Archive for the ‘Ron Paul’ Category
Mark Levin’s exposition on Ron Paul’s odd alliance with Mitt Romney and lifelong hatred of conservatives
It’s clear Ron Paul has no intention of winning or even trying to win the GOP nomination. His sole role in the race is to do whatever he can to destroy the lead conservative alternative to Romney .
I’m not a libertarian. I’m a conservative constitutionalist. But I have a lot of sympathy for libertarians. Ron Paul is not a true libertarian. He’s an anarchist.
In fact, Ron Paul and Obama have a lot in common. Both these men really don’t like America very much. Paul’s mentor was Murray Rothbard — an anti-American anarchist. That’s where Ron Paul is coming from. These people don’t even like the Constitution. They favor the Articles of Confederation. They think Abraham Lincoln was evil.
That’s how outside the American tradition Ron Paul really is. As consevative constitutionalists, we should not try to appease him. We should not try to keep in the GOP. We should hope he leaves the GOP and bid him good riddance. He’s a poisonous and destructive force.
THINK PROGRESS: In recent days, attention has focused on the unusual relationship between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, who are purportedly competing against each other for the Republican presidential nomination. The New York Times reported recently that Romney has “worked to cultivate” a friendship with Paul. The candidates talk on the phone frequently. And when Paul’s “campaign jet broke down last year,” Romney “offered his jet to take them home to Texas.”
Rick Santorum has directly accused Paul and Romney of working together, noting “their commercials look a lot alike, and so do their attacks.” A review by ThinkProgress of the 20 GOP debates suggests Santorum might be onto something.
While Paul has freely attacked Romney’s top rivals, he has never once attacked Romney:
This is particularly striking given that Paul and Romney do not agree on virtually any policy positions.
Paul has gone beyond merely refraining from attacks. He has actively defended Romney on some of his biggest vulnerabilities. For example, when Rick Perry attacked Romney for “Romneycare” during an October 18 debate, Paul interjected:
First off, you know, the governor of Texas criticized the governor of Massachusetts for “Romneycare,” but he wrote a really fancy letter supporting “Hillarycare.” So we probably ought to ask him about that.
Paul has also run advertisements attacking Romney’s key rivals at critical times. He ran hundreds of thousands of dollars in brutally negative ads attacking Gingrich in Iowa. Paul now is using his scarce funds on a television ad attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, a key state where Paul is a non-factor.
Paul is effectively acting as Romney’s on-stage surrogate during the debates. The key question is: what is Paul getting out of it?
Have you noticed that Ron Paul never attacks Romney (ever), and Romney never attacks Ron Paul?
RUSH: Folks, I want to read to you an e-mail that I sent to some friends dated January 13th. Something took place on that day that caused me to have an epiphany. And I kept it to myself. When I got home that night and I started doing show prep for the program the following day. I composed a very brief e-mail, and here’s what I said. My brother was one of the recipients. He’ll confirm this on Twitter if any of you people doubt me. Snerdley is saying, “Just read it!” He-he-he-he.
I’m just beginning to see huge advantages to Romney if Ron Paul stays in. I can see Romney offering a plum to Ron Paul’s son (every father cares about such things.) I can see Romney offering a plum to Paul’s son and to not run third party to set his son up for the future. If you’ve noticed, Ron Paul never rips Romney, which I know Romney appreciates. In fact, Ron Paul joins the chorus of those defending Romney sometimes.
What I had detected, like an epiphany, all these debates I had never seen Ron Paul attack Romney, nor had I seen Romney attack Ron Paul. I saw Ron Paul attacking everybody else. And, of course, everybody else was attacking — well, not everybody did attack Ron Paul because he’s like the crazy uncle down in the basement. You smile when he opens his mouth, but the guy, folks, I must tell you here, Ron Paul is totally irresponsible when it comes to the subject of Iran and US foreign policy. This notion that we are responsible for Iran getting a nuke and that we can’t blame them because of what we’ve done? He almost sounds at times like Jeremiah Wright, America’s chickens have come home to roost. But Ron Paul is dangerous. They have a nuke because they feel threatened by us. I mean they’re state sponsors of terrorism for decades.
It’s dangerously irresponsible. And because he has the temperament of a lovable old uncle, people kind of wink and nod the other way. Nobody goes after him. But if you’ll notice, that’s not really the point. The point is that there is an alliance between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. This is what I have been remiss in not mentioning. So last night after the debate, I start doing show prep and I see all this stuff in the British press about Romney may be offering Rand Paul the vice presidency and I’m saying to myself, “I know I mentioned this in an e-mail to some of my friends.” I told my brother about it and went and found the e-mail, and that’s the one that I just read to you. (interruption) No, no, no. Look, don’t misunderstand. I’m just stating an obvious.
I’m not being critical here. I’m just pointing out something that is obvious. Romney is never criticized by Paul but Paul has criticized everybody else that has become the most popular not-Mitt of the moment. Last night it was Santorum. “You’re a fake.” Well, I mean this is really cool. Here you go making excuses for it. You did it but now you’re running for president, you wouldn’t do it.
RUSH: Back to the very beginning here: What is paramountly obvious now… And, by the way, if you are a Romney guy and a supporter, you’re thinking, “This is brilliant, a brilliant campaign tactic.”
Whether it’s true or not that there has been an actual meeting of the minds in conversations and strategy developed between the two guys, it is clear that there’s a hands-off policy between Paul to Romney and vice-versa. Paul does not attack Romney. Ron Paul attacks every one of Romney’s opponents; Romney doesn’t attack Paul. And so last night, we start seeing these stories in the British press. One of them, Toby Harnden, was that Ron Paul would be offered the veep slot. Then another one followed that and said maybe Rand Paul, and then Rand Paul put out a statement saying he would be honored to be Romney’s VP.
And that’s when I said, “Damn it! Damn it, I wrote that e-mail on the 13th of January. I saw this, I knew what was happening, and I didn’t say anything about it.”
This is important because it would mean that Mitt Romney has actually lost the last four contests. The Maine Caucuses were key to stablizing Mitt’s freefall.
I am not a supporter of Ron Paul because of his nutty foreign policy positions.
I do like his economic positions and his stance on the Federal Reserve. But, for me, Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions are disqualifying. We should not allow Iran to get nukes. We should take out the Iranian Navy if it attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz. I’m thrilled that Navy SEALs Team Six went into Pakistan and killed bin Laden.
But let’s take a look at some of the quotes from some of Ron Paul’s old newsletters (The Ron Paul Political Report) that are getting him into so much trouble with the political establishment.
Keep in mind that these are quotes from other writers, not Ron Paul. But they appeared in the Ron Paul Political Report two decades ago.
In reading over these quotes, some of them are clearly edgy. But I don’t find these quotes inherently racist. Some of the edgier ones appear to me to be poor attempts at humor. So let’s examine the actual quotes in question.
QUOTE #1: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” – 1992
MY COMMENT: You would have to see the context of this. This looks like humor to me. But for humor to work, there must be some truth behind it. There was a popular movie titled “White Men Can’t Jump.” The reason that’s funny is because there is some truth to that. Stereotypes become stereotypes because they are true — generally true. Blacks are generally better athletes than whites. Blacks are generally faster than whites. This does not mean all blacks are faster than all whites. It’s a general observation. And why would that be an insult? I’d love to be able to jump as high as Michael Jordon. I’d love the be able to run as fast as Usain Bolt.
Here’s a photo of the top three finishers of the 2008 Olympic 100 meter final:
So this is just an objective fact. Blacks are, in general, faster than whites.
QUOTE #2: “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” – 1992
MY COMMENT: This is a certainly a borderline statement. I don’t like it, but it is probably clumsy hyperbole to make two legitimate points: 1) That Washington, DC’s criminal justice system is not so good; and that 2) There is a serious crime problem among black males, especially young black males in America’s inner cities. According to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission (not a conservative agency):
- 49% of prison inmates nationally are African American, compared to their 13% share of the overall population.
- Nearly one in three (32%) black males in the age group 20-29 is under some form of criminal justice supervision on any given day — either in prison or jail, or on probation or parole.
- As of 1995, one in fourteen (7%) adult black males was incarcerated in prison or jail on any given day, representing a doubling of this rate from 1985. The 1995 figure for white males was 1%.
- A black male born in 1991 has a 29% chance of spending time in prison at some point in his life. The figure for white males is 4%, and for Hispanics, 16%.
Criminal justice experts say that only about one in four crimes are actually solved. I have been told by prosecutors that about 80 percent of black males in inner cities under the age of 50 have been in the criminal justice system for serious crimes such as robbery, drug trafficking, aggravated assault, murder.
So it’s a big problem. All social scientists and criminal justice experts agree that it’s a serious problem. It’s not a racial problem so much as a welfare state problem, which primarily targets inner city blacks and minorities. There was no special black crime problem before Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. So the problem is not blacks, it’s liberal welfare state policies that reward dysfunction. It’s just that inner city blacks were the primary “beneficiaries” of LBJ’s liberal welfare state.
Hence the dysfunction.
The quote in the Ron Paul Political Report is indelicately stated, but not inherently racist. The KKK is racist. Hitler was racist. This poorly worded, poorly researched, probably inaccurate statement by a writer for the Ron Paul Political Report back in 1992 does not qualify as racist. Stupid, yes. Bad writing, yes. Bad politics, yes — especially if you hope to win some black votes.
But not racist.
QUOTE #3: “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.” – 1992
MY COMMENT: The writer (not Ron Paul) certainly could have left the word “black” out of this statement. Surely, there are many big scary 13 year olds out there of all races. No doubt, Ron Paul should have been a more critical editor here. But keep in mind also that Ron Paul is all about freedom. He believes in freedom of speech and probably not micromanaging the writings of his writers. He probably should have micromanaged this a bit more, given that this publication has Ron Paul’s name on the masthead.
QUOTE #4: “What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?” – 1992
MY COMMENT: I see nothing racist in this statement (again, penned by someone other than Ron Paul). Provocative, yes. Racist, no. Ron Paul is best when he is talking about economics, not social science.
QUOTE #5: In analyzing the Los Angeles riots in 1992, the writer for the Ron Paul Political Report states that: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. … What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”
MY COMMENT: This is more of a commentary on the corrupt economic incentives of the welfare state than on race. It was blacks rioting over the Rodney King verdict, not whites. That’s just an objective fact. Not a great quote, for sure. If you pick through 30 years of someone’s newsletters, you’ll find some questionable stuff. Conversely, we have Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. Ron Paul probably should have told this writer to take his writings elsewhere. But Ron Paul is not a micromanager, which is what makes his libertarian philosophy attractive to so many who think our government is doing too much micromanaging of life. The problem, of course, is President of the USA is a management position. He needs to exercise tighter control over his communications.
QUOTE #6: An issue of the Ron Paul Political Report in 1990 describes Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.” – 1990
MY COMMENT: That Martin Luther King, Jr. was a world-class womanizer is a well-established fact. I had not read that he also liked young boys until now. So that’s a question of fact. Either it’s true, or not. As to the statement about the “evil of forced integration,” we know that Ron Paul is against government coercion unless absolutely necessary. Forced bussing did not work out well. “Freedom of association” is a Constitutional right, which implies “freedom of disassociation.”
Part of what makes America great is that it’s a melting pot. We’ve reached a point where the many races in America get along pretty well. Ron Paul’s point is that government should not force integration. It’s happening naturally anyway.
QUOTE #7: “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”
MY COMMENT: Shaquille O’Neal became a volunteer cop in Los Angeles to signal to the young black community in LA that the cops are the good guys and to discourage rioting and vandalism following championship victories by the LA Lakers. Shaq even paid out of his own pocket for a police car that was burned and blown up by a vandal “celebrating” a Lakers victory. So the quote is not great, but doesn’t signal much about Ron Paul either.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Ron Paul is all about rolling back government’s ever-expanding interference in our lives. Racial politics has been the battering ram that has justified much of government expansion and meddlesomeness. These indelicate quotes that have been culled from three decades of the Ron Paul Political Report (quotes by other writers) are really not the least bit alarming; and certainly are not evidence that Ron Paul is any kind of racist.
So these quotes are really much ado about nothing. If you’re alarmed by these, you should also be equally outraged by “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” “Trading Places,” and “White Men Can’t Jump” — all packed with racial humor and stereotypes.
What is far more troubling for me is Ron Paul’s stance on the Iran problem. Will he really just allow Iran to get nukes? Will he really just allow Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz?
But if you like Ron Paul, including his Looney Tunes foreign policy and defense views, I wouldn’t get too bent out of shape about his newsletter quotes.
I would certainly vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama. Their foreign policy and defense policy are about the same — equally bad. If Ron Paul were ever actually elected POTUS, reality would probably slap him upside the head and he would have to change his positions, as Obama has done on Gitmo, keeping the Patriot Act (actually expanding it), killing terrorists, etc. But Ron Paul wants to cut $1 TRILLION from the federal budget in the first year of his Administration and wants to balance the federal budget in three years. Put me down for that.
WASHINGTON EXAMINER: A new survey from pollster Scott Rasmussen shows support for Newt Gingrich in Iowa has fallen sharply in recent days. The poll shows the former House speaker with the support of 20 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers — down from 32 percent in the last Rasmussen survey released November 15.
Gingrich has now fallen into second place in the Iowa race, behind Mitt Romney, who is at 23 percent, up from 19 percent in the last Rasmussen survey.
The complete poll results are: Romney, 23 percent; Gingrich 20 percent; Ron Paul, 18 percent; Rick Perry 10 percent; Michele Bachmann, 9 percent; Rick Santorum, 6 percent; and Jon Huntsman, 5 percent. Ten percent of likely caucus-goers said they support some other candidate or are not sure how they will vote.
I’ve said many critical things about Ron Paul.
I disagree with some of his zanier foreign policy positions.
I don’t think 9-11 was partially our fault.
I’m not at all a fan of his anti-Israel bias. Israel is one of our best allies and we should stand with them against Islamic barbarism.
I do think we need to do what we can to stop terrorist attacks here. I’m not for dismantling TSA or Homeland Security which have done pretty good job of stopping terrorist attacks in America since 9-11.
I think it’s great that Navy SEALs Team Six went into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden.
Ron Paul, for some reason, had a problem with that.
I think it’s a huge problem if Iran gets nukes. Ron Paul, apparently, thinks that’s no big deal.
I don’t agree with Ron Paul that prostitution and drugs should be legalized.
But on the big issue that threatens America (our own government) Ron Paul is right on.
The U.S. government is now borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar it spends. The national debt is now $15 TRILLION and will be $25 TRILLION ten years from now, according to the most optimistic forecasts by the Obama Administration.
What brings down every successful empire — most notably the Roman and British Empires — is the cost of maintaining those empires.
We are not an empire, but we have vast and sprawling military commitments all around the world. We have more than 700 military installations in foreign lands.
If you count all aspects of our national security and defense infrastructure, we’re spending $1.2 TRILLION a year now on defense and national security.
That’s too much. We need to scale back — not because it isn’t great to have a military that is even ten times this size if we could afford it, but we can’t.
I’d love to have a military that’s ten times as big as we have now. But we can’t afford it. We can’t afford what we have now.
It’s time to scale back our military commitments.
I probably would not scale back as far as Ron Paul would, but it’s time we scale back.
We don’t need to spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined.
We could certainly do with a military and defense that is about half the size it is now.
On domestic spending issues, the role of government, the need to restore the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, ending the Fed, pegging the value of the dollar to gold, I’m 100 percent with Ron Paul.
Most people think the TARP bail out of the banks was a little under $800 BILLION.
Actually, the bank bailout was closer to $7 TRILLION (half the size of the U.S. economy) because the Fed just printed money and shoveled it over to the banks (supposedly loans) at a zero percent interest rate.
So the bank bail out was not a little under $800 BILLION (bad enough) but closer to $7 TRILLION.
That’s why you are paying so much for gas at the pump. It’s not so much that the price of oil has increased. The value of the dollar has been cut in half under Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.
When the Fed prints money, that devalues the dollars you have in your wallet or in your bank account.
It’s the same as theft.
If you printed money, you would go to jail for a very long time. But the government devalues the dollars you have in your bank account by printing new dollars all day long, by the TRILLIONS.
The price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.62 when Bush left office. It’s now $3.40.
So Ron Paul has a huge point here. He’s just about the only one talking about the scandal at the Fed. (Rick Perry’s been talking about it lately, thanks to the education he’s received from Ron Paul).
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich will not fundamentally change the general trajectory of the growth of government. They will tinker around the edges, and will certainly be better than Obama. But nothing fundamentally will change.
With Ron Paul, we have a chance (at least a chance) to have a real conversation about the proper role of government. What is it that government is supposed to do? Should there be any limits on government power?
We won’t have this discussion with a Mitt or Newt Presidency. We’ll be in a holding pattern with Newt and Mitt . . . until the Left regains power in a few years and ratchets the socialist agenda forward a few more notches.
But here’s another reason I’m leaning now toward Ron Paul.
Right now we really have two big government parties. Even Paul Ryan’s budget increases federal spending every year. We don’t get a balanced budget for ten years under the Ryan budget. Certainly, that beats the Obama budget that gives us a $25 TRILLION national debt ten years from now.
Ron Paul is at least willing to call a spade a spade. He’s the only candidate in the race who is actually saying we should scale the federal government back to Constitutional size.
If the federal government actually followed the Constitution, it would be about one-third the size it is now. Only Ron Paul is saying that — not Michele Bachmann, not Rick Santorum (both of whom I also like, but who just aren’t talking enough about the Constitution for me).
My view is that Ron Paul is the only one in the field who will change the trajectory of government growth.
He’s the only one in the field who is talking seriously about shrinking government.
The others are talking about limiting the growth of government. That’s just not acceptable.
The federal government needs to be smaller (by about two thirds) than it is now.