoken, and McCain will be represeting the party in the presidential election. The choice is between McCain and Obama/Clinton. I personally prefer the former over the latter, notwithstanding his notable faults.
David rairigh Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
The Constitution says that those powers not explicitly enumerated fall to the states and the people. Engaging in war does not mean starting one, which is why congress is given specific authority to do so, not the Ponus. So, instead of giving a power where its not defined the constitution only grants power when it is defined.
Feddie Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
David-

I think you mean POTUS, not PONUS.
Joel Leggett Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
David,

Read Article II, Sect 2 again and refer to my earlier posts. Congress is given the authority to DECLARE War, not engage in war.

Oh, and what does the 10th Amendment have to do with the president’s authority as Commander in Chief? Are you arguing that the states or citizens have some right to engage in international conflicts? I think I have as clear a picture as I am ever going to have as to why this discussion has been so fruitless.
Josh Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Freddie, Hi i hope you dont mind me interjecting here, but stopping the campaign before the convention would be like ending the World Series in the 8th inning, at the 4th game, with a score of 3 games (Mcain) - 1 game (Paul). Even if youd say 3-0 whatever - you get my point. Thats why we have a convention - to vote. Wheres the spirit? Ill happily concede after the vote. I hope that after reading the book you vote Paul on the second ballot(yes wishful thinking i know). And besides he can compete with Hillary better than McCain or Huckabee can.

Id like to know 3 policies of Mcains that you like better than Paul’s policy and specfically why because i cant see how anyone would vote for McCain unless they have stocks in the military supply or other interestes that profit from war and its aftermath.

and to Joel Leggett, Paul says you cant declare war against a sovreign country without congressional approval, thats different from just deploying forces. you look kinda like a fool talking that jive in your post.
Anonymous Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Joel Leggett,

Your arguments are simply wrong. We only have to ask the Founding Fathers themselves:

“First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature…”

Please read Federalist No. 69 before continuing your inane argument.
Nathan Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Joel Leggett,

Your arguments are simply wrong. We only have to ask the Founding Fathers themselves:

“First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature…”

Please read Federalist No. 69 before continuing your inane argument.
Feddie Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Josh-

Look, Ron Paul had his chance in the GOP Primary, and he lost big time. It wasn’t even close. I have little patience for the tactics currently being employed by Paul supporters to embarass McCain at the GOP convention. McCain won the nomination fair and square. The Convention is a mere formality. McCain will win on the first ballot easily.

Think of this way: What do you think the Ron Paul people would do if he had actually won the nomination, and then McCain supporters decided to do what Paul supporters are doing right now across the country? Y’all would flip out, and rightly so.
David rairigh Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Feddie,
sorry, typing on iPhone

Joel,
you were the one to argue that the word “levying” had any significance to presidential powers. I simply pointed out that the only place its used is in the definition of treason…which does somewhat involve the current potus but not potus in general.
Joel Leggett Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Nathan,

I absolutely love it when someone makes my point for me while adopting an arrogant tone of condescension. First of all, let’s examine the quoted excerpt from Federalist #69

“The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain…” (That means he can decide where to send them and when, you know kind of like the King of Great Britain could at the time Federalist 69 was written.) “but in substance much inferior to it.” (How is it inferior? He goes on to say that the president can’t declare war, raise the actual forces or pass laws for their regulation while the king of Great Britain retained these powers. BUT HE NEVER SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DEPLOY THEM AS HE SEES FIT.) “It would amount to nothing more than the SUPREME COMMAND and DIRECTION of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy” (And just what authority do commanders have over their troops? THE AUTHORITY TO DEPLOY THEM.)

As I have argued repeatedly there is a great difference in meaning between DECLARE and WAGE war. The Constitution itself uses these different terms in different parts of the document. Declarations of war were formal recognitions of a state of hostilities between states. They were used primarily to determine legal relationships between states and their citizens. Since the legislature in our system writes laws this was a fitting power to give them. More often than not throughout history declarations of war recognized a state of hostilities that was already in existence before the formal declaration was made. Rarely were they used to INITIATE hostilities. They were just a formal statement. Look at our Declaration of Independence for instance. Were we not already acting as an independent country before the declaration was signed? It was a formal statement that put the world on notice that we HAD separated from Great Britain.

If you want to adopt a condescending tone I suggest you familiarize yourself with both the definitions of the words you wish to use as well as bone up on the history of your country. Otherwise you really look silly.

Josh,

Dr. Paul has repeatedly said that we could not invade Iraq legally without a formal declaration of war. As I have pointed out the language of the Constitution and the historical practice of presidents in this area from John Adams on has established otherwise. Consequently, you kind of look like a fool not knowing what your candidate has said or what has been discussed so far on this thread.

I find it very illuminating that not one person who has criticized my point has addressed the fact that our presidents have historically exercised the very power to deploy our troops abroad into combat and invade countries without declarations of war. John Adams, one of the drafters of the Constitution, did it. Thomas Jefferson did it, Theodore Roosevelt did it, it was done repeatedly in the Caribbean during the years between WWI and WWII. How is it that this precedent is so well established in our country’s history and yet the Ron Paul crowd reacts as if this is some new revolutionary abuse of the Constitution? Maybe this gross historical ignorance is the fault of our public school system.
Nathan Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Joel,

You delude yourself. The quote (and the Constitution) also does not say that the President can’t shoot his wife and pardon himself from murder. Given your logic, he therefor obviously has that power.

Thank you for high-jacking what started out as a cordial and thoughtful conversation and replacing it with inane circular arguments. Or not.
Red Phillips Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Freddie, are you a lawyer? One should not have to be trained in Constitutional interpretation. The Constitution is not complex. In fact, in most instances it is rather simple. One need only be able to read. To understand the original intent of the Founders it is more important to have a knowledge of history than a knowledge of the law especially case law.

Joel, foreign affairs is actually one of the few places where the Constitution is not entirely clear. But you are arguing from absence, not from what is actually there. Yes the President is the civilian head (Commander and Chief) of the armed forces. But it isn’t even clear that he was conceived as having an actual military role. Is the President, who may have never serves, supposed to plot strategy? Washington, our first President, was an anomaly as a former general. The President was a civilian check against the military. The fact that arguably nowhere is this role limited does not mean the Founders thought the President could willy-nilly initiate hostilities. A substantial minority of the Founders, most notably Madison, didn’t even want a standing army. It is impossible to argue that the original intent was an imperial Executive that could utilize an enormous standing army to police the world, spread democracy, topple dictators, lead the free world, or whatever on his mere say so. This interpretation, as I said above, is of relatively recent vintage and hence can not be conservative or originalist. It is a Cold War doctrine used to justify military interventionism.

Why was the Congress given the power to declare war if that is a nearly meaningless function?

Yes, Presidents have acted against this original intent. As Gutzman points out in the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, it didn’t take long at all before we were trampling on the original intent in all sorts of areas. This does not make them OK or consistent with original intent. The Feds have long financed Social Security and other social welfare schemes, for example, which are grossly unconstitutional. The presence of such programs does not make them de facto constitutional. Neither does a history of abuse in making war make them not abuses.
Patrick Carver Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Um, folks, the nickname of the owner and proprietor of this here blog is “Feddie” (short for “Federalist”) not “Freddie”.

That is all.
Dave Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Well, that was the third interjection by someome wanting to demonstrate they can report what the evening news said. McCain did not win Nevada. But his people got the party bosses stop the convention because the Paul supporters drew more of the dominant Romney delegates than than he did. McCain managed to get the delegates to go his way in Maine, even though he did not win there either.

The media loves McCain. So they tell us he wins, and we fall all over each other making it come true.
McCain is simply not a conservative. He should have his own party, symbolized by a red cloaked mule.
A real swell fella though most of those who feel strongly about him are already at a Clinton rally somewhere.
Nathan Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Joel,

Since in your haste you seemed to have missed the main point of the quote, here it is (emphasis added):

First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union.

So the President doesn’t get to command the troops around until the LEGISLATIVE branch calls them into service.

You may choose to argue the same tired points repeatedly, and to self reference those same points repeated, but you are still wrong.

Claiming that the King of England of 1787 had the power to commit troops to war without the consent of the English parliament, does not make it so. Even the King was not omnipotent. Take a look at the end of the Revolution for evidence. In 1782 it was the British House of Commons that legislated and end to war with the colonies. Poor George couldn’t even negotiate peace until Parliament gave him that authority a week or so later.
Joel Leggett Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Nathan,

Are you serious? “the Constitution also does not say that the President can’t shoot his wife and pardon himself from murder.” We are talking about the president’s explicitly stated role as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and what Declaration means. Make a real argument will you?

Secondly, I did not address the first part of the quote from Federalist 69 because it deals with the militias and does not apply to the president’s control over the active duty military. I guess you missed that. The militias were a separate entity that retained a unique relationship with the individual states. Even today, the National Guard is not under Title 10 of the U.S code (the active duty military is always under Title 10) unless they have been activated for federal service. Consequently, the president’s relationship with the militias had nothing to do with the president’s authority to deploy the active duty federal military abroad. Additionally, your point about Parliament’s role in ending the war with America is irrelevant to the issue of the king’s power to INITIATE it. Try harder next time.

Red,

I am not basing my argument entirely on absence. My argument is that the drafters used specific language for specific reasons. A Declaration is a statement, an announcement, it does not mean action. That is one reason why the drafters used the term levying war in defining treason. They wanted to restrict the definition of treason to acts, not simply statements. A declaration of war is not the same as waging war. The drafters used these different terms in different places in the Constitution for specific reasons. They had different meanings. Additionally, as I pointed out above when the drafter wanted to separate and allocate executive power they did so very clearly, as they did in Art II, Section 2 regarding the president’s authority to enter into treaties and appoint ambassadors. My point here is that if the drafters wanted to so thoroughly restrict executive authority to WAGE war they would have done so.

This does not mean that the Constitution created an “imperial presidency.” Quite the contrary. Congress controls the funding, raising, and regulation of the Armed forces. This is a significant check on executive authority. If the Congress does not approve of a presidential deployment they can withhold funding. Congress was actually threatening to do just this when I was in Iraq at the end of 2006.
Jane Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
We know personally what the media did to marginalize Dr.Paul. We know all the information that was thrown out there to dissuade voters from supporting him. But we also know what he’s really about; the part that was never reported or at least minimally. I would think Paul supporters just want to make sure that all delegates got a chance to see what Dr. Paul was all about. Whether you support him or not is up to you. If the media isn’t going to be fair, at least understand why we’re working so hard to get his name and information out to the public. We have to work ten times as hard because the media is constantly putting negative spins on a good man who deserves better. That’s why we work so hard to help his campaign.
Jane Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
And also, what would the convention be for if the nominee was already chosen? That’s what the convention is for. If it weren’t this election, imagine years from now there is a presumed nominee and then imagine more info comes out about that nominee that is not to the liking of most Americans. Do you think the delegates would then all vote for this nominee if they knew absolutely that he or she was not what Americans would want? Just a thought.
Jane Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
And I appreciate everyone’s thought-provoking arguments. Have thoroughly enjoyed reading the posts on this thread.
Red Phillips Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Joel, you are playing word games. Original intent. The original standing federal army was minuscule by modern standards. Any sustained war fighting required the state militias. It is inconceivable that the Founders intended the US to police the world McCain style with a large standing army. The early Presidents did not have such at their disposal.

While I disagree with your imperial executive interpretation, the ability of the President to initiate war on a whim is not really the primary issue is it? It is the wisdom, justice and necessity of the Iraq War and our current interventionist foreign policy. The War and interventionism are neither wise, just or necessary regardless of whether or not the President acted lawlessly by invading a sovereign country without a Declaration of War.

Do you really think the Iraq War and our interventionism is making us safer? How? It is making us less safe. Disengaging from the Middle East would make us safer.
Jane Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Joel wrote: Secondly, Dr. Paul allowed some real ugly racial statements to be published under his name in his news letter. I understand that this trash was actually written by someone else and that Dr. Paul was unaware of it at the time. However, if he is so inattentive as to let racist hate speech go out under his name then why should I have any confidence that he would more attentive as President of the United States. -

I would think a full-time ob/gyn might actually be very busy (they are on full-time alert for new arrivals); enough so to make an error way back when. There were 12 people writing for him and I do believe he was honest enough to trust some unscrupulous people. The media also put a spin on that story making it out to have been going on for decades when it only happened over a few years (hence the end of the 80s to beginning of 90s; they used that to say “decades”). He took full responsibility years ago which I believe he meant. And his constituents have voted him back in many terms even after those newsletters went public. He must’ve been doing something right. To me, it would make more sense to support Paul than McCain because McCain has made quite a few errors himself and they are recent. For a candidate to try to use his military “expertise” to try to win votes while flubbing up on the names of ethnic groups in Iraq; the very war we are currently in is not acceptable as far as I’m concerned. And the fact that our economy is currently faltering and McCain is far less an expert in this area than Paul speaks great words to me. The fact of the matter is none of these candidates are perfect. It’s best to choose the one who can best serve the problems we now have.
Jane Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 12:05 am
And as far as I’m concerned, I would think the duties of a doctor are far more important than unintended racist comments in a newsletter.
crankycon Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 6:49 am
I was a big time Fred Thompson supporter, and was very upset to see him lose in the primary. But he lost. He dropped out. I don’t deluge other bloggers’ comments’ section personally insulting those who did not vote for Fred Thompson. Would that Ron Paul supporters act in a similar manner.
Feddie Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Red-

I am a lawyer, a lecturer/analyst of constitutional issues, and a former federal appellate law clerk.

And constitutional interpretation is far from being easy. Even if the Constitution had not been bastardized over the past 80 or so years by the Supreme Court, it is still not an easy task to discern the original meaning of the Constitution in many instances. It is not enough to understand the text of the Constitution. One must also understand the history behind much of that text, as well as the overall structure of the document.

If constitutional interpretation was easy, folks like me wouldn’t have fought so hard against Harriet Miers.
Red Phillips Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Feddie, agreed there are difficult parts, but the key to understanding the Constitution is not case law. It is history. Nothing in the Constitution allows for a Department of Education, for example. Therefore, the Department of Education is grossly unconstitutional. No amount of messaging of the text changes this. This is what Ron Paul and other “Constitutionalist” (shameless plug: like Chuck Baldwin!) have been saying only to be called crazy or wingnuts by the “mainstream” GOP establishment. If it ain’t in there, the Feds can’t do it. Period! Do you disagree?

Funny you bring up Meirs. I addressed this issue then. Take a look.

http://etherzone.com/2005/phill101405.shtml
David Rairigh Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
crankycon,
Since Dr. Paul hasn’t actually dropped out of the race yet it seems fair for his supporters to continue plugging him. While some of them may be annoying on occasion the majority of his fans are earnest, reasonable people wanting to see reasonable actions in Washington DC, instead of the sound-clip histrionics that have been playing there for a very long time. The Constitution was written to restrict and restrain the federal government and allow liberty to reign.
BT Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Joel,
I apologize if I made things sound one sided, as I have heard supporters from all camps make a mockery of the process by attacking each other. One thing to watch for is the fact that the media may tell everyone that McCain has the number of delegates to sweep the nomination, but what they are not telling everyone is that only the winner take all states are guaranteed to vote for McCain. The reason we have a convention is so that the people and their representatives can speak out and perhaps change public opinion. Remember that Lincoln won the White house with only 22 delegates and 39% of the popular vote at the convention. Paul has roughly 40-50 given delegates which should qualify him for a speaking opportunity at the convention. To the dismay of his many supporters though, I do not see the GOP allowing him to take the shine from their golden boy McCain. So in reality you can’t say the process is complete cause it aint over till its over, and Dr. Paul says it aint over.

To touch more on the Paul supporters being attacked I think Josh clarified it for everyone when he said:
“and then McCain supporters decided to do what Paul supporters are doing right now across the country? Y’all would flip out, and rightly so.”
What Josh needs to do is take a step back and realize that the supporters of Ron Paul fought just to get his name out, while the media covered the candidates that their board of directors allowed them to cover and even excluded him from the fox debate where two opponents he had defeated were on stage, would you have flipped out had your candidate not received fair treatment and time on the world stage Josh? If anyone on either side of the isle think these vultures have American families or individuals in their best interest then they are crazier than any Paul supporter I have ran into.

Now I will say it again, I do not support Ron Paul’s views, but I do support his supporters and welcome them to the Republican Party, I do feel bad for all that the establishment has put you all through as the elections in Iraq were probably on a fairer playing field than what you all faced here. What the neoconservatives believe and sell to the rest of the moderates is simply that Ron Paul is crazy, a mad man, a loon, a terrorist, racist, and other delightful adjectives I have read about him, but 4000 women that allowed him to deliver their babies cant be wrong, so I seriously doubt he is crazy.

Bottom line is that we are all going to have to work together to make the republican party strong again, I cant say I have always agreed with every Republican every year, but I have tried to keep an open mind and a civil debate when presented with opposing views. 10% of the republican base supports Paul, if we do not try and work together then this party will fade away as socialism flows stead fast through our doors.

BT
badmedia Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Good post, but the GOP needs Ron Paul supporters more than you have let on here. Enough so that McCain has taken the donor list from Ron Paul and started to ask for donations for them. I myself recieved one, and did not give McCain anything. Nor will I.

You say that Ron Paul supporters make up only 10% of the GOP. Well I can tell you right now that is false. I know alot of Republicans who actually like Ron Paul, but don’t think he has a chance and therefore did not support him. This in itself is telling that if the media had given Ron Paul a fair shake, as well as the GOP he could have easily united the GOP.

But you have to take into account the fact of how much the Republican base has shrunk. Because of the war issue, many people have completely left the GOP. So the “base” of the GOP is no where near what it once was. Ron Paul was the only candidate for the GOP who was bringing those people back and getting new people.

Many such as myself will not vote for McCain, nor do I ever plan on being involved with the GOP after what I have seen this election. I’m not alone, I know countless others - many whom did not support Ron Paul at the start, whom are not at all happy with McCain or how this election process has turned out.

On every big issue important to republicans McCain is on the wrong side. Immigration, McCain-Feingold, and more than 70% of the American people want us out of Iraq. There is simply no way John McCain is going to win this election, UNLESS the media pushes it that way.

Which is certainly possible, afterall the McCain-Feingold laws which took away the freedom of speech made the medias weight on the election even more important than ever before, as the media is able to give away free time to the candidates they want to. As is exactly what happened in this election.

So the GOP is all but finished in America if they keep this up. And it won’t be the first time a party has completely disappeared in our history.

I notice you and others say we need to “unite” in order to beat socialism. But you aren’t going to accompish that with 100 yrs in Iraq McCain when over 70% of the population wants us out last election. McCain hasn’t had any real support other than media bias and other candidates dropping out. Everyone with common sense(which I think is the majority of actual conservatives) knows this election has been scripted by the media.

So sure, if you wish to make the GOP strong, and if you wish to unite the GOP then you had better to get work supporting Ron Paul. Because if you think McCain and the GOP is going to do it because “he can beat hillary or obama”(democrats tried such a strategy in 2004), while blocking out and not accepting new people while using outright corruption within the party leaders then I don’t know what fantasy land or “kool aid” you are drinking from. Besides, McCain is all but a socialist in name.

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils just isn’t going to get my vote. Because I realize I am still voting for evil. I realize I am not voting for a republican if I vote for McCain. What issues make McCain a republican? Go ahead, name them - I’ll wait.
badmedia Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
The GOP had congress and the white house all these years. What changes were made towards republican values? Again, go ahead and name them, I’ll wait.

All we are getting from these jokers are more social programs, more big government programs, more socialism. All these programs were increased. Did they try to defend the borders? No, and they still don’t.

The GOP doesn’t represent Republicans anymore, and the only true Republican in the race has faced bias, blackouts and his supporters have been treated as lower class citizens for supporting republican values.

If the GOP nominates McCain over Ron Paul, then it will be official that the GOP no longer represents or promotes Republican values. And it doesn’t matter who is elected then, every conservative in this country has lost.
BT Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Badmedia,
I think you missed out on my first post. I do not and will not support McCain now or ever. I originally supported Thompson, and after he dropped out I did not see a winning candidate among the rest on either side. You are correct to say that McCain is pro socialism, and his immigration policy along with the Keaton 5 scandal, and the rumors about his true military service and many other items are yet to come out, but the Dems will out him on everything he has been involved in, and his corruption and greed will be front stage (unless there is an issue that they themselves could implicate themselves in, then the public will never know). Lets not forget that Obama and Clinton have yet to really dig down and attack one another, but it is coming. As far as the total percentage of RP supporters in the new and old GOP has been estimated at 10% and that was prior to yesterdays primaries, so perhaps it is more now. I am not sure if I agree that 70% of all Americans are anti war since McCain took the votes, but the media harps the 70% as fact, if you truly believe them.

My quest to unite party members really has nothing to do with McCain, but rather conservative Republican values. McCain may say 100 year war, but he will only get 8 years max, and that is if he can even get elected (I personally feel he is un-electable) then if the country has not been completely sold out to foreign interests by then, the party (old GOP plus Ron Paul Republicans) can and will have to rebuild the party with a new look. I seriously doubt that the Republican Party will fade away, as the neoconservative liberals that support McCain and the Bush administration will change its face on their own with rhetoric and lies to keep things rolling along, and 4 years headed towards socialism will have the citizens of this country begging for change and relief.

The last statement you made was what makes McCain a Republican, and there is nothing there to name, but if you believe in a two party system republican/democrat then they have already fooled you. They are in it for themselves and nothing more. In the 70s the economy had its down points, but family values, and American jobs were thriving, but no more. I hate to hear the dems saying that the issues that face our country are caused because of a Republican White House, and this is simply not true, it is a White House that was high jacked by a neoconservative G.W. Bush who (and I can link many youtube videos) lied to the American people of his intent as president going in, and the continued to lie throughout the last 7 years. Bush says his legacy will not be known for years to come, but the fact is that there is no way anyone could make a positive out of his term, unless the public school forums create books to make him look like they did Lincoln, when he was an utter disaster.

It is true that nothing has changed in the last 7 years that even resemble conservative values, and the neo conservatives or liberals (i.e. G.W. Bush) planned it that way. The CFR in the 80’s and 90’s tried the slow approach to a take over, and now that the public is getting more and more educated they are accelerating their attempts to push their global agenda before the rest of the apathetic and uneducated public catches on. A conservative republican in the White House, a true Republican that can get past the media without being called a libertarian would save this country, unfortunately anyone that goes against the establishment now is hammered by the elitist and their ability to buy everything short of a persons soul.

BT

Giving the bayonet to the “dictatorship of relativism” since 2002

May 2, 2008

“I’ll give the Ron Paul people this much, they sure are persistent”

Trackback/Pingbacks:

80 Rebel Yells to ““I’ll give the Ron Paul people this much, they sure are persistent””

Leave a Reply

Search SA

Premium BlogAds

Patron Saint

Pages

Archives

Blogads

Meta: