Yes, it is official. Ron Paul is a Dweeb.

Just a note for all those out there that may think this is me at: My name is Ronald Rutherford. SR. But that is not me or any relation (as far as I know).

Ok now on to another Ron (i.e. Ron Paul). Maggie's Farm Blog always has some real interesting posts and

Hello Ron Paul! was no exception.

Now, young persons and people in rent-controlled apartments that work at fair trade coffee shops can afford the luxury of talking about whether the American Civil War was a good idea. If you just got out of college, Ron Paul! is right up your alley. Why talk about today's silly problems when Ron Paul! is arguing about whether we should abolish the Second Bank of The US? It's so much more lively to talk about history, because it's on the shelf and you can find any damn version of it you want to argue over. Real time isn't indexed yet.

What really amazes me is to somehow think our founding fathers could possibly have been geniuses at Economics. Political Science we could argue has not had a basic need to change since humans are basically the same. International Relations is different in the fact we now have so many different entities that of course IR should change with the times, and thus how we deal with the world must change also.

BUT, to think that any person let alone an "Economist" could possibly understand everything that is needed to know in the field of economics is silly at best and down right foolish in normal times. You would not expect to take the same advise from your doctor from the 1700s. Now economist have a lot more 'data' and knowledge of what works and what does not. One is having a central bank. Of course for some countries they almost are better without one (Zimbabwe), but it must tell you something when 184 nations of the world has decided to create Fiat Money and some gold standard that always ended in failure. And to show a little more taste of MF writing:

So Ron Paul! excites youth because they really don't think they have anything at stake yet in the affairs of the world. And he attracts the survivalist nuts who have already gone to the bunker, and desire someone to give the imprimatur of sanity to their decision to drink their own urine, hoard Kruggerands, and eat Spam underground already. The Pat Buchananites love anyone who says: Things used to be swell but now they suck. And conventional Conservatives, ashamed to call themselves that because the hip kids will photoshop them in Brownshirts or in a bathroom stall with Larry Craig, call themselves Libertarians for cover and adore Ron Paul! because he says over and over again that he's not interested in doing the one thing Libertarians hate: governing. So he's got the idealistic college kids, the country club anarchists, and the nuts. Who's that help?

Luckily I have not had any:Vote Spam for President in 2008 as of yet. But seeing how his supporters seem to be from the fringe of society, I suspect that what is said is correct.

Although the Ron Paul spam barrage does use a botnet, it makes no attempt to lure a clicker into downloading a file or viewing a malware-laced website. It has Ron Paul campaign leaders suspecting that the entire parade of emails were crafted by an "overzealous and well-intentioned Ron Paul supporter".

Powerline presents Better numbers for Ron Paul.

I have two responses. First, Paul has been a highly visible presence in this race for some time and does not do well in the polls. Even in New Hampshire (the "Live Free or Die" state), the Real Clear Politics average has him at 3.6 percent. In Rasmussen's poll, he's at 2 percent. One poll, by St. Anselm's college, shows him with 7 percent. That looks like an outlier, but let's assume instead that it's evidence of a trend others have missed -- 7 percent isn't going to get much done. In short, Ron Paul is not a serious force at this juncture, and there's no reason why the fact that 40,000 people saw fit to give him money should cause the rest of the population to give him a second (or a first) look.

Although this is a little old as far as campaigns, it still brought up some important facts. It looks like a fight between Giuliani and Ron Paul around the 10-11% polling according to GOP Outsider Ron Paul Dogs Giuliani in N.H. Race. I thought the following passage was funny also:

Speaking at the house party, he kept a positive message, although he did manage to get a dig in at Mr. Paul. Asked about his possible Cabinet, Mr. Giuliani cited President Lincoln, who named party rivals as his top advisers. He then joked that his Cabinet could comprise all of the Republicans on the debate stage Saturday night, "maybe with one exception." The crowd laughed, though it was initially unclear whether he was referring to Mr. Paul or Mr. Romney, who was roundly criticized at the debate. He later acknowledged it was Mr. Paul, citing his "isolationist" foreign policy views.

And one last comment from Powerline:

The only other seriously distinguishing feature of the campaign is that it's nutty. Being anti-war is respectable, but Paul's opposition to the war is founded on conspiracy theories, over-the-top isolationism, and an unhealthy dose of hostility to Israel. Paul's opposition to big government is not a distinguishing feature. There are plenty of other Republican candidates this cycle who embrace small government conservatism. Again, the only only distinguishing feature of Paul's small government platform is its nuttiness -- the gold standard, the Federal Reserve conspiracy stuff, etc.

One question that seems to be raised when talking about Ron Paul is whether he plans on becoming a spoiler in the race. As in:
Could Ron Paul Be the Ralph Nader of 2008?

At the same time, it seems to surprise many that Paul’s undeniable grassroots effectiveness hasn’t translated to a showing either in national or state polls. That’s surely due to the fact that many if not most of those who are sending money to Paul are not, in fact, Republicans. They are more plausibly among the 3 million or so who voted for Ralph Nader on the Green Party line in 2000, or even among those who rained money down on Howard Dean in the summer of 2003.

Which brings to mind an interesting scenario for 2008: Could Ron Paul run an independent candidacy for president in 2008 on a libertarian/anti-war/anti-monetarist platform? At this moment, it seems plausible, especially if the Democratic party nominates Hillary Clinton, who is bizarrely considered a neocon hawk by the Left netroots.

And despite Paul’s nominal standing as a Republican — and it is nominal — wouldn’t his candidacy draw more from disaffected Democrats, as liberal Republican John Anderson’s 1980 third-party candidacy pulled voters away from Jimmy Carter and not from Ronald Reagan?

I think the first paragraph is pure speculation, although the anti-war crowd is the most vocal group out there now. I also discussed this with my parents that Ron Paul could get more support from the left-depending on who the Dems nominate. So that scenario seems plausible but still low a low chance. But I suspect that Ron Paul's decisions will rest mostly with monetary considerations to run as an independent. If he still has money or can raise some good money from his net-roots campaigns then I see it as a good possibility. And what does Ron Paul say in Paul Won't Rule Out Run as Independent:

Paul said that while the chance of his running as an independent was slim, "I deserve one wiggle now and then." He ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988.

Another interesting item from that article is:

Paul said he was convinced that Israel and many neoconservatives in the United States would like to commence bombing on Iran. He repeated his argument that a major reason for Islamic terrorism against the United States was the country's high-profile presence around the world, including in Saudi Arabia.

The exact quote is not mentioned in the article but how does he propose lowering our profile? Stop the export of our products and services that may offend them. I specifically mean our entertainment industry. Even if we were to stop our export of cultural products, it would not stop the spread of them just like it does not stop the Chinese from black marketing those same products. So I reject his idea that "they" are over here since "we" are over there. We will always be in every part of this globalized world. Just as most countries are co-mingled with most other countries.

It was mentioned in an earlier article about Paul Defends Asking for Special Projects.

"I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back," said Paul, who likened it to taking a tax credit. "I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people."

The 10-term congressman and longshot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination added that although he has requested special projects known as earmarks, he ultimately ends up voting against them in the House. Paul is known in Congress as "Dr. No" for his votes against some types of government spending, including a medal for Pope John Paul II and civil rights leader Rosa Parks because of the cost to taxpayers.

I understand his reasoning for such actions, but does it make it morally right his actions? I question those but can not say that it limits me from voting for such a candidate in this regard. But then this got me to thinking about how he promotes himself in his district. Like does he give up the campaigning of bringing the largesse of Government to his constituents? Looking at his RonPaulforCongress site at Dr. Ron Paul... Working For Us! gives me a clue to what type of policies he considers 'fair'. In nearly every policy stance he is some way or another giving tax credits or breaks. So in his world not taxing some groups is OK. Ultimately he seems to support the bathtub theory that if we collect less revenue then Government would shrink, but that seemed to never work as well as planned. So in essence he also is promoting deficit spending, unless he also proposes a counter proposal that has tax increases for someone else.

Of course the wacky left has to 'dig' up the dirt to discredit him since he is not "anointed" by them as in: Ron Paul, In His Own Words. I seriously take this with a grain of salt.

I did happen to see that MPAC-UK posted a video of Ron Paul from the Fox News Channel.[American Muslims Remain Non Political As Zionists Attack Ron Paul] This video has the above phrase of they are over here since we are over there. LOL, the irony. It was presented without comment so the comments was more interesting.

marc:
mpacuk could teach CAIR a thing or two..recent high profile trials involving CAIR in the US have shown them to be everything they claim to despise..america is as split racially today as ever and people have lost confidence in politics,,BTW CAIR doesnt have much respect in the US among non muslims..keep up the good work mpacuk
-----------------------
you muppet:
CAIR are the american version of the MCB, a high level top end organisation but no real vision of changing the situation at the grass roots.

And lastly I end with the article entitled: Ron Paul's "noninterventionism" fraud.

Dr. Paul's libertarian prescription? If only we'd stop meddling in the "internal affairs" of other nations and bring our troops home, the world would be a better, safer, healthier place. Al Qaeda and other terrorists, having no further reasons to hate us, would either become peaceful or aim their aggressions elsewhere.

Now, I'd like to point out an interesting parallel between this common libertarian view of America's foreign enemies, and the common liberal view of America's domestic criminals.

In his debate clip earlier he talked about the need to "talk to our enemies" to find out what they want-to understand them. Then what? Subject ourselves to Sharia Law.

The author gives a good and quick account of what happened with the Shah of Iran situation in 1953 and then goes on to say:

The manipulative use, by Paul and too many libertarians, of vague, undefined smear terms such as "interventionist" and "neocon" permits them to blame the U.S. government for virtually anything it does in our legitimate, long-term self-defense, anywhere in the world. Actions to thwart coercive threats, such as forging defensive alliances, are "interventionism." Helping other nations counter a growing peril from a declared U.S. enemy nation (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Iran, etc.) is "interventionism." Sometimes, even trading with adversaries of dictatorial regimes (e.g., trading with Taiwan, an enemy of China) is "interventionism."

A point I have continually made, that is that what we simply consider trading or doing 'business' others could consider interventionism including some of our own citizens.

The only "moral" alternative they imply, therefore, is a de facto, hunkered-down pacifism: a steady retreat by the U.S. from any interactions in the world -- lest we diss some backwater bully, cross his arbitrarily declared boundary lines, offend him for his subjective notions of religious or cultural blasphemy, or thwart his laughable claims of "national sovereignty."

Part of the sloppy thinking at the root of "noninterventionist" lunacy is the tacit equation of individual rights with "national sovereignty" -- and also the equation of "economic interventionism" (against peaceful individuals) with "political interventionism" (against despotic regimes). Philosophically, these twin equations are completely bogus.

And the rest of the article is well worth a read...

To paraphrase an old joke, then:

Ron Paul is my second choice for President.

My first choice is anybody else.

P.S.: My favorite Libertarian Supporter of Ron Paul has gotten the urge to label a post: [url=http://republicanrenaissance.blogspot.com/2008/01/apocalypse-soon.html]Apocalypse Soon[/url]. Well not really soon but something that will affect our society in over 30 years. Which is the demographic shift our society is expected to go through unless we change something like our birth rate or death rate (increases) or we allow more immigration. Sure we could tinker with the system and ideally the tax burden for paying for the IOUs from the Social Security would come from the general funds. But that can only be stretched so far before young people balk at that and even immigrants will no longer desire to come to the USA.

But Ron Paul is still a dweeb...

PS (2-28-08): Ron Paul Confused About the Truth. Again. Once a person is consumed by paranoid logic then truths become fluid. Not to say I am perfect but sometimes you have to go back to the facts and re-evaluate the situation in an objective light.

Links:
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Introduces the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007!

Will Ron Paul Raise Most Money In Q4?

Paul Won't Rule Out Run as Independent

Paul Defends Asking for Special Projects

American Muslims Remain Non Political As Zionists Attack Ron Paul

Ron Paul, In His Own Words

Ron Paul's "noninterventionism" fraud

Ron Paul: The Racist, Sexist Homophobe 'Libertarian'?

Dr. No Apparently Says "No" to the Theory of Evolution-Video

Exclusive: Ron Paul Responds To New Republic Story