Advertisement
What People are Reading
Recent
Popular Alltime
Recent Comments
- Hey EAB, you took on a bumper
8 hours 16 min ago - I would sometimes meet Erv on
22 hours 53 min ago - Patriotism and conflict
****
2 days 18 hours ago - Let's not forget that Romney
3 days 6 hours ago - Mike,
I would bet my right
3 days 17 hours ago - It's hard to argue for the
4 days 21 hours ago - Sorry, EA. I don't dispute
4 days 21 hours ago - Au contraire, my column keeps
4 days 23 hours ago - Mushroom Media is still
5 days 4 hours ago - The only distinctions I make
1 week 7 hours ago
Advertisement
The Universal Notebook: Ron Paul is America's crazy uncle
Feb 13, 2012 10:40 am
Edgar Allen Beem
Photo:
Photo: Freelance journalist Edgar Allen Beem lives in Yarmouth. The Universal Notebook is his personal, weekly look at the world around him.
As the Republican Party stumbles along on a debate-strewn course toward nominating yet another spoiled rich kid who feels entitled to be president, we have all been treated to the GOP’s carnival sideshow of hopeless hopefuls:
Michele the Madwoman of Minnesota, Herman the Horny Pizza Guy, Tricky Ricky Perry, Rick Sanitarium, and Newt the Transformer.
These mutant politicians make Mitt “Mr. One Percent” Romney look almost like a reasonable man. Not principled, just reasonable.
The Republican candidate who has captured my attention (or horrid fascination), however, is Ron Paul. The little people love the little liberty-loving Libertarian from the Texas Gulf Coast.
That’s because the avuncular Dr. No comes across as America’s crazy uncle, spouting crazy talk about ending wars and legalizing marijuana. He’s the Dennis Kucinich of the Right, a fringe candidate so odd and lovable that those with more ideals than common sense might actually vote for him.
Paul is so far to the right that he almost meets the left coming around the bend. He’s CPAC meets ACLU. Paul is one of these hysterical heralds of doom who squawk all the time about Americans losing liberties and freedoms, but it’s never clear exactly what liberties and freedoms they think we’re losing.
This Libertarian’s big issue seems to be "Obamacare," in particular the mandate that everyone be required to purchase health insurance. Not sure how requiring people to have health insurance is any different than requiring motorists to have automobile insurance. It’s for the greater public good.
Libertarians, of course, like tea partiers and conservatives in general, do not believe in the public good. They exist in a parallel universe of illusions about individual liberties and delusions of total self-reliance. Paul, for instance, is on record as saying he’d let you die if you needed medical care and couldn’t pay for it.
Libertarians are no friends of the sick, the poor, or the uninsured.
So you might thing Paul would support a woman’s right to decide whether she carries a pregnancy to term, but Dr. No the obstetrician would prefer to decide for her. Worse, he’d let the government decide. And the answer is no.
Libertarians are no friends of women.
And you might think a guy who jabbers on about freedom and liberty would be in favor of civil rights, but you’d be wrong again. Paul and his little boy Rand share the perverse idea that businesses should be free to discriminate against minorities and minorities should be free to eat elsewhere. Paul has a long history of racist and homophobic remarks that he now repudiates.
Libertarians are no friends of minorities.
You might also think that a Libertarian like Paul would decry the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United that, as Mitt Inc. is fond of saying, corporations are people. But Uncle Ron believes that allowing corporate zombies to invest millions in buying American elections somehow helps undermine the government authority he detests (except when it suits him).
And wouldn’t a Libertarian naturally support labor laws that protect the workplace freedoms of working people? Wrong again. They seem to think that businesses should be free to pay $3 an hour for a 60-hour week and workers should be free to look for another job.
Libertarians are no friends of working people.
The most important freedom that Paul defends, however, is the freedom to fail. He opposed bailouts even though they worked. He opposed raising the debt ceiling even though not to do so would have precipitated an international economic crisis. And he’d like to replace Social Security with individual retirement accounts. Invest wisely and you can sit around in old age counting your krugerands with Dr. Paul.
But don’t expect any help from a Libertarian government if your retirement account tanks. The only forms of welfare Paul endorses are family, friends, churches, and private charities. He’s a big fan of President George H.W. Bush’s “thousand points of light,” which in Paul’s case are shining out of the holes in his head.
I will say this for crazy Uncle Ron though, he’s the only man left standing in the GOP race who actually seems to believe what he says – even though it makes no sense at all.
Libertarians are no friends of rationality.
Comment on this story at:
Comments
Registered2comment says:
buckybeaver says:
What line on the IRS 1040 or the Maine Long/Short tax form do I use for entering the amount of my AUTOMOBILE insurance? In 2013, the government IRS 1040 everyone will have to have approved government health care insurance OBAMACARE or pay a fine of 439.00 or 4.3% of their gross income as a penalty. in 2014, the penalty continues to grow, 2015 etc. etc.
eabeem says:
Get yourself covered or pay a nominal fee to help offset the medical care cost you'll be passing on to the rest of us. Pretty straightforward. But then UI would have preferred single-payer universal health care like most other civilized countries have. If Obama was the rasdical you seem to think he is, he wouldn't have taken that off the table. You might as well object to having t9o file a tax retirn at all.
buckybeaver says:
What line on the IRS form 1040 do I put AUTOMOBILE insurance coverage on? In 2013 there will be a line on the IRS form 1040 for OBAMACARE, and if you do not have a government approved health care plan there is a fine, so now the government can force a free independant US citizen to purchase a product, or face jail.
It is absurd to compare AUTOMOBILE insurance with a government mandate to purchase a product weither you need it or not. In fact it is unconstitutional, not every individual drives so to say that it should be a mandatory purchase shows that your bitter clinging to the 1936 Karl Marx Communist Constitution where government decides equality of outcome not the individual is stunning. TEA.
JeffersonDarcy says:
Our own adult children cannot find work.
and Obama wants to give work permits to illegals?!
Push your state rep to make a change.
Google this: NUMBERSUSA .
Once you are registered, go to the "action board" to send FREE faxes to your state representative.
They are all typed up and ready to go, you just need to click your mouse to send.
David R. Hill says:
Gee, Jefferson, even a wacky next door neighbor should be able to spell his name correctly. It's D'Arcy. Look it up.
eabeem says:
If your adult children will clean houses, mow lawns, and pick fruits and vegetables, there are jobs for them. Otherwise I suggest we create a path to citizenship for people who will take those jobs as a way to get a foothold in the USA. We'd all starve if it weren't for immigrant labor, legal and otherwsie.
FedSen says:
Lemrac hit on a bunch of great points in rebuttal to the original article. Mr. Beem definitely deserves to have this article under the Opinion section because it is just that, opinion and not factual. As was pointed out in Lemrac's comments, there are either complete and utter disregard to fact concerning Ron Paul or the author watches too much MSM and believes everything they say.
A few things I will add is that the fact that people think Ron Paul is "Crazy" seems to suggest that those who think that are the ones crazy. Why is it crazy that he wants to keep the American people free with their liberty in tact, something that has been slowly deteriorating since G. W. Bush's Patriot Act, re-upped by Obama with the addition of the NDAA and potentially the EEA which all could render this country a police state.
See Lemrac's comment for most of the points but one other one I'll hit upon is Libertarians not being friends of minorities (which seems to suggest the author is pushing at the Ron Paul is racist card). Ron Paul is the only one of the current GOP members and the sitting POTUS that is fighting to end the war on drugs which has been a colossal waste of money and time as well as a catalyst to major discrimination toward minorities who are targeted more often than Caucasians and prosecuted at a higher rate with higher penalties involved. I'm shocked the author didn't mention the Newsletters so I'm hoping he knows the facts behind them but I doubt it with his suggestion of a history of racist remarks. Do your research Mr. Deebs and anyone else that jumps this bandwagon. Dr. Paul has been proven independently that he was not the author of the newsletters. As for the Civil Rights act and Dr. Paul's stance to vote against it if he was involved, if you read his response on to why, it's not because he hates blacks as the media and Mr. Deebs would lead you to believe but because the Act in itself was discriminatory and violated individual rights. Think about it, if you force someone to like someone else what happens 99% of the time? They hate that person even more. Has some good things come out of the Civil Rights Act? Yes, but there are a lot of things that haven't changed for the good and racism is still a big problem in this country. Case in point we are having this conversation because the race card is always pulled to try and knock someone down (even against Obama) and keep them from getting ahead. Dr. Paul advocates treating every individual equally and to stop grouping people together to push those stereotypes and discriminatory practices....no others do that.
There is just way too much to cover in a single comment. The point that needs to be made is the author, like many liberals out there, watch the news, believe it 100% and then run around spreading the same misinformation and end up making themselves look uneducated and misinformed. Read a book (any authored by Ron Paul) or do some internet research to see the truth of Dr. Paul's message and not the bullet points put out by the media that is then left for bad interpretation.
eabeem says:
I believe I fairly represented Mr. Paul's position on Civil Rights. He doesn't think there should be a law against discrimination. I do. No one is asking anyone to "like" anyone, but part of Ron Paul's crazy talk is the idea that businesses should be free to discriminate against anyone they like and minorities should be free to do business elsewhere if they don;t like it. That's despicable, but it is where libertraian thinking invariably ends up...over the edge. And what is that? Because people like Ron Paul don't have the faintest idea what freedom is. He squawks about it, but his squawking rarely makes sense.
JD says:
I happen to be a bit of an expert on the Civil Rights Act. I've been involved in employment law for quite some time now, and work to protect employee rights. The way the Civil Rights Act works is, if the complaint is against a business, will fit the establishment narrative, and/or will be an easy win for the EEOC they take it up in a heatbeat. But if the case is against a governmental entity, will not fit the establishment narrative, and/or is a complicated case the EEOC won't lift a finger to protect employees. It's proven to be just another racket. It's now no longer an issue of promoting fairness, just as war is now no longer the measure of last resort in response to clear and present dangers. My objective experience shows that Paul is right, if not for the same reasons.
Paul still believes governments and other entities should be prohibited from discrimination, albeit maybe under a better system. His only point on the commercial side is that private property rights are being violated by forcing people to do what they wouldn't do otherwise on their private property. Paul also believes a better system might be possible. His suggestion that people simply drive racists out of business by refusing to patronize their establishments was his idea for a market-based solution, but that doesn't mean it's the only possible solution. He also believes many more people might be inadvertently patronizing businesses that are ran by people that hold racist views than would occur otherwise if such people had an opportunity to express their views and reveal their bigotry to their customers. Without such information, people could be supporting racists financially and never even know it. Just because that local coffee shop they frequent seems quaint doesn't mean the owner isn't a Klansman.
eabeem says:
Libertarians make way too much of private property. That's how Paul ends up taking some of the jackass positions that he does. If you're a private business doing business with the public, you're property should be subject to Civil Rights laws.
JD says:
Private property is a manifestation of liberty. If you took the time to carve a sculpture and someone took it from you they're taking both the object and that time you put into it. If you work hard to buy a home and then fully pay it off, if someone burns it down they're destroying not just the object but all that time you spent earning its value, furnishing it, making home improvements, etc. The very fact that you can possess something demonstrates that you are free, because when you aren't free someone else decides everything about what you can possess and how much you can possess.
It is said that an early draft of the Declaration of Independence originally said "life, liberty, and property" but it was softened to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to make a more profound statement. One of government's common law functions is to protect private property rights, and this is why things such as contract/patent/trademark enforcement and the fourth amendment are written into the system. If it wasn't for private property rights the recent Supreme Court decision requiring a warrant to track people by GPS might never have been decided in favor of the individual rights of citizens. It's a slippery slope when you start carving into those rights, and--regardless of the supporting arguments for doing so--libertarians are rightfully concerned about most or all such encroachments and would prefer for the government to at least try to find alternative ways of accomplishing goals that avoid the need to encroach upon the rights of citizens.
JD says:
On a side note, other laws intended to "level the playing field" can have unintended consequences, or just become another corrupt government program, too. Laws that support minority business ownership is one, and there are plenty of organizations that sprang up around these laws. If we allowed these laws to run their full course, we would eventually arrive at a point where you have to be well-connected, lucky, or a minority if you want to have a chance of owning your own business. Don't twist this into trying to paint me as racist, this is common sense. In fact, many principled members of minority groups resent special laws because they make them feel like society thinks they have no chance of success in life without special rules and special help. Many people want nothing more than to earn their way through life fair and square. That's usually more than can be said for most of our "wise" political leaders.
JD says:
I'm talking about owning any business, no matter how successful, but the real point was the unintended consequences of laws over time, not so much the subject matter of the example I threw out there. It wouldn't be surprising if so many of our problems stem from laws we're too afraid to ever change and laws for which there is no longer a need. Ours is a complex social system and while we spend so much time fretting about or pet hot-button issues I think we start to lose sight of the bigger picture.
David R. Hill says:
Who is Mr. Deebs? If the reference is to the author of the subject article, I'd say FedSen needs to read more carefully. Might reflect other problems, as well.
JD says:
We all make mistakes. Clearly he forgot and then misremembered Mr. Beem's surname as his writing progressed. Or perhaps it's very similar to another name he was thinking about at the time. I usually just translate what people say when needed, unless making it a teaching moment would be more appropriate under the circumstances.
David R. Hill says:
Oh, I could easily translate FedSens' ranting and ravings into something more coherant and even believable, but the teaching moment would be lost, since the result would fail to reflect the insanity behind it.
David R. Hill says:
Agreed, however it's a bit different when the name of a person is in print right before ones eyes and one is working on a response to what that person wrote. Attention to fact and detail is important in accurate discourse.
arthur says:
Our Vets support Ron Paul:
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is, by far, getting more military campaign contributions than anyone else in the 2012 field.
President Barack Obama ranks second, a review of Federal Election Commission donor records shows.
Paul, an Air Force veteran and member of the U.S. House of Representatives, has taken in $242,507 in 1,405 donations from people who list the military as their employer on donation records. This includes members of the active and reserve forces, retirees, civilian workers, veterans and some spouses if they listed one of the military services as their employer.
Obama has taken in $130,041 in 1,156 donations, according to the records, which include donations made through Dec. 31.
Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor running for the Republican presidential nomination, ranks third among military dona- tions, collecting $22,753 in 55 donations.
FEC records are notoriously hard to count because they often have errors in the amount of donations, abbreviations and misspellings. Since there are no standardized responses for "employer," some donors used that field to make a statement. One donor listed his employer as "USAF Not For Long." Another donor listed her occupation as "Navy wife and mother of three."
The fourth and fifth ranked recipients of campaign donations from the military have dropped out of the race. Businessman Herman Cain received 102 donations for $16,783, according to the records, and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., received 94 donations totaling $14,464.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has received 57 donations for $11,550, Texas Gov. Rick Perry received 16 donations for $7,475 and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has received 15 donations for $4,179.
Gingrich and Santorum are still in the race for the Republican nomination, but Perry has withdrawn.
Paul, drew the most money from Army-affiliated donors -- $103,779 of his total in 630 donations. He received 356 Air Force donations totaling $56,544; 312 Navy donations totaling $68,157; and 107 Marine Corps donations totaling $14,027, according to the records.
Among the other Republicans still running for the nomination, the Army-affiliated donors have been responsible for $13,408 of Romney's $22,750 in military campaign funds and for $6,350 of Gingrich's $11,550 total. Santorum has slightly more Army than Navy donations, but Navy donors have been more generous. He received eight donations totaling $1,480 from Army donors and five donations totaling $2,250 from Navy donors.
JD says:
I'd imagine it's not just because they think Paul would be less likely to deploy them casually, but perhaps because they're deeply concerned by the horrors of war that they have personally witnessed and/or because they feel that casual deployments have already occurred on one or more occasions in the past 10+ years.
(the following also applies to your question about Iraq vs. Casco Bay)
I don't agree with the so-called "war hawks" or their messengers and the assumptions they have adopted and heavily promoted over the years. I analyze issues and candidates individually, based on rational thought with little or no consideration given to party affiliation, and disagreed with the "soft on defense" rhetoric that was used against Obama; although he has since proven himself to be far less willing to ratchet back the war machine than he let on back in '08.
I ran into an interesting article earlier that accurately reflects many of my reasons for disagreeing with the usual endless global interventionism arguments, and references academic studies out of Oxford that appear to support some of my past assumptions:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/felipe-dittrich-ferreira/foreign-policy-of-...
eabeem says:
Thanks. I'll take a look. I do wish Obama had moved more swiftly to get U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I do find it the height of hypocrisy, however, that Bin Laden was taken out on his watch and that he has been a far more militant commander-in-chief than his predecessor. But then he's been better at everything than Bush.
Lemrac says:
Unfortunately, this article isn't just bias but is absolutely inaccurate in how it relates the facts concerning Ron Paul and the issues discussed.
Fact: Ron Paul did not say we should let the uninsured die. In fact, if you watch the debate that myth derived from, he distinctly says "No" when asked if they should be left to die. It is the audience that shouts and excited "Yes" to the question. Ron Paul made clear that when we had no Government health involvement that people were not dying in the streets, and that he has often helped the uninsured and poor get much needed medical help at his own cost.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9fk7NpgIU (the debate question)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB7SG5gpWAw (example of generosity)
Fact: Ron Paul, while a firm believer that abortion is wrong, would never make a federal law mandating abortion is illegal. He has made it clear on numerous occasions that abortion is not an issue that the federal government has Constitutional authority to decide on. Much as he has the right to refuse to abort a patient's fetus and encourage other options, he believes the patient must ultimately make that determination for themselves and find the doctor who will support their decisions. He believes the most the Federal government can/should do is amend the Constitution to declare that life begins at conception (something that would never pass). Even if said definition were put in, much like Murder, theft, trafficking, etc., it would be up to the states to decide what penalties or punishments could be implemented for having an abortion, if any were to be made at all.
Fact: Ron Paul believes in the First Amendment. "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This means people have a right to support candidates by any nonviolent and infringing means they wish, including via money. The difference is that presently there are laws that allow for corporations and people to secretly donate money, which puts into question where does each candidates loyalties lie. Transparency of who gives the money and where the money goes is needed in order for the poor and minorities to better see who supports who.
And believe me, Ron Paul does not stand to benefit from present campaign funding practices. Romney's top donors are: Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup, Merril Lynch (all financial institutions). Paul's top donors are: US Army, a branch of the US Military, US Navy, US Air Force
http://www.dailypaul.com/213747/top-donors-for-all-presidential-candidates
Fact: Minimum wage laws are the bane of "the working man", not the solution to their problems.
http://youtu.be/IFbYM2EDz40
If Company A has $100,000 to spend on employees, they decide to spend $25,000 per employee to have 4 employees. A new minimum wage law (or union rule) raises the minimum to $27,000 per full-time employee (about an 8% raise). Company A, may have only increased its size by 4%, which is $4,000 short of being able to provide the raise for all employees. Since Company A has a finite amount of resources, they must: raise prices of services to keep the 4th employee, cut money from R&D or other essential needs of the company to keep the 4th employee, fire the 4th employee and use the remaining $21,000 towards other company needs, go into debt it otherwise would not have needed, and/or reduce the 4th employee to a part time position.
In all cases this benefits a few people at the cost of others. Raised prices means the new higher salaries don't give any benefit. Cut in R&D or other essential needs of the company means someone outside the company who provided those needs looses business. Or in the last case, person 4 loses income or loses a job.
Arbitrary minimum wage laws don't account for the natural growth and decay of businesses, and as such benefit some (3 people got an 8% raise) at the cost of others (1 person lost 32%-100% of their income, or inflation balanced the wage gain).
Fact (sorry for long comment, but the author left a lot to rebut):
Big banks gained huge profits from making loans to under-qualified individuals. The cost of houses inflated from the hyper demand from people who can't afford mortgages. The derivatives market created a mess out of our financial system. People stopped being able to pay for mortgages, causing mass foreclosures. Mass foreclosures deflated the value of houses back to their norm, causing thousands upon thousands of houses to be underwater (more debt than value of house). As a result, people stopped buying property, loans became more difficult to get (as they should), and people "strategically defaulted" despite the fact that they can pay the mortgage.
Fact: Was the Government's response to people losing their homes to support the people who got tricked into mortgages they can't afford? No, the government gave billions of dollars (the Fed gave TRILLIONS of dollars, see audit) to the very banks that profited from creating bad debt. The government lets the banks keep the profits they earn private, but then makes the taxpayers pay for the banks loses? And the "working man" is left without a home.
Fact: The best way to remove corruption is to expose it. Anti-discrimination laws inadvertently hide racists from the public, causes people to unknowingly support said racist with their business. If Racists were allowed to discriminate, it would be easier to weed out who they were, boycott them, hold them accountable through the media, and wipe out their business. Believe it or not, most people don't want to be associated with racist establishments and will avoid doing business with them. Ron Paul recognizes that and as such thinks private business should be allowed to discriminate. As for Public business, Ron Paul has made it clear that discrimination is Unconstitutional if allowed in and by governmental entities.
I'd go on but I'm sure people are sick of reading my long a@@ comment and I want to go to bed. Please be don't misrepresent a person's character without the due diligence of research.
David R. Hill says:
Wow. You want to generate some controversy, I guess all you have to do is say, "Ron Paul."
That might be reason enough to reject his candidacy, as I really don't think we need more severe polarization.
JD says:
I guess all you have to do is say "Ron Paul" along with a bunch of polarizing nonsense if you want to generate some controversy, you meant to say.
A healthy and vibrant debate is the lifeblood of democracy, is it not? It sounds to me like you would prefer less of it.
David R. Hill says:
Do not tell me what I meant to say. I said what I meant.
I'm all in favor of healthy and vibrant debate that results in collaborative solutions. We haven't seen that in a long time, either in Augusta or Washington. I am very tired of unhealthy, discordant debate resulting in nothing. You think Ron Paul represents the former, I believe he represents the latter.
JD says:
Obviously I was telling you what you meant to say in an effort to make a point, not to abridge your freedom of speech.
My comment still stands. You stated quite incorrectly that "all you have to do is say, 'Ron Paul' to generate some controversy" and note that you are "very tired of unhealthy, discordant debate resulting in nothing" which I presume is, in part, intended to address some of the comments that accompany this article. I mean only to point out that such controversy and/or discordance might never have occurred but for the seething sarcasm and flippant disdain evident in the author's work, in which half-truths are spun into the derision of a man, a group, and/or an entire group as seen through the eyes of one man (the author) looking through the lens of one man (Paul).
It's never been uncommon throughout history to see journalism that drives for maximum shock value, the author is by all means free to pursue the fullest width and breadth of his craft, and in an age where heavily scripted "reality" shows manufacture conflict it's arguably even more acceptable than ever to follow suit; but when an article is as abrasive as this one neither you nor anyone else should be surprised by what follows. For the most part, the comments section is exceedingly tame by comparison.
David R. Hill says:
I see that you have been frequenting The Forecaster, or at least commenting here for a little over a day, almost two days now. Maybe you haven't noticed that Ed Beem's columns frequently draw fire from those with opposing views, but nothing like the volume and intensity seen when Ron Paul is involved.
You might reply that this is because Ed went way overboard. But the observed phenomenon is not limited to Ed and The Forecaster, as evidenced by the disruptions and general brouhaha at some of the republican caucuses last week. Throw in the controversy over how the votes were "counted" and the reactions of the Paul supporters, and my observations are verified.
Heck, even all the conservatives on As Maine Goes are up in arms and chewing each other to pieces.
So, I stand by my comment and reject yours.
JD says:
>> "I see that you have been frequenting The Forecaster, or at least commenting here for a little over a day, almost two days now."
I rarely get involved in online discussions. I don't participate in Facespace or Mybook, for example, and rarely bother signing up for anything. I created an account here like the poster named "patrick.olson86" apparently did as a direct result of the vitriol that I saw dripping from the article. I decided to engage in a bit of reasoned discourse with those of you that are here rather than just moving on and letting the chips fall where they may as I would normally do. Consider it an attempt to turn a few lemons into lemonade.
>> "Ed Beem's columns frequently draw fire from those with opposing views, but nothing like the volume and intensity seen when Ron Paul is involved."
This is easy to explain. Since the media has repeatedly discounted Paul (often enough and in such similar ways across the multimedia landscape that it's beginning to seem intentional and somehow coordinated) (See, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZDoLTb41bo ) by:
--(a) refusing to mention him or only mentioning him in passing in major news articles and during aired news segments, even in cases where he is outperforming some or all of the other candidates within the context of the subject matter being written about or discussed at the time, and often refusing to discuss his successes when the same successes are discussed at length when achieved by the other candidates;
--(b) reordering lists to place his name at the bottom in direct contravention of logic and without any valid reason for doing so, assigning his vote totals to other candidates and theirs to him (seems like this only happens when it has the effect of moving his name down the list), failing to mention him when reading off lists even when he's not last on the list and thus without even minimal justification for doing so, leaving him off of lists entirely even in cases where he's outperforming those included, etc.;
--(c) frequently using camera angles that place him outside the frame for long periods (out of sight, out of the voters' minds?), only show a fraction of him, only show his competitors during group shots and during group shots from the side of the debate stage that would otherwise place him nearer and clearer to the camera and make him seem closer (approachable) to the observer in a psychological sense, take a more extreme visual angle with some of the cameras on the far opposite side of the debate stage which places his competitors nearer and clearer to the camera and makes him appear distant and fuzzy and thus seem distant (unapproachable) to the observer in a psychological sense. Note that these sorts of camera tricks don't seem to happen much, if at all, during "establishing" shots of the entire stage, especially immediately before and after intermissions. Similarly, I've seen many instances in which his picture wasn't included in lineups of the candidates and instances in which there was no section for him alongside sections devoted to the other candidates (in various multimedia contexts). In a four-pane graphic on a news channel recently, the pane that could have held a picture of him held a picture of Obama even though we haven't entered the general election yet and the segment was about the Republican primary;
--(d) discussing his competitors at length, and then breaking for commercial after teasing as though he might be discussed or after a guest randomly mentions him in the discussion, only to then go back to a discussion of his competitors or change the subject entirely upon return from the commercial break; this assumes he's even mentioned at all;
--(e) focusing primarily or only on his perceived negatives, dismissing his candidacy outright without basing the dismissal on anything, providing such a basis but then primarily or only repeating innuendo and assumptions (many of which have been debunked either before or after the fact when compared to Paul's platform, proposals, speeches, interviews, Congressional record, own actions, further commentary when asked about the subject(s) involved, etc.), or covering him in a seemingly balanced manner but using subtle or subtly overt (it's hard to do, but it can somehow be done) language throughout that paints him as a mere curiosity and has the effect of dismissing his candidacy (like saying "Ron Paul is America's crazy uncle" as Mr. Beem has, only in a FAR more roundabout way). (Note that some aspects of this item are reflected in the article we're commenting on.);
--(f) downplaying the significance of a poll, primary, or caucus when he looks like he might win, and then reversing course and talking about how meaningful the results are when it looks like another candidate might win (A pundit saying "I think Romney got a big boost tonight, especially after three consecutive losses. Romney's team has to be feeling good coming out of Maine, and this will likely slow or reverse Santorum's recent gains." would've probably said "Maine's non-binding straw poll, with dismally low participation in light of the number of registered voters in the state, doesn't really boost Paul in my view, although I'm sure plenty of his supports are happy tonight and will be putting much more emphasis on this minor plurality victory than it reasonably deserves for the foreseeable future. Paul's supporters are going to have to face the reality check that comes from considering the actual circumstances that were at play: Santorum and Gingrich chose to forgo the race entirely and Romney only campaigned at the eleventh hour in an attempt to avoid racking up a fourth consecutive loss. I think this reflects a general consensus among the frontrunners that none of them thought Maine was of much strategic importance in the race for the Republican nomination, and Paul's going to need a victory in a bigger or at least marginally contested state before anyone should take him seriously." had Paul taken the lead, assuming many pundits and "reporters" didn't simply forget Maine exists at all). The closeness of the Maine results and the hints of intrigue that have cropped up with respect to it are probably the only reason it's received even a blip of press coverage beyond the parts where Romney is given a pat on the back for not losing again;
--(g) minimizing his participation during debates, failing to allow him to answer questions that all of his competitors were given a shot at, failing to allow him an opportunity to follow-up or provide rebuttal when he is referred to by another candidate, primarily asking him loaded questions if and when he is questioned at all, failing to discuss his debate input in post-debate commentary, failing to even mention it when any of their focus groups/post-debate approval polls/whatever show any support for his message or even show that some people felt he "won" the debate, and most egregiously if true (I haven't witnessed it personally, but then I didn't watch repeats of the debates) some have said that some of his debate participation was edited out when watching the recorded version of one or more of the debates; and
--(h) doing all the above and then some, and in a feat of cyclical logic going on to point out his lack of a primary or caucus win thus far and any less-than-stellar opinion poll numbers they can find about him in an effort to justify repeating items a through g above, followed by a repeat of this item.
thus these circumstances have forced his supporters and those that are simply interested in or curious about his candidacy (ironically a curiosity that is often born when people notice what I describe above occurring and wonder why it's occurring) to compensate for bias against or less meaningful coverage about him (which are sometimes one and the same) by searching the internet for whatever material they can find about him, and in particular such people are looking for reports from more independent and often local media/opinion sources in the hopes that they might find less of what I describe above. This is why the intensity you cite often takes root around random Ron Paul articles. The intensity is often sparked off or magnified when visitors keep running across unbalanced coverage of Paul's candidacy, and particularly so whenever they run across anything like what I describe above.
>> "You might reply that this is because Ed went way overboard. But the observed phenomenon is not limited to Ed and The Forecaster, as evidenced by the disruptions and general brouhaha at some of the republican caucuses last week. Throw in the controversy over how the votes were 'counted' and the reactions of the Paul supporters, and my observations are verified."
I didn't end up taking that route as you can see, and I think the last section and the frequent goading it describes is also relevant to this portion of your comment as it serves to explain much of the underlying frustration Paul supporters are feeling. This frustration is probably made palpable when compounded by any further frustration Paul supporters may run across. They're also undoubtedly frustrated by the fact that in each of the caucus states one or more questionable events have happened during either the straw polls, the delegate selection processes, or both that appear to have sullied the legitimacy of the voting process (which is very important to our system of government); and this is undoubtedly more frustrating considering Paul has chosen to pursue a caucus-oriented strategy. While some of the "irregularities" involved are quite minor they can certainly add up fast and have a disproportionate impact on an underdog candidate that has staked his candidacy on the states involved.
JD says:
Many laws lack full descriptions of why they were put in place; whether for the sake of clarity, or because an understanding thereof is reasonably assumed. If that assumption no longer applies, you have to do your homework to understand the law. The U.S. Constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum for its stated language to be interpreted at will based on faulty memories and changing meanings of the language itself. The intent of the authors is as important as the words themselves, and in this day and age perhaps more so.
eabeem says:
Well, I can tell you one thing: the Founding Fathers never intended that individual liberties be extended to legal entites such as corporations. Any American who is not outraged at the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United is a damn fool unless they are white male CEOs. Everyone else is getting screwed by the lapdog of the rich Republicans. Mitt Romney is the poster child for what's wrong with this country -- a spoiled rich kid who profited by putting people out of work. He is a two-faced, self-serving bag of wind and anyone who doesn't realize it is also a damn fool.
IO says:
Wow, you really don't get it do you? I'd be willing to bet that you don't get quite a bit that goes on around you!
Your piece is indeed filled to the brim with YOUR OPINIONS. It would be nice however had you included some actual facts in your work. Allow me help you with this.
People love Ron Paul because he is the only candidate running who is running for the right reasons, his desire to repair and help this nation. His platform is truly comprehensive. You call him the "crazy uncle." I guess you think that you are now more intelligent than say Steve Forbes who supports Ron Pauls call to a sound currency? Or perhaps you dream that you are more informed than the Financial advisers to the Wall St. Journal who have recently claimed that Dr. Pauls 0% income tax is not only possible, but would be "the greatest job creating engine the world has ever seen." Ending the Federal reserve (in time) would ensure that future assemblies in Washington would have to work within their budget, as they would not be able to borrow the money that they so readily spend now, thus creating our national debt. As far as his foreign policy, I know you wouldn't dare claim to be more patriotic than the tens of thousands of our armed forces who support Dr. Paul on his foreign policies, which also work to improve our financial situation.
Keeping that in mind, is it any wonder why so many of us love Ron Paul? His entire platform makes sense! He's the only one talking about ways to restore our country. Securing Medicaid and Social Security for Grandma, and grandpa. You really should stop calling him any form of crazy! It's funny to me that so many want to do that, but don't pay attention to how many of the candidates now use Dr. Paul's ideas as their own. There is a reason for this! He is right, and the other candidates know it!
Your claims to him being a hypocrite are disturbing. Ron Paul is far from a hypocrite. Anyone who can stomache the Clintons, or Obama should be the last to speak here. Unlike so many politicians, he walks the walk. Routinely returning the unused portion of his congressional budget, Refusing to take part in the Congressional pension program, His impressive voting record spanning 30 years, and Refusing to take part in Medicaid or Medicare when he was a doctor and serving the those who could not afford care at reduced or no fee. How many clients did the Clintons and or Obama take on pro-bono????? How many politicians turn down taxpayer money in any way? No, Dr. Paul is no hypocrite, he is what other politicians should aspire to be, and what we as voters should demand from our public servants.
Your claims about Ron Paul's personal views are completely irrelevant! He has stated many times that he does not believe that the Federal government should be in control of these laws. I.E. Abortion, Drugs, prositution, smoking, ETC...
He despises abortion, and drug use, but he will not act to stop them as it is not the Federal governments place to do so. That would come under the States control in a RP presidency. Which quite frankly gives us all a little more control over what laws we have governing us. It's know as freedom!
Ron Paul 2012 -The only candidate running.-
IO says:
The only way Paul is marginalized is by small minded people like you who purposely go out and use your influence to spread lies and misinformation about him. Hello!
This is your reply to a well thought out retort.... "Well.... I don't like him because I'm too conceded to change my mind about anything." Dude, Please do this nation a big favor and pull your head out! Holy crap! Intelligence never threatens me, but ignorance always!
Oh, and by the way you might want to think about this. Stealing from one to give to another is a crime, Whether it is done on the street or in the halls of Congress. The founding fathers of this nation would be truly ashamed of your lack of intellect on this matter.
Ron Paul 2012 -No matter what this blowhard says!-
eabeem says:
I guess that's the problem I have with Libertarians and conservatives in general -- the crazy idea that taxation is theft. Taxes are the price we pay for a civil society. You and Crazzy Uncle Ron seem to think you're entitled to keep evfery penny you make, while more rational Americans understand that the only reason you are able to make a penny is because everyone is paying for the conditions that create civility and priosperity -- roads, defense, schools, etc. The Founding Fathers embedded taxation in the very Constitution you folks are so fond of quoting and misunderstanding. Sorry, no way Ron Paul ever gets elected. He's a cuckoo whether you can recognize it or not.
JD says:
The government is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. Taxes are only just where they are levied and appropriated to pay for necessary services, and become unjust theft where levied and appropriated for waste and corruption the examples of which are legion. We're paying for those roads, schools, the national defense, etc.; except incidentally roads are paid for primarily through the gas tax, which we send to Washington and receive only pennies on the dollar of in return; except incidentally schools are paid for primarily through property taxes (this varies a bit by state), but we also have a federal bureaucracy on top of this to dangle OUR money with strings attached and force schools to teach the way Washington demands irrespective of whether or not it's the right way (a system which subtly teaches conformity to our children instead of free thinking, where learning a host of random facts vies for primacy over learning the crucial critical thinking skills that allow a child to arrive at facts on his or her own). The national defense should be just that; not parading around the globe paying for other nations' defenses, protecting other nations' interests (particularly in cases where they're not exactly congruous with our own), sacrificing our boys so that other nations can avoid the need to sacrifice theirs, and itching for a fight with whatever crackpot dictator wanders into our sights next.
JD says:
Who told you Ron Paul is a marginal figure with no chance? The boob tube? The idiot box? Ever rationally considered that the media's marginalization of and derision toward him might have a part to play in his results at the ballot box? Ever wondered why short-term politicians, shady businessmen, soccer moms, etc. are afforded wall-to-wall coverage while a veteran and long-serving Congressman is dismissed outright? Ever wondered why many pundits said straw polls wouldn't matter if Ron Paul won, but when one of the other guys won it suddenly mattered? Is this the type of political system you truly support? I have a feeling it isn't.
eabeem says:
Paul's own words marginalize him. He wants to live in an America that is a figment of his imagination and that has never existed. He can wave the Liberty banner all he wants, but he doesn't know the first thing about freedom and what it takes to create and manage a free society.
Little Joe... says:
We must recapture what it means to be free. By this we need not all become policy wonks, waste our time studying the details of this or that political initiative or sector of life. We need to form a new approach to thinking about society and government, one that imagines that we can get along without such central management…
We need to become more tolerant of the imperfections that come with freedom and we need to give up the illusion that somehow putting government in charge of anything is going to improve its workings, much less bring on utopia…
We need to come to see government as it is, not as we wish it to be and not as the civics books describe it. And we need to surrender our attachments to government in every aspect of life. This goes for the right and the left. We need to give up our dependencies on the state, materially and spiritually. We should not look to the state to provide for us financially or psychologically…
Let us give up our longing for welfares, our love of wars and our desire to see the government control and shape our fellow citizens. Let us understand that; it’s far better to live in an imperfect world than it is to live in a despotic world ruled by people who lord it over us through force and intimidation…
We need a new understanding of what it means to be a great nation; it should mean, as George Washington said that our nation is a beacon unto the world not that we conquer the world militarily impose our will on everyone or even remain number one in the GDP rankings…
Our sense of what it means to be great must first be defined by Morality…
We must come to imagine Liberty again and believe that it can be a reality. In order to do this, we don’t need songs, slogans, rallies, programs or even a political party. All we need is access to good ideas, some degree of idealism and the courage to embrace the Liberty so many great people of the past have embraced…
Liberty built civilization. It can rebuild civilization. And when the tides turn and the culture again celebrates what it means to be free, our battle has been won. It could happen in our time. It might happen after we’re gone from this earth. But it will happen. Our job in this generation is to prepare the way…
JD says:
Community and cooperation should be rooted primarily in the community itself, though, no? Libertarians aren't anarchists (despite what you might think or hear) and believe government has many necessary functions, but there's also a strong belief that governance should be local to whatever extent possible to make government more accountable and more accessible to the governed (it's simply easier to go downtown, across the county, or across the state to directly engage in the political process; simply easier to pull a dinghy than to pull an ocean liner; even if you happen to live right there in D.C. you can't directly access the federal government unless you have access--whether in the form of a press pass or your name on a list of lobbyists--and there's no public hearings in D.C. except the ones where you have to be on the guest list to speak without being ejected or having the hearing closed to the public). There's also a strong belief that the national government should be efficient and focused as opposed to wasteful and involved in every (non-)issue without regard for its (in)significance. Of course, as with any ideology, there are varying opinions among libertarians on what the acceptable amount of government is, and varying opinions of the proper role of government at each level. It's intellectually dishonest, though, to use libertarianism's most extreme viewpoints as your argument against libertarian philosophies writ large; and it makes you no better than those that may engage in the same sort of intellectual dishonesty in order to discredit whatever strain of ideology you yourself identify with. It's like being miles away from shore, telling the person next to you that you're afraid to take a step in the direction of the ocean for fear of drowning, and actually believing that you might if you do.
All libertarians want to do is break the tit-for-tat back-and-forth one-upping cycle the two parties have devolved into, get back to talking about the issues (and start talking about issues that are perennially ignored or issues that are only given lip service when convenient) instead of constantly talking about things like candidates' hairstyles and constantly engaging in partisan bickering (you can see this reflected in Paul's style, where he tends to shrug off attempts to lure him away and tries to get back to the issues as quickly as possible). Maybe in the process we could all begin pulling things in a libertarian direction here and there, when and where people felt it was reasonable to do so. If those things happened it would be a good thing, wouldn't it? At minimum it wouldn't be the end of the world as some like to portray.
In the context of Ron Paul it's convenient how often the concept of him being President is dismissed as polarizing and prone to creating gridlock because he'd have to contend with a skeptical Congress in order to move forward with much of his agenda, but then practically in the same breath his policy positions are presented as though he can ram his budget through, write and pass all the legislation he wants without any hesitation as though Congress doesn't exist, and totally transform the nation into a libertarian vision of utopia; yet ineffectual gridlock and the ability to act as a dictator can't both be true. All that would happen is Paul would use whatever tools are available to the Executive branch to try and move in the direction of his platform, and he would consistently challenge the Congress to either start making tough decisions or get used to having to make the compromises necessary to override his vetoes. Hell, since many Republicans don't seem to care too much for him it might even be a novel way of promoting bipartisanship, in a very "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of way.
Edgar Allen Beem, Just stop writing articles you have clearly proven yourself to be a complete moron. Your facts are more like misrepresented and undereducated opinions that make no sense. Next time please considering editing your article before you post it as well "so you might thing" k and g are 4 keys apart. You are a complete idiot and should just quit at life.