Is this the campaign strategy of your candidate? Yes, probably.
It would be nice and less destructive of our society if a candidate were to deflect questions about another candidate and say something like: ‘Yes, Candidate X and I see things differently. I’m not interested is rehashing his plan. Let’s talk about mine. Here’s the specifics and here is the math.’
Number 1 campaign strategy of 2012 election.
Filed under Civil Society, Politics
There is a very interesting new Ron Paul RevolutionPAC advertisement that focuses on foreign policy.
One premise of the Ron Paul campaign has been that many of our woes around the world are self-inflicted. I would agree, although I am not in complete harmony on this.
Below is Ron Paul’s new RevolutionPAC foreign policy ad. (The ad is not by the Ron Paul campaign itself, but by his supporting PAC. I know: hamburger, cheeseburger. Not much difference.)
The theme from Ron Paul’s ad is not new. It is a thread of thought that has been with us a long time now.
In 1984 there was a Patrick Swayze movie called Red Dawn. The movie didn’t explain what happened to cause foreign troops to be stationed on U.S. soil but the rest of the movie makes for a feature length story of Ron Paul’s new foreign policy ad.
Movie - Red Dawn - 1984
Thanks to Al Alborn for bringing the Ron Paul ad to my attention.
DISCLAIMER: I support the core thesis of this advertisement. On the other hand I consider America to be an empire. Empires have a choice: stay involved or become one of the players that have to play by the rules rather than make up the rules. It isn’t a perfect world.
Filed under Afghanistan, Election 2012, Libertarianism, Philosophy, Texas, War
Survey sez that Huntsman is surging in New Hampshire with just three days to go before the election.
Will it matter?
Jon Huntsman 2012
Filed under Election 2012, Elections, Politics, Republican Party
Santorum is always quick to reach for the mantle of Reagan, and to paint himself as a modern day successor.
Reagan was of many strong opinions but he did not try to impose his social beliefs on Americans. Reagan openly embraced his libertarian streak.
”I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I don’t think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution’s all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is.”
—Rick Santorum“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism . . . The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
—Ronald Reagan
It is also good to know that one constitutionalist readily recognizes another. Not only do we have issues identifying real conservatives and real Republicans but the different constitutional fanclubs don’t seem to recognize the realness of the fandom on one another.
Thanks to Aaron Alghawi for sharing these quotes.
Filed under Election 2012, Libertarianism
Romney squeaked/eked out/slid into the winning spot in Iowa by a whopping 8 votes.
Not able to pull off a real win in an uberconservative state, all the true conservative Romney haters are getting their story ready that the GOP will lose in 2012 because of Romney.
Romney provides conservatives with a ready made stabbed-in-the-back excuse for not winning in 2012.
The problem is that the right can’t put forward anyone capable of presenting a winning story and getting votes because of it. Even if Santorum had managed to absorb more of the Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich votes it would have amounted to less than half of Iowan caucus voters. Shabby times in conservativeville.
The other two candidates that also won in Iowa were Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.
Rick Santorum is now the default darling of the crony capitalism ‘our next war is in Iran in 24 months’ far right and Ron Paul is largely the polar opposite of Santorum, with Paul appealing to a youth-fueled and old codger alliance of very independent minded supporters that want less debt, less war and more guarantees on their personal freedoms.
With Iowa over, the GOP’s new Holy Trinity of flip-flop, tin foil, and far right wander off to We Ain’t Iowa to see if the party continues for them in New Hampshire.
Filed under Uncategorized
Disclaimer: Was not an Obama voter in 2008 and don’t expect to be an Obama voter in 2012. Stretching the truth is occasionally OK but I strongly dislike BIG lies. I’m on the side of the red, white and blue. BIG LIES only destroy us all as Americans.
The following graphic was busy floating around the internet during late December 2011.
Alleged National Debt from George Washington to Barack Obama
I hate to be Mr. Grinch Fact Checker but this chart is VERY wrong.
This chart is not even close to being just misleading. This chart is so wrong that it wins my award of The BIG Lie.
The actual national debt in January 2009 when President Obama took office was $11,909,829,003,511.75 (Jan 30, 2009) per the U.S. Treasury … which is about $5.6 trillion more than the $6.3 trillion pre-Obama total debt claimed.
This chart is also wrong on several other levels.
For this chart to be accurate, actual national debt over time should be expressed as a cumulative. These numbers do not even begin to show total cumulative national debt.
For example, the total cumulative national debt racked up just under President George W. Bush (Jan 2001-Jan 2009) was $6.1 trillion dollars. Keeping that number in mind, according to this chart all presidents before George W. Bush created a total national debt of just $200 billion. This chart is obviously nowhere near reality.
Note: For comparison, after eight years of President Clinton debt increased $1.5 trillion vs $6.1 trillion under eight years of President Bush.
What this chart really portrays is that reality doesn’t matter … and as for fact checking: that’s for losers. It is all about winning. Politics is a contact sport don’t you know?!
Source for all numbers: U.S. Treasury http://tinyurl.com/3xjc7y — the Treasury provides a history of all national debt numbers so don’t trust me – go do a fact check yourself.
Filed under Deficit Spending, Economics, National Debt
“Ron Paul, for all his faults, is the only Republican who gives a damn about civil liberties and isn’t a neocon warmonger.”
– Bruce Barlett, 2011.12.23
Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan economics guru, 2008 Obama voter, and Ron Paul critic … that Bruce Bartlett.
I accept that Ron Paul will never be able to explain racist comments which appeared in some of his newsletters.
Racism is unacceptable to me. I reject all things racist. However, when I look at the 2012 election options: choices are slim — and that includes whether to vote for President Obama.
For now I will continue to support Ron Paul. He has 30 years of actual votes to consider. Maybe he has some darkness in his heart but when it comes time to vote he is one of the few to vote for liberty for all and to demand actual transparency in our government. … I would vote Huntsman given the chance but he will never appear on my ballot in Virginia so for now I will continue to support our crazy ol’uncle Ron Paul.
Politics makes for strangeness in life.
I am an idealist at heart but we need to admit that idealism doesn’t pay bills, protect your civil rights, guarantee balanced budgets, or prevent wars.
We need to move beyond voting for people that say that would do X, Y and Z given the chance. Inevitably most, once elected, vote the party line or flip due to some ‘new perspective’.
New perspective is good but when has President Obama ever had the backbone to use a veto when he threatened it? And when has he led from the front battlelines of an issue rather than at the 11th hour once the poll results are in?
As for Republicans, may God save us.
Gingrich would be darkness with a grandfatherly face. He would challenge the power of the courts to enforce laws, he would/has shutdown the government to make his point-of-the-day, and he is beholden to those that support him with contributions of hundreds of thousands or recently even a $20,000,000 contribution. Please don’t tell me that Gingrich is the answer. I will vote Obama first.
Perry. Am not voting Perry.
Santorum and Bachman – see Perry. All are social conservatives. If fear of racism is a qualifier for whom you vote then race-based policies are more likely to come from social conservatives than libertarians. Am not accusing any of racism, but since I am discussing Ron Paul and the prospect that racism is the boogeyman that we should fear in 2012, well my thoughts are as stated above.
John Huntsman – yes, could vote for him. He will not appear on Virginia’s state ballot so my remaining option is Romney.
Romney – I could possibly vote Romney but that is not a guarantee. Romney was generally a good governor of Massachusetts but he has repudiated much of what he achieved or previously believed. He is a serial flipflopper. Romney is an opportunist — although a good hearted opportunist. He means well. Yet Romney will veer significantly towards the right if that will get him votes. And he will veer back to the center too if that is where the electorate resides. I like the center, but I don’t like pandering veerers.
Ron Paul – while he is accused of having made racist commentary in his newsletters, he is one of the few to have voted against almost every law restricting our rights and freedoms. He did so when only several others in his party had to guts to vote for freedom in the face of fear after 9/11. He has been willing to buck his party on so many occasions that his American Conservative Union (ACU) rankings in the mid-2000s were so low that he qualified as one of the most liberal congressmen in the Republican party. Yes, he is America’s crazy ol’uncle. He says sometimes the most astounding, and upon repeated occasions, maybe even embarrassing things. But his heart is good and his proven action in voting has been predictable and for the greater good.
So yes, I continue to support Ron Paul in 2012. I do so somewhat contradictory to many of my ideals. But politics is about more than ideals. It is about working with the cards that you’ve been dealt.
2012 is a year of really, extremely bad choices. So my bad choice is Ron Paul … for now.
Filed under Uncategorized
An Open Letter to Ron Paul: It is time to discuss a few sacred cows … in public … one is named Lew Rockwell
I am a Ron Paul supporter.
Ron Paul is not a perfect person nor does he have all the answers. I disagree with him on many issues — easy to do when you (myself) are a Keynesian and a believer that America is essentially an empire and the person that you support for the presidency is a libertarian Austian Economics fan and a believer in that we should contract our empire.
Being a Ron Paul supporter doesn’t mean that I am happy with his explanation about his previously published newsletters. They have become a campaign issue and they should be. They represent legitimate questions that need a good answer.
Best regards,
Bill Golden
Bill4DogCatcher.com
Dear Ron Paul,
It is time to out a few sacred cows … in public … one is named Lew Rockwell.
This should have been done some time ago. Perhaps pride or unwillingness got in the way — certainly it would upset a core element of your support base if you caused a fellow Austrian economist to fall from grace.
You need to do this. Now.
You need to do more than take responsibility for allowing things to happen on your watch. You need to identify the actual writers of this controversial matter from your newsletters.
It is not like your and Lew Rockwell’s former association was a secret, or that you both have long since taken different paths.
Bottomline: Walking away from a live CNN interview doesn’t look good. It makes it look like you have something to hide. In a way you do. You thought that you took care of it in your own way and that history became ancient history. That is not the case.
You are being accused of being a racist. I don’t believe it to be true, and neither do many others.
However, various hateful and seemingly hateful things were written with your name at the head of a political newsletter. You need to put this issue to rest immediately and with your characteristic bottom line honestly. Hedging your bets that you survive as a presidential candidate without doing this is not a very safe bet.
The public will get the chance to read those newsletters. Your fellow Republican candidates will make sure of that, as will the Obama campaign.
Your public statement and honesty on this issue is essential.
It is also essential that you be willing to out a few sacred cows within your support base.
It is an open secret within the libertarian and conservative community that your newsletter editor was probably responsible for what got written and published. You did not do due diligence in being the ‘publisher’ of record, although once it came to your attention what was happening the newsletter was deepsixed.
You need to discuss Lew Rockwell and his role with your newsletter.
Your former chief of staff, John Robbins, has been urging Lew Rockwell to step forward since the mid-1990s and to take due credit for what was published under your name. Lew Rockwell, who was also your congressional chief of staff from 1978-1982 and preceded Robbins, has denied any and all responsibility. This is either so or it is not.
Here is the problem: Your newsletter only had two editors officially — you and Rockwell. Someone is responsible. Someone needs to be held responsible.
Lew Rockwell — I realize that for you to out Lew Rockwell, if he is indeed responsible, is the equivalent of taking on one of the largest icons in the libertarian and Austrian economic movements. And there are possibly 4-5 other icons in those movements as well.
Dr. Paul — it is your move.
You are ultimately responsible for what was written in your name. You cannot however just walk away from interviews on the subject. You can’t without killing your presidential bid.
For now I will let your former chief of staff, John Robbins, speak for you but this is something that you need to do yourself.
Robbin’s letter itself has generated much debate in the past with Lew Rockwell having his own army of supporters.
Best regards,
Bill Golden
Bill4DogCatcher.com
Open Letter To Lew Rockwell – From John Robbins
Dear Lew,
You have now had three opportunities – 1996, 2001, and 2008 — to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time.
This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron’s newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands.
Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable.
If you were Dr. Paul’s friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron’s message.
You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it’s time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.
John Robbins, Ph.D.
Chief of Staff
Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985
Filed under Libertarianism, Republican Party
Edward Luce is the Washington bureau chief of the Financial Times, London.
The US labor market may never fully recover, recently wrote Edward Luce, who lives in the numbers and tracks them.
So what does ‘may never fully recover’ mean? It means simply that despite any actual economic growth in dollar value there is little reason for the number of jobs to actually grow in the foreseeable future.
Due in part to the duration of the Great Recession, our economy has adjusted to function without the need to rehire those that lost jobs. Please consider that consumer spending has returned to pre-recession levels since November 2010. Yet, here we are a year later with consumer spending now greater ($9.4T) than June 2007 ($9.2T) when the recession started and more are unemployed today than at the depth of the recession — despite supposedly improving unemployment numbers.
In perspective, 64.4% of Americans had jobs in January 2011. Six months after the 2007 recession began, 62.9% of Americans had jobs. Employment dropped but still stayed about 60% until March 2009 with 59.9% unemployed at the very depth of massive job losses. Yet more than two and a half years later in November 2011 just 58.5% of Americans have jobs DESPITE 14 months of supposed jobs growth and continuous growth in consumer spending.
A common mantra has been that the jobs would come back when people started spending again. Hello! They’ve been spending for a year and the actual number of Americans employed has continued to drop.
Bottomline: The marketplace has achieved efficiencies in labor usage and costs that represents a trend for our future. It is a trend that may be able to decrease the need for labor well above our population growth for the next decade or more.
Edward Luce goes on to note:
“If there is an explanation as to why middle-class incomes have stagnated in the past generation, this is it: whatever jobs the US is able to create are in the least efficient sectors – the types that neither computers nor China have yet found a way of eliminating. That trend is starting to lap at the feet of more highly educated American workers. And, as the shift continues, higher-paying jobs are also increasingly at risk … What, then, can be done to revitalise the increasingly sclerotic jobs market? If the answer were simple, it would have been on everyone’s lips a long time ago. Unfortunately, there is no precedent for the challenges America faces, and thus little consensus among economists or policymakers on the best remedies. However, almost everyone agrees on how to ensure the situation does not deteriorate.”
Bill4DogCatcher.com sez: it is time to think about how to create your own job in your own community with skills and services and products that your neighbors need. It is in someways time to return to a community-centric view of the world.
Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville, or known to most Americans as just Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote Democracy in America (1835) after his travels in the United States.
de Tocqueville saw democracy as an equation that balanced liberty and equality, concern for the individual as well as the community.
How many of the quotes below from de Tocqueville’s early 1830′s observations about America and Americans still represent our country today?
“The whole life of an American is passed like a game of chance, a revolutionary crisis, or a battle.”
“What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class.”
“No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.”
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
“As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?”
“The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.”
“The debates of that great assembly are frequently vague and perplexed, seeming to be dragged rather than to march, to the intended goal. Something of this sort must, I think, always happen in public democratic assemblies.”
“The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through.”
“The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”
“There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.”
“The main business of religions is to purify, control, and restrain that excessive and exclusive taste for well-being which men acquire in times of equality.”
“There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.”
“There is hardly a pioneer’s hut which does not contain a few odd volumes of Shakespeare. I remember reading the feudal drama of Henry V for the first time in a log cabin.”
“I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.”
“A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.”
“Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”
“I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all.”
“In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.”
“In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.”
“In politics shared hatreds are almost always the basis of friendships.”
You can download Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America from Google Books for free.
Filed under American History, Democratic Party, Politics, Republican Party
