Skip to main content

New Hampshire Primaries

By C. M. Barons

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/30/the_excommunication_of_ron_paul/?source=newsletter

 

I was in New Hampshire, yesterday, to purchase an item from a Northwood Antique shop. Judging from the lawn signs, Romney is in the lead, Paul is a close second, and Newt, dead heat with Perry as also-rans. The rest of the pack records a no-show. Virtually every intersection from the state line- east to Concord is adorned with political signs. Romney (a fellow New-Englander) would be a natural favorite, and signage confirms this. Far and wide, the Romney signs attest in size and number to a Romney supremacy. Ron Paul, however, seems the most likely spoiler to a Romney shoe-in. Newtie and sub-par Perry amount to contrary decoration. Bachman, Huntsman and Santorum either have no fans or haven't shipped a supply of signs.

Dave Olsen

Thanks, Chris for the "man on the street" report. I love New England except for their NFL and baseball teams. The interesting thing about the Ron Paul signs are: if you want one, typically you have to buy it. Romney et al will buy 'em and stick 'em wherever. Think about it, if you woke up on the day after the election and found out Obama will be around 4 more years or Romney, Newtie,or fill in the blank will be taking office would you be any where near as excited or at least curious than if Ron Paul was the President-elect?

Dec 31, 2011, 11:00pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

I guess "excited" would be the emotion. Knowing my beloved country was going to be controlled by a guy without a clue about our place in the world would make me excited. Although kowing that most of the country went off the deep end would bring on other emotions.

Jan 1, 2012, 9:45am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

The people without a clue about our place in the world: Obama, Mitt, Newt, et. al.

The one person with a clue: Ron Paul. The only candidate among the leaders with a sane stance on foreign policy: Ron Paul.

Jan 1, 2012, 9:52am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Uh Charlie, the President doesn't and shouldn't control the nation. The executive has so much power nowadays only because we allow it. President Ron Paul has pledged to reduce the power of the executive and demand the Congress follow the US Constitution. I'm sure they'll fight that, but getting this nation back to the rule of our original set of rules should be exciting.

To echo Howard, we currently have a President who doesn't have a clue as to our place in the world. I'd like some actual change.

Jan 1, 2012, 10:03am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Not sure why a guy who's policy on everything ( foreign and domestic) is to leave the tough decision to someone else, is considered a leader. It all works in a speech but, it can't fly on the ground in the real world.

Paul would just let Iran close off the straights and the oil supply to the world. Paul would do nothing. What would that mean on the ground?

Jan 1, 2012, 10:11am Permalink
Dave Olsen

The Persian gulf isn't the only place to buy oil. How long do you think the Saudis and UAE would let that go on? It's their product which would be prevented from going to market. Time and time again "We are not the world police" Besides if we attack Iran over oil, doesn't that just prove what they've been saying all along, that we intervene in the Middle East only because of oil?

Jan 1, 2012, 10:42am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

What I'm telling you is that the freedom of the sea is worth fighting for and it is in our national interest. What do you think the impact would be if there was no one willing to keep this worlds sea lanes open? If everyone buried their head in the sand? I know this isn't a simplistic concept but, what would the worlds economy look like a few years after Paul took over?

Jan 1, 2012, 11:37am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Of course I don't know the answer to what will the future hold.

I believe in open sea lanes and if American ships are attacked in international waters, the US Navy should protect them. Again, it is my belief that were a country like Iran (or any other) attempt to close a shipping lane, it'll be met with pushback from the countries most effected. A hands off foreign policy, doesn't mean we'd be weak, it just means we'd be less interventionist. If we stop intervening, I believe other countries will begin policing their own neighborhoods.

As to the world economy, under Pres. Paul's administrative plan, http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html
the US Government will tax it's people less and it's business community less. That means more American dollars in circulation. The money will also be stable due to getting us back to solid value of the dollar. Cutting off trade agreements and trade embargoes and allowing Americans to do business with whomever they please will benefit everyone around the world.

Anyway, it's football time, and I gotta go. Charlie I wish you a happy and prosperous New Year. Go Bills

Jan 1, 2012, 12:13pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

"leave the tough decision to someone else"

Is bullshit spin, and you know it.

Changing a candidate's positions into a straw man is political hackery meant to stifle debate over legitimate issues for which the other candidates have no answers or stupid answers.

The only sane foreign policy being espoused on the national stage these days is the one put forth by Paul and his fellow independent thinkers.

Paul is also the only candidate serious about cutting domestic spending.

If we don't reign in government soon, there will be no nation worth fighting for within a generation.

Jan 1, 2012, 1:01pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Howard, leaving the tough choices to our weaker allies in that region, to go it alone isnt a policy. Its hiding your head in the sand hoping the bad men will be nice. That is exactly Paul's position on Iran and that is exactly what his supporters refuse to face. Ask yourself how much will it cost for the countries of that region to transport oil to Europe? What would it cost to appease a nuclear Iran with control over their waterways? Those are big boy questions that Paul can't answer from under the kitchen table in the White House.

Our economy is tied to Europe, that's the root of the current economic crisis. They go under so, do we. Paul sounds good till you scratch the surface. He's angry but, an angry man never solved a real problem in the world.

Jan 1, 2012, 1:39pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

There's nothing angry about Paul. He sees what's wrong and has a real solution to fix it. That's a positive message, not an angry message.

There's no "leaving tough decisions." There's no decision to be made. We have no business being the world's policeman, we have no business building and maintaining Empire.

Only little boys want to make war in the Middle East. Mature men don't stick their noses in other people's business.

There are far bigger issues than how Europe gets oil, starting with our own problems at home and the mere survival of this country. But you don't seem to get that. Your tendency is to love you some big government, and Paul threatens that. We can't stay the course -- which is all the other candidates want to do -- and survive as a nation. Government must shrink, spending must be cut, we need to tend our own garden and take care of business at home before embarking on more foreign adventures.

Jan 1, 2012, 1:51pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

The world isn't a single player game. World affairs is complicated and Paul can't comprehend it. The fact is Perry, Gingrich and Mitt are alternates, Paul is a tragedy.

Jan 1, 2012, 2:12pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

John, I forgot you shouldn't have an opinion on world affairs if your not in the military. Just like you should have an opinion on government spending if you are retired and don't pay taxes any taxes anymore. Right, John?

My dad retired from the Navy last year. I got all my crazy ideas about our responsibility for sea lanes from him and most of the men in my family who all served in the Navy.

Jan 1, 2012, 2:52pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

The president has not the power to declare war. Declaring war is clearly a power reserved to Congress. If assumed executive privilege were not allowed, we likely would have been spared the human and capital expense of numerous (wars, police actions, desert operations, domino games, allied interventions, treaty obligations, Monroe Doctrine, Iran Contra, et al). One would have seen a world less aggravated by constant meddling. We'll never know... Imagine if we hadn't armed the world's squabblers? ...The CIA hadn't provided international security agencies with a torture manual? ...Johnson hadn't embellished an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin? Lies promoted the War of 1812, Mexican - American War, the Civil War, the Spanish - American War, likely every U. S. war including the great WMD canard! Exhaustive evidence to restrain future Commander in Chiefs.

Jan 1, 2012, 3:50pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

The fact that Paul is a non-interventionist is proof positive he understands world affairs far better than any of the other candidates.

Enough of the war mongers, please.

It takes real courage to put our national interest ahead of our national ego.

Jan 1, 2012, 3:59pm Permalink
John Roach

CM,
With the most recent example being Obama bombing Libya.
At this time, only Ron Paul has insisted on Congress taking back that right. None of the other candidates have.

Jan 1, 2012, 4:03pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Sorry, I'm not among the 12% who think that Congress is even able to control their bladders. Incompetent buffoons, one and all. Playing politics and taking their PAC money is the only task that group is up too. You can't seriously want to put our future in that groups hands. Who else can make decisions for President Paul since he is incapable and unwilling to lead?

Jan 1, 2012, 5:45pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Charlie, I will not dispute your assessment of congressional integrity. I will only remind you that the same voters that sanction members of congress also sanction the president. Frankly, we voters invested in their inferiority. The whole political system is upside down; the electorate should choose candidates- NOT the party bosses, NOT the media, NOT the corporate money machine and certainly NOT special interest groups. I don't know how one inverts the pyramid of power, but it is long overdue. It doesn't help that our highest justice court granted person-hood to corporations and construed political contributions with speech. Both decisions further disenfranchise We the People. So much for the Age of Aquarius!

Jan 1, 2012, 6:52pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Uh, I really wouldn't want a guy who talks about race wars and a 'federal homosexual coverup on AIDS' to be President. I also think that his foreign policy positions are not realistic and are stuck in a previous era, we cannot withdraw from NATO and the UN, an international world requires a President who will think in terms of our interests across the globe and not naively believe that the oceans will protect us. I don't believe in military intervention at the first opportunity either, but I do not think that the constant fear of blowback should prevent us from acting on the worlds stage as a defender of basic human principals and our own security, including diplomatic action and military action only when needed, which Congressman Paul is not in favor of (sanctions, participation in international organizations, alliances with like-minded governments).

Jan 2, 2012, 1:20am Permalink
Daniel Jones

Howard - Non-interventionism is a theory that has no basis in actually working to prevent wars in the modern world, our engagement in non-interventionism towards Japan in the '30s did not prevent Pearl Harbor from occurring. Just because George Washington did things a certain way hundreds of years ago doesn't mean we should do things the exact same way now. It's a different world and a different time. We need to be more actively engaged with the rest of the world, not less.

Jan 2, 2012, 1:24am Permalink
Daniel Jones

Also, the notion that the Presidency has become imperial is ridiculous, it's become a Presidency in a modern world. The President as the Commander in Chief should have broad military powers with the limitation of Congressional action, or else his capacity to lead will be questioned by the rest of the world. Congress has the right to pass bills and overrule the President's veto if they do not approve of the military actions the President is taking, they also have control of funding dependent on the President's signature or their, again, override of the President's veto. I'm voting for a leader not a doctrinaire. America needs more pragmatism and not strict ideological adherence.

Jan 2, 2012, 1:28am Permalink
John Roach

Dan,
What purpose does NATO serve now? For that matter, what use is the UN anymore? It has shown itself to be useless. The UN has not stopped or ended wars, it's military sponsored forces in Africa have been guilty of abuse and has failed in most peace keeping duties where the US is not present.

As for intervention, we just are not that good; we win the war, but we never leave. We have troops stationed in the Sinai desert, why? Bill Clinton promised we would not stay in the Balkans, but we are still there, why? We have troops in the Horn of Africa, why? Why are we still in Korea after more than 60 years? They should be able to defend themselves by now, as should Japan. And you take money from China to pay for all this.

Jan 2, 2012, 6:38am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Dan, Pearl Harbor happened PRECISELY because of our imperialist and interventionist policies.

The US had imperial ambitions in the Pacific Rim going back to Teddy Roosevelt.

Even before that, the U.S. used its military force to demand that Japan open its ports to American merchant ships, even though Japan preferred to be left alone (that was in 1853).

Japan also developed their own imperial ambitions in the early 20th Century, and to thwart them -- particularly expansion into China -- the U.S. imposed severe trade sanctions, further provoking the Japanese.

If the U.S. had not been meddling in Pacific Rim affairs for the 90 years prior to Pearl Harbor, there would have been no Pearl Harbor. Further, an Imperial Japan was a result of imperial posturing by the US, Great Britain and Russia. War with Japan was very much a result of interventionist policies.

Jan 2, 2012, 8:56am Permalink
bud prevost

Why have seperate nations of the world if we are one big global economy? As long as it's the United States of America, and not the United Nations of the World, we had ought focus on domestic issues, homeland security, and improving our citizen's morale. Let the rest of the world alone, and focus on us and our neighbors north and south.

Jan 2, 2012, 9:04am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Paul passed how many bills in Congress during his time in office, was it one? The man is an isolationist, that has no ability to work with anyone. What Paul really needs is beard and a cabin deep in the woods so, he can finish his manifesto.

Jan 2, 2012, 9:43am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

"Paul passed how many bills in Congress during his time in office, was it one?"

And I care because?

We're not hiring a president to be a legislator. We're hiring him to be an executive who can set a new direction for the country, and only Paul has a vision for what ails the country and how to fix it.

Charlie, it's fine that you are happy with the status quo and want to keep the country going in the same failed direction its been heading, but that's not good enough for me. I happen to love freedom and prosperity. I want to see both restored.

It's telling that your only line of attack is irrational ad hominem misrepresentations.

Jan 2, 2012, 9:55am Permalink
John Roach

Charlie,
Paul has passed almost none, just like Obama in his almost no time in Congress. So, if you consider Obama's Senate record as a plus, then Paul gets the same. And I have not seen Obama being able to work with too many either. But maybe that's a plus.

You can make an honest argument over Paul's isolationist policy, but Obama proves lack of legislative accomplishments in Congress is not a negative for being elected.

Jan 2, 2012, 9:58am Permalink
bud prevost

Charlie, is there a difference between an "isolationist" and a "protectionist"? If not, I prefer the latter term. (happy new year to you,btw)

Jan 2, 2012, 10:03am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Protectionist would refer to trade policy.

Isolationist would be somebody who wants to withdraw completely from world affairs.

A non-interventionist is not necessarily either a protectionist nor a isolationist. A non-interventionist merely believes the US shouldn't meddle in the affairs of other countries.

Foreign policy courtesy Hank Williams:

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGBq-Vy78nc]

Jan 2, 2012, 10:28am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bud, Happy New Year!

I care about a candidates ability to legislate because of Obama's lack of the same skill. Just like I care about a candidates ability to read because, Bush couldn't do that. We don't need another flawed candidate. If this next guy is supposed to solve all our problems, lets make sure he has his own problems licked first. Paul is nothing but flawed. He also has no plans besides chucking responsibilities of the job onto someone else. I can't ever bear to watch the guy speak for more than a few minutes. Thank god he was on Fox last night, I was out like a light after listening to him for 10 minutes.

Jan 2, 2012, 10:33am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Howard, I guess that if you believe the world is flat or unconnected there is a difference between a non-interventionist or an isolationist. Guess what, it's not. The world has a delicate balance, our country, like it or not provides that balance and it directly benefits us. If you believe that world turmoil will not affect us, that's just crazy Paul talk.

Jan 2, 2012, 10:39am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Charlie, noone is saying that Ron Paul will solve all of our problems. Nobody can do that. It took us over 100 years to get into this condition, it'll take more than 4 or 8 years to get out of it. Plus as you say, the world is an ever-evolving place. Us Paulites just want to start us on a better course.

Also; you wrote, regarding Congress: "Incompetent buffoons, one and all. Playing politics and taking their PAC money is the only task that group is up too." No argument there, other than of course 1 particular Congressman who is so obviously different that the buffoons won't consider his ideas. He's introduced bills, but they go nowhere. Because he's so outside the status quo. By your reasoning, that should be a positive.

Jan 2, 2012, 11:09am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Charlie.....some common sense here buddy
You said
"I guess that if you believe the world is flat or unconnected there is a difference between a non-interventionist or an isolationist."

A non-interventionist is somone who believes that we dont send Military in the intervene in a situation unless a DIRECT THREAT is shown. Where as an isolationist wants nothing to do with the outside world, politically, financially and militarily. Seems to me a very significant dofference to me. Maybe generalizations dont work here....ya think?

The world's balance isnt all that difficult or delicate, as far as our country being the provider of that balance and it benefiting us? Well looking around it doesnt look that sucessful so far considering the way things are now. And people with opinions like yours are just what the political machine wants,with the current status quo they get to do business as usual. If we do focus on ourselves as much as we have the outside world, then the politicians "business as usual" way of doing things will have a very short lived shelf life as the scrutiny turns inward.

Jan 2, 2012, 1:14pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

It's clear by now that Charlie is just playing games and is not seriously engaging in a substantive debate. Nobody of his intelligence can be so blind to reality without willful misdirection. He may not like Paul, but he's smarter than his arguments against Paul demonstrate. He's playing us.

Jan 2, 2012, 1:49pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Howard, someone had to toss a wrench into the Paul love-in you guys have on a daily basis. What good is conversation if everyone agrees? I do like alot of what Paul says but, I need to be convinced.

Jan 2, 2012, 2:20pm Permalink
kevin kretschmer

Charlie - you're needlessly beating your head against a wall. Paul's supporters simply refuse to acknowledge the man has some serious character and policy issues flaws. As was pointed out in a recent New Republic article, it's part of the libertarian attitude.

Glenn Beck says there are secretive groups and select people around the world trying to make America part of a One World Government, taking away our rights to own guns and practice our religion in the process. He also says that riots in the streets are forth-coming here. He is dismissed as a kook. Ron Paul says those very same things and he should be President. Yeah, I can see the logic there.

Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee for President and by his own admission, will have a difficult time campaigning through the entire primary process. He can't even participate in more than a couple of events per day, it's too physically demanding on him. His message indeed does resonate with a measurable percentage of Iowans, and it ends there. Also, his Iowa #'s are flawed, inflated by individuals that have absolutely no intention of actually voting for the man in a Presidential Election but that registered as Republicans specifically for tomorrow's caucus.

Jan 2, 2012, 3:27pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Dave, after considerable thought, I will try to answer your initial question. "...would you be any where near as excited or at least curious than if Ron Paul was the President-elect?"

If Ron Paul were to be elected, I would feel the same dismay hearing Ralph Nader, Jerry Brown or Mark Green had been elected. The similarity being that each is intelligent, office-worthy but decidedly marginal. It would be the equivalent of a third party ascendency to the highest office in the land. Such a scenario would suspicion Ken Kesey had revisited the mortal world and dumped LSD in our water supplies or every television network except PBS had been darkened and the whole country steeped in Dr. Deepak Chopra.

So, yes, the notion of a sleeping giant awakened from corporate-spawned narcolepsy, a collective rush to the WC for a long-overdue evacuation, each finding a copy of Reason magazine beside the commode, experiencing simultaneous epiphanies inspiring mass conflagration to the polls... That would be awesome.

Jan 2, 2012, 3:39pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

The biggest conspiracy is denying the conspiracy. Hey, fellas if you want things to continue as they are, then vote for those who'll keep things as they are. Whatever. I've got most everything in my house on electricity, someday when I get some actual ambition, I'll erect a wind turbine and some solar cells and go off the grid. I have plenty of space for a garden. I'll get CM to show me his geo-thermal heating system as well.

Jan 2, 2012, 3:58pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

I'm curious as to why Paul lovers seem to want to respond to his warning of race wars and the 'federal homosexual coverup on AIDS', the man has also said that it is the fault of people who have AIDS that they have the disease, even those who got it through blood transfusions. He spent the early 90s playing to the fears of extremists and militia groups to try to solicit them for money to sell his products (namely books and newsletters), or he believes the crazy things he said and refuses to repudiate them. Either way, the man simply is not fit for command as he does not understand the essential social contract that makes up a society.

http://gawker.com/5870849/ron-paul-direct-mail-warned-of-race-war-feder…

http://www.inquisitr.com/174449/ron-paul-aids-patients-bear-responsibil…

Jan 3, 2012, 1:07am Permalink
Daniel Jones

Howard - That's a pretty bold statement, considering that it's simply not true. America during the 20s and the 30s engaged in a non-interventionist foreign policy, before then our involvement in the pacific rim, especially China, was international (except for Hawaii and the Philippines where we fought the Spanish due to their attack on America) and engaged Japan through trade. I can't blame America for such a policy either, since they had no historical basis given how the world had changed since World War I in terms of technological advancements, especially in Naval and Air military capabilities. Japan took advantage of this weak foreign policy with a surprise attack. The oceans no longer protect us, a 'non-interventionist' foreign policy is a weak foreign policy and one that will not work because of modern technology and the speed at which people and goods move. We cannot go backwards and pretend that we are still living in an age where the Atlantic and Pacific oceans protect us.

Isolationism will only lead to conflict. Saying that we are 'meddling in other nations affairs' simply isn't true in the digital age. We are simply protecting the economic and security interests of our workers and our people by working in a diplomatic and only when necessarily a military way.

Jan 3, 2012, 1:06am Permalink
Daniel Jones

Charlie said: "Howard, I guess that if you believe the world is flat or unconnected there is a difference between a non-interventionist or an isolationist. Guess what, it's not. The world has a delicate balance, our country, like it or not provides that balance and it directly benefits us. If you believe that world turmoil will not affect us, that's just crazy Paul talk."

That's not interventionism, that's realism and most people are realistic. It's why Paul cannot win because he is an extremist and an ideological doctrinaire rather than a leader.

Jan 3, 2012, 12:58am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Daniel said...
It's why Paul cannot win because he is an extremist and an ideological doctrinaire rather than a leader.

Yeah that formula of electing leaders has worked sooooooo well for America in the last decade that Paul absolutely has no chance, nada zip zero. Especially with how happy everyone is with our Govt.

(This post was dripping with sarcasm, just in case someone needed to be clued in to that)

Jan 3, 2012, 5:41am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Dan, everything I stated is unimpeachably true, historically accurate and verifiable. Look it up. It's not an opinion I expressed. It's just simple, basic fact.

Also, If Paul is such an extremist and unelectable, why is he so close to winning the Iowa Caucus and polling well across the country?

More and more people are sick of the way the two major parties are ruining this country and only Paul stands apart from either party (though doing it within the advantage of being a major party member rather than a third party candidate).

First, I don't believe Paul is a racist or a kook. The effort to paint him as a racist is the left's nutty "birther" moment. But more importantly, I really don't care about the man. I care about his ideas. He's the only one with any chance to win who is right on the ideas. It's time to move this country in a different direction and Paul is the only one with a vision to pull this country toward a more sustainable direction (of course because of the beautiful checks and balances of our Constitution (which Paul is the only candidate who will actually abide by the Constitution), Paul will not be able to do all he espouses (I doubt seriously he will be able to dismantle the Federal Reserve, though that would be a very grand thing). However, a Paul nomination just in and off itself will open up a serious and necessary debate in this country on the important issues of spending and war and peace. Showing middle America that there is another philosophy to consider on these important issues -- a philosophy that the major media has done its best to suppress for a couple of decades -- will be an important step forward for the country.

I've long wondered why the only voices taking these issues seriously in recent years are on the right, but here's a good round up of what some people on the left are saying about Paul:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/03/the-ron-paul-challenge-for-progressiv…

Including:

"Paul is being denigrated as a presidential contender even though on the vital issues of the economy, war and peace, and civil liberties, he has made the most sense of the Republican candidates. And by what standard of logic is it "claptrap" for Paul to attempt to hold the Fed accountable for its destructive policies? That's the giveaway reference to the raw nerve that his favorable prospects in the Iowa caucuses have exposed. Too much anti-Wall Street populism in the heartland can be a truly scary thing to the intellectual parasites residing in the belly of the beast that controls American capitalism."

The only extremist I see is from both the Democrats and the GOP. Those candidates are the ones extreme enough to favor maintaining their destructive policies of crony capitalism, out-of-control spending, ever more burdensome regulations, un-Constitutional subversion of individual rights and unconscionable, morally bankrupt interventions into other country's affairs. That's the extreme agenda of both major parties.

Jan 3, 2012, 8:26am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Howard: hear, hear!!!
If Paul wins in Iowa, The lamestream media will say the Iowa is irrelevant. If he does not, they'll say it's proof of his unelectability. LOL

Jan 3, 2012, 8:36am Permalink
John Roach

Dan,
Read history again. We butted in all over South and Central America in the 20's and 30's. We also refused to leave the Philippines during that whole period.

And your statement, "ideological doctrinaire rather than a leader", sounds a lot like Obama also.

Now, again, why are we in NATO?

Jan 3, 2012, 10:05am Permalink
John Roach

Dan,
When did Spain attack us?
And we did not fight Spain for Hawaii, we took it from the rightful government of Hawaii. That worked out fine for us, but your history of the event is wrong.

Jan 3, 2012, 10:14am Permalink
Daniel Jones

Howard - Firstly, Paul is only polling in the low 20s in Iowa, in most polling more Republicans have said that they would not support him if he won the nomination than any other candidate, around 40 percent I believe and much more would be unsure.

Secondly, if there is an attempt to paint him as a 'kook' it's because he has said the things that have caused that accusation, he still has not repudiated what he said about AIDS or about race wars. Despite all that the Congressman does to qualify that he doesn't believe all of the crazy things he said in the past, he won't say it outright.

Thirdly, our beautiful system of checks and balances and our view of governance has evolved, Thomas Jefferson himself said (paraphrasing) "As times change so must governments and constitutions." We can't just operate our government as though we were living in the early 19th century. If anything, I think that the founding fathers would be proud of America for not holding to a particular ideology in favor of getting things done, it was the very thing they fought against when they overthrew the British crown in America. How arrogant is it that Paul and his supporters claim that they have a secure claim on what is constitutional?

Jan 3, 2012, 11:30am Permalink
Daniel Jones

John - The Spanish sunk the USS Maine. There is no undeniable proof as to believe otherwise. I am also well aware of American history in regards to Hawaii, and I said that it was not international and I made it clear that it was separate from our involvement in a conflict with Spain.

America engaged in the Good Neighbor policy in the 30s in Latin America, wherein we did not intervene. FDR's Secretary of State, Cordell Hull himself said that "No country has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another." The same was true of our involvement with Europe and Asia during that period, we falsely believed that our oceans would protect us. Instead our isolationist policies resulted in us being dragged into conflict with Germany and Japan. In the modern world in which goods flow in and out of America we cannot afford to not be engaged in the rest of the world and be afraid to stand up for our interests and support basic human rights.

Finally, NATO is necessary as to provide a basis for unified action of Democratic minded allies, especially given the advent of a once again powerful Russia and China. It needs to exist as a diplomatic as well as a military front to engage in a plural way rather than a singular way. I keep saying it over and over again, the interconnected world means that we can no longer live separately from the rest of the world, technology has made the world to an extent interdependent, and thus it becomes necessary as the largest economy in the world to protect our interests and those of our allies and ensure basic human rights.

Jan 3, 2012, 11:43am Permalink
John Roach

Actually there is. It was more likely the Maine blew up from an internal explosion. Of course, at that time there was no way of knowing for sure. And the USS Maine was there to intimidate the Spanish in the war going on in Cuba (intervention?). That war might have been the result of an honest mistake, but we should not have been in the harbor to start with

As for the "Good Will" policy, no. We intervened in Haiti, Nicaragua, Columbia, etc. It was for our good will, but they still remember it. We invaded Grenada later and Clinton sent in the troops again to Haiti to change the government he didn't like.

NATO is needed for Russia? After 70 years, don't you think they should be able to do it? Two of the countries are nuclear powers who have not needed a strong regular military because we have been doing it for them, with money borrowed from China. And we need NATO to protect Europe from China?

Jan 3, 2012, 11:59am Permalink
C. M. Barons

Dan, who was your History teacher? ...Dan Quail? You've never heard of South American intervention at the behest of United Fruit Company (Eisenhower Secretary of State John Foster Dulles' law firm represented UFC, and brother, CIA director Allen Dulles was on the UFC board)? You've never heard what newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst called the Spanish American War? "...the Journal's war;" 'the Journal' was his flagship paper, 'the New York Journal.' The 'Teller Amendment' and subsequent peace deal that won Guam and Puerto Rico, 'The Platt Amendment," General Smedley Butler, self-proclaimed 'gangster for capitalism' took credit for "...mak(ing) Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers 1909–12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested…. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Our Good Neighbor Policy highlights: 1929 U. S. established military schools in Nicaragua, Haiti and Dominican Republic to train indigenous guard troops, Rafael Leonidas Trujillo was a graduate of the Dominican academy; 1932 U. S. sends warships to El Salvador to prop up President Martinez who decimates 8000 of his fellow countrymen, 1933 Roosevelt sends ships to Cuba to suppress riots, leading to the ascendency of Batista; 1934 U. S. approves assassination of Sandino and rise of Samoza, 1941 U. S. ambassador to Panama gives green light to Arias' coup; 1943 Honduran newspaper editor is warned by U. S. embassy to tone down criticism of Tiburcio Carías Andino, 1944 El Salvador ousts Martinez and U. S. ousts the provisional government, 1946 School of the Americas founded to abet Latin American dictators...

Jan 3, 2012, 1:48pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Dave,The fact is Paul comes across as a kook. His limited government stand has merit. but, his ideas for foreign relations are scary. He wants to withdraw and let our enemies fill the void. The vast majority of our country will never accept retreat.

Paul supporters are caught up in a religious like fervor.

Jan 3, 2012, 7:01pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

C.M. - Without getting into the rest of the irrelevent events that you posted (most of them did not happen during the 20s and 30s, as that was the time frame I was arguing within and when the US was not asked to do so by those governments), that would be Dan Quayle, and potato is spelled without an e on the end.

Jan 3, 2012, 7:58pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Daniel; good one, i like it.

Charlie, it is what it is and will be what it will be. I have more than said my peace regarding Dr. Paul for a while now. Anything more is just repetition. My position like all of his, isn't going to change.

Jan 3, 2012, 9:26pm Permalink

Authentically Local