XPost: alt.politics.socialism, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.media   
   From: iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit   
      
   "Erik D. Freeman"  wrote in message   
   news:Pine.SGI.4.58L9.0703300738250.1799808@alumni.umbc.edu...   
      
      
      
   > No one quite knows what to do about Congressman Ron Paul, Republican   
   > candidate for president.   
   >   
   > He refuses to play by the rules. He's a bigger supporter of the free   
   > market   
   > than anyone in Congress, but he's also the most consistent opponent of   
   > war.   
   > (That the conjunction of these positions - which amount to classical   
   > liberalism in a nutshell - should actually seem surprising or odd goes to   
   > show how perverse our political system has become.)   
   >   
   > Other than Dennis Kucinich, he is the only authentic antiwar candidate in   
   > either party. He has won so many awards from the National Taxpayers Union   
   > that he's probably lost count. CNET rated him the best out of all 435   
   > congressmen in the House of Representatives on issues relating to the   
   > Internet. There is no more reliable civil libertarian in Congress than Ron   
   > Paul.   
   >   
   > His conduct, moreover, is beyond reproach. Lobbyists don't even bother   
   > going   
   > to his office. If their scheme doesn't fall among the federal government's   
   > enumerated powers under the Constitution, they know perfectly well that   
   > there is no chance Ron Paul will support it.   
   >   
   > Paul's new book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, calls for the abandonment of   
   > hyper-interventionism and the restoration of a foreign policy of commerce   
   > and peace. Although more and more Americans polled agree that their   
   > government should mind its own business and try to scale back its   
   > impossible   
   > commitments - Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes of Columbia and Harvard,   
   > respectively, now say that their initial estimate of $2 trillion as the   
   > long-term cost of the Iraq war is too low - no one in politics other than   
   > Ron Paul will actually say such a thing, much less write a book about it.   
   > At   
   > last we have a choice, not an echo, as Phyllis Schlafly used to put it.   
   >   
   > Dr. Paul, an Ob/Gyn who has delivered 4,000 babies in his career, utterly   
   > defies the view of the world shared by right-wing blogs and talk radio, in   
   > which America is divided into "liberals" who oppose the Iraq war and   
   > conservatives who support it. (As I've shown in the past, "liberals" don't   
   > have a particularly stellar antiwar record over the past hundred years,   
   > and   
   > the "liberal media," including the Washington Post, the New York Times,   
   > and   
   > the cable news networks, overwhelmingly supported the Iraq war.) Ron   
   > Paul's   
   > candidacy is having the useful effect of showing people that their   
   > ideological choices are not limited to Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh. You   
   > can   
   > in fact be antiwar without being a leftist.   
   >   
   > At the same time, some on the left are giving Paul a respectful hearing,   
   > sensing that this is no ordinary politician. A writer for The Nation   
   > argued   
   > that "this Constitution-wielding contender, who voted against authorizing   
   > Bush to invade and occupy Iraq and has steadily opposed that war since its   
   > launch four years ago, would certainly make the GOP debates worth watching   
   > -   
   > and perhaps applauding."   
   >   
   > A writer for the Keene Free Press, who admits he doesn't "normally give   
   > Republicans much of a hearing," found himself in for a "pleasant surprise"   
   > at one of Paul's New Hampshire speeches. "His speech, like his candidacy,   
   > is   
   > refreshing. Paul seems to be genuinely authentic. He doesn't have the feel   
   > of a politician. His arguments are substantive, and his demeanor warm."   
   >   
   > For my part, I hope Paul decides to run. In a weak field, Paul is a true   
   > champion. America is at a critical crossroads. Our liberties have been   
   > trampled. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are in shambles. Our   
   > reputation has been tarnished internationally by decades of provocative   
   > foreign policy. Paul is the only candidate thus far who seems interested   
   > in   
   > reversing that trend. And for that, if he runs, he has my vote.   
   >   
   > An antiwar Republican who is also much sounder on other issues than they   
   > are - this is not exactly welcome news to neoconservatives. Not long ago,   
   > the neoconservative Pajamas Media featured a presidential poll on which   
   > Ron   
   > Paul kept winning. That wasn't the outcome they wanted, naturally, so they   
   > finally removed him from contention in order to make things come out   
   > right.   
   >   
   > Covering their tracks, Pajamas Media tried to claim that they wanted to   
   > feature only those candidates who registered at least one percent in   
   > national polls. When Ron Paul surpassed that figure, however, they still   
   > refused to include him, even though they have included people like Tommy   
   > Thompson who are at zero percent because they are not actually running for   
   > president.   
   >   
   > Paul did manage to make his way onto the Fox News Channel thanks to the   
   > entreaties of hundreds of viewers who wrote to the station demanding to   
   > know   
   > why the "fair and balanced" network had totally neglected the Paul   
   > candidacy. It was a short appearance on Fox News Live's "Because You   
   > Asked"   
   > feature, which features stories that viewers themselves have asked to be   
   > covered.   
   >   
   > Ron Paul has made numerous media appearances, from C-SPAN to Lou Dobbs,   
   > since and prior to the announcement of his candidacy. Still, the strategy   
   > thus far has been to ignore him to the extent possible. That approach   
   > cannot   
   > work in the long run, since for one thing the enthusiasm for Dr. Paul all   
   > over the Internet cannot be contained forever. For another, people are   
   > going   
   > to become curious about him when they watch, or hear reports about, the   
   > first Republican primary debate on May 3. They'll see a bunch of   
   > establishment hacks uttering platitudes devised for them by handlers and   
   > focus groups, and they'll see Ron Paul, who unlike his opponents is not   
   > only   
   > intelligent enough to write his own speeches, but who will also raise   
   > questions the other candidates would prefer not to discuss. He can pummel   
   > every single one of them on their lousy records on taxes, the   
   > Constitution,   
   > and war. Ron Paul is about to spoil the party. This will be like no other   
   > Republican primary debate in many, many years.   
   >   
   > Now that will get him noticed.   
   >   
   > Think of how much less interesting, indeed how downright intolerable, this   
   > election cycle would be without Ron Paul: a bunch of hacks and drones, not   
   > one of whom would make a single substantial change to Washington, D.C., if   
   > elected. Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani may as well drop the pretense   
   > and   
   > just run on the same ticket, for heaven's sake. And since they're part of   
   > the same racket, they both despise Ron Paul much more than they dislike   
   > each   
   > other - another excellent endorsement of Dr. Paul, of course.   
   >   
   > I've sometimes said that political discourse in America today consists of   
   > a   
   > three-by-five card from which no one is permitted to stray. The issues   
   > we're   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)