Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Uncategorized » Ron Paul’s Reality Check

Ron Paul’s Reality Check

In 2008 the democrats went all out and elected the biggest leftist they could find.  He got into office and quickly (though barely) passed this Health Care bill.  The outcome was Democratic losses in both parties and a standstill to the President’s agenda.  That is in spite of having 2 years of a super majority and the Congress (to include the republicans) being more liberal than conservative. 

Let’s consider Ron Paul.  I have written plenty regarding my support of Ron Paul, but there is a reality that I haven’t yet spoken of.  There are many supporters of Paul that think his presidency is the only one that would bring the change we need in this country.  These are the most idealistic of his supporters who ignore the political realities of the time. Frankly, the Paulians who give him Messianic characteristics annoy me and remind me a bit of the Obama supporters of 2008.  So, let’s get real.

If Ron Paul were to become president he would have to rely almost exclusively on the executive order to get things done.  Many of his ideas are so idealistic that they abandon the political norms of Washington entirely.  For me, this is his appeal, but it won’t help him get things done in D.C.  Perhaps it isn’t because Paul is so far right, but because Washington has moved so far to the left.  Either way, Paul would get along with congress about as well as he did when he was in congress.

We can assume that Paul would go on a veto spree in his first few months because he is unwilling to cave on his principles (which is admirable), but the outcome of this would be counterproductive.  His unwillingness to work with Congress would create unholy alliances across the aisle and that would be working in contrast to the President – moving them further to the left.  In the end, he would get little done but would create plenty of ammo for the democrats come November of 2014.  Any republicans that were friends to the President would quickly abandon ship in order to save their seats – he would be treated as a lame duck within 2 years if not sooner.

Paulians would clamor about how there is a conspiracy against the President (as many do now) and call for him to push more with his executive power.  Paul, again being an idealist, would refuse to abuse the power of the Presidency.  In the end, like his predecessor, little would get done after the honeymoon.  The only things that Paul WOULD get support on would be some of his “bring home the troops” agenda.  Of course, his foreign policy philosophy doesn’t require congressional improvement, so that part of Paul would be free to reign. 

In the end, what are the pros and what are the cons of a Paul presidency?  It seems to me that the fiscal hawk (his best side) would be disarmed and his foreign policy (his weakest side) would be administered.  This isn’t a very promising outcome and, of course, I could be wrong.  The alternative is that his win would create a new fervor for principles of liberty; but given the foundational ignorance of the populous and the power it strips from congress, it is unlikely that this would prevail.  Once again, Washington will reflect the people – and we aren’t ready for a Ron Paul. 

Share
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
RightHandMan

Written by

Yeah, I tweet. If you want to follow me on Twitter, just click on the link below. I hope you do.

Filed under: Uncategorized

opinions powered by SendLove.to
Comments
  • John Galt January 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM

    Congratulations!!!
    This realistic, pragmatic, analysis looking forward with equanimity and without passion needed to be said.
    We agree with it a 100%. This is easier said without realizing that RHM touched in many aspects of what it takes to govern. We have written before that it is rather myopic to pretend that a congressman who in 20 years never got any personal legislation passed but one out of 620 proposed bills, can now execute successfully the biggest reform of our government in American history.
    All I can say, what are these ‘Paulians’ thinking?

    Great and truthful piece RHM.
    John Galt recently posted..Europe Is Warning The US – Are We Listening?My Profile

  • 5etester January 16, 2012 at 11:01 AM

    Of course your assessment is correct because it utilizes simple common sense. I try to point it out in my blog as well with little success. Acceptance of the fact that we cannot fix a broken system from with-in is not very palatable. The ONLY solution possible will require stripping the FedGov of its power back to Articles of Confederation levels and that won’t be done merely by making our prerequisite trips to the ballot box. The people always have the power to take back their country, but at what cost are they willing to do it?
    5etester recently posted..The “New Great Game” of natural resources control is U.S. foreign policy unless Ron Paul winsMy Profile

  • Robert January 16, 2012 at 11:08 AM

    ThIs is where your reasoning fails. If Ron Paul is elected means that the people are behind his message and that would the message would dominate the electorate. if you thought the TEA party movement had influence than just wait and see what Ron Paul’s message does to those who want to stay in office and those that will be running against those that dont support the message. I think the electorate will bring a majority to both houses that are behind Ron Paul’s message by atleast the 2nd year of a Paul presidency

    • RightHandMan
      RightHandMan January 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

      Robert,

      With due respect, Paul’s only chance to win is if he sucks the anti-war leftist into his corner as a refrain to Obama’s lack of effort. But my point isn’t about Paul’s ability to motivate the citizenry, but his lack of ability to motivate congress.

      Do not get me wrong, I like Paul a lot and voted for his son here in my state. I love that he stands against the grain, on principle, and on conviction. I just don’t think that he can get done NOW what he wants to get done and what we need to get done. I think we’re actually better off getting the wrong people to do the right thing than the alternative.

      If he does win, I hope that I’m wrong. I would love for many of his libertarian/conservative ideas to resonate among the majority of the public…but I’m being realistic. We here at The Sentry Journal have supported Paul, but not without blinders like the Obamanites of 2008.

      • Robert January 16, 2012 at 11:37 AM

        Your still using failed reasoning. if the majority elects Paul that means his message is very popular.This would send a message to those elected in both houses that to get re-elected they must support the message that got Paul elected because there will rise a candidate that will run against them whose platform is based on Paul’s message. You do understand how the TEA party movement was so sucessful in 2010???

        • silverfiddle January 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM

          His logic is not flawed. A President Paul would be without a power base fighting entrenched DC powers–an impossible situation.

          Here is where your logic breaks down: Paul would be elected by a coalition of small-government constitutionalists and anti-war people. There is very little overlap between the two, and they are at odds with one another. Anti-war people tend to favor big government.

          The only way a President Paul succeeds is if he is elected by a majority of small-government conservatives and he teams with Paul Ryan in the House to pass Ryan’s roadmap, with support of a GOP majority Senate.

          The fiscal austerity of Ryan’s roadmap would end up smothering some of the moneyed interests, with those remaining fighting one another over the scraps. That is as good as it will get. Anything more radical (which I wish would happen) is a dream.
          silverfiddle recently posted..Privatize Social Security?My Profile

          • Robert January 16, 2012 at 12:05 PM

            again more failed reasoning. If Paul is elected by the people ,the same people will be voting in the next congressional and senate elections. those holding office right now will have to take notice to the message the people supports or lose there seat.
            But all this is meaningless if the people are not ready to secure economic prosperity and strong national defense.

        • 5etester January 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM

          Failed reasoning? The TEA party had some success in the mid-terms. What did those elected accordingly turn right around and do? They certainly didn’t follow their TEA party mandate. Now the TEA Party has no candidate in the field. Clearly, they didn’t get the TEA party message. A theoretical Paul message would be the same. Besides, a Paul victory means taking on the establishment of both parties and I think we both know where that will end up.
          5etester recently posted..The “New Great Game” of natural resources control is U.S. foreign policy unless Ron Paul winsMy Profile

          • Robert January 16, 2012 at 2:28 PM

            Yes even you are using it. the tea party movement was strong but the message was weak because fiscal conservitism was not enough without a conservitive foriegn policy. If americans choose economic prosperity and strong national defense thru conservitism at the presidential level the movement will be contagious accross the electorate. It may take a few years to bring about a majority but there will be an immediate fear to those that want to stay in office. but all this is mute if we the people do not have the courage to support this change.

        • RightHandMan
          RightHandMan January 16, 2012 at 2:48 PM

          I get a little miffed when Paulians come out and start accusing me of using failed reasoning – and using improper spelling and grammar only infuriates me further. Attempting to both entertain you and argue with you is like spitting into the wind; a lot of effort and a filthy face. Still, I will give it one more effort.

          Your logic is:
          (A) Presidents are elected by a populous.
          (B) Ron Paul’s victory would be due to a popular movement.
          (C) Congress is elected by a populous.
          (D) Congress will ride Paul’s popular movement.

          If (A) + (B) + (C) then (D).

          Fair enough…But this is where Paulians need to meet reality. First, we don’t have a populous election, but an electoral one. Paul’s ONLY shot is to get enough delegates conceding to the leftists who venture into the field – which is a long shot at best. Paul will NEVER get the establishment behind him in the slightest and will have to fight two fronts. If Paul does all of that and still wins the primary – he has to hope that ALL of those lefties who came to support him in the parimary don’t jump back to their democratic roots in the general election.

          Next, Paul’s wave of support (if he were to win) isn’t as attractive as you might think. While it is true that the Tea Party had some success in the November elections we have to accept a few truths in that election process. First, those wins weren’t JUST due to the Tea Party, but due to the failures of Congress in general. Second, not all Tea Party supported candidates won …some lost BECAUSE they were supported by the Tea Party and not the establishment (see Sen. Murkowski). Lastly, the Tea Party has died down a lot and hasn’t had a major event in months.

          Oh, and let’s also consider, since you made it one of your important points, that most Tea Party members wouldn’t associate themselves with Paul’s foreign policy ideas that you find key in turning America around.

          The most important point, already half made by a previous commenter, is that while elections were won with the help of the Tea Party in November, they didn’t change the direction of the establishment in either party! In fact, we have someone the Tea Party loathes (Mitt Romney) still getting the support of the establishment – which says something, namely, that they don’t care about riding this theoretical wave that you’re dreaming of. That’s why my ideas don’t break logic because recent history shows that the supposed “wave” that you’re speaking of simply doesn’t exist. He wouldn’t gain friends by this wave, he would gain enemies from both sides and eventually he would be undercut by both.

          • Robert January 16, 2012 at 3:13 PM

            i get a little miffed when people start with attacks because they are losing the debate. yes the its an electoral vote but in most elections that also means it was the popular vote. If Paul i elected it will be the message that caused it ,not the man and when a message is popular it spreads. More and more people are coming to that message because it is the only long term solution .yes the tea party movement was strong but lacked a complete message therefore was doomed to fall apart and was only tested in midterm elections but if Paul’s message is strong enough to get him elected it will mean its an american message which will grow even stronger. you are intittled to your opinion but just like mine it is just an opinion and carries very little clout because it will take more than you or me for either take to become reality. But yours is based on failed reasoning and is only popular because there are more talking heads to sway you and your friends.

          • RightHandMan
            RightHandMan January 16, 2012 at 3:23 PM

            Well, it won’t let me reply to you Robert, but your response is typical of one more reason why Paul won’t win – too many of his supporters are annoying who gain enemeis on both sides by not knowing how to make friends.

  • proof January 16, 2012 at 12:57 PM

    Charles Krauthammer gives Paul a lot of credit for his campaign. One telling sentence though: “I see libertarianism as an important critique of the Leviathan state, not as a governing principle.”
    proof recently posted..Martin Luther King, Jr. – "I Have a Dream"My Profile

  • Who Republicans Want January 16, 2012 at 2:20 PM

    […] (Senator, Arizona) Mouse here for Related LinksThree Mile Island, Global Warming and the CIARon Paul’s Reality Check (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) […]

  • Robert January 16, 2012 at 3:33 PM

    RightHandMan
    Well, it won’t let me reply to you Robert, but your response is typical of one more reason why Paul won’t win – too many of his supporters are annoying who gain enemeis on both sides by not knowing how to make friends.

    It would let me reply either

    that is about the most childish response i have gotten from anywhere, you act like this is a junior high class president election. you should be able to vote the issues not your opinion of someone who has nothing to do with the issues.

    • Robert January 16, 2012 at 4:00 PM

      after taking sometime to read your blog i have to say you have some great articles which really makes me wonder why you would move away from sound reasoning and write above article. it was really worthless and needed a freemarket analysis.
      i wouldnt buy it.

    • RightHandMan
      RightHandMan January 16, 2012 at 4:04 PM

      Childish? Okay Robert. A quick look at this web page and you will see that we DO support Paul here, but we’re also able to see that we are not ready for him. Now, you can continue to flood my web page with the same redundant rhetoric and lecture me about how to act in and form an argument within a debate – something you’re obviously well rehersed in, but I’m done with you. I couldn’t care less if you agree with the post, and I won’t lose sleep over your reproach. What has become abundantly obvious, however, is that you fall into that almost creepy camp of Paul supporters who refuses to see anything that isn’t filtered through the “Paul is perfect in every way” filter.

      Good day sir.

      • Robert January 16, 2012 at 5:03 PM

        RHM
        I do have some issues with his monetary solutions, while i agree we need to have transparency on the Fed and probably remove their power over the dollar i am not sure just how competing currencies or how a gold standard will work considering by my calculations would require 200k an ounce gold just to back up our debt. But his other policies are dead spot on with my research i had before coming to his camp.
        So your attack that i am just a Paulian was just without any facts, the truth is i am an american with 3 kids and 4 grandkids who would like for them to have a chance and the way i see it ,its now or never because 4 more years of obama or any of the big government repubs will be a point of no return if it already not there now.
        if you have enough people for your blog then continue to run objective views off

        • RightHandMan
          RightHandMan January 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM

          Thing is Robert, we’re on the same page and you’re just not ready to admit it yet. You’re taking offense as if I’m attacking Paul, which simply isn’t true. This post is an attack on the establishment and an American political setting that isn’t ready for someone like Ron Paul…even if he were to be elected.

          • Robert January 16, 2012 at 5:54 PM

            well in some ways we are on the same page but not on this article, it is way to early to predict any certain outcome. the differnce between my view and yours is I see the people supporting the movement more and more everyday and if they can realize that they are the government not the representitives they send then this movement will be a gamechanger. I like this blog but you shouldnt result to trying to marginize other views by personal attacks. your view should be defensble without it.
            the truth is i felt you were attacking american’s reasons for having faith in him and thoroughly attacking the message

  • John Galt January 16, 2012 at 4:23 PM

    RHM, you have won Robbing America’s Prize for the “Most Patient Man in Blogging”.
    John Galt recently posted..Europe Is Warning The US – Are We Listening?My Profile

    • RightHandMan
      RightHandMan January 16, 2012 at 5:18 PM

      🙂 Do I get something monetary?

      • John Galt January 17, 2012 at 11:19 AM

        Sorry, RHM, it is an honorary prize, with certain advantages, though.
        If you let the ladies know of it, by accident of course, they get very friendly because they think is from “Rubbing America”.
        John Galt recently posted..Europe Is Warning The US – Are We Listening?My Profile

  • Matt January 16, 2012 at 4:50 PM

    Those are some great points. The establishments in both parties would not cooperate with a President Paul, as it would disrupt their respective power bases. I’ve heard it said that the point is not that Paul isn’t ready to be POTUS, but that the people are not ready for a President Paul.
    Matt recently posted..January 16, 2012 9:00 PM EST GOP Debate Live FeedMy Profile

    • RightHandMan
      RightHandMan January 16, 2012 at 5:18 PM

      Well said Matt.

    • John Carey January 16, 2012 at 7:17 PM

      “The establishments in both parties would not cooperate with a President Paul, as it would disrupt their respective power bases.”

      Your comment drills down to the core of the problem Matt. When both parties refuse to support a man who believes liberty is essential and the constitution is still the law of the land, what does that say about the people we have in DC. It tells me it’s time for all of them to go. Now I know this is something that will not happen over night because the only 1/3 of the senate seats are up for reelection and people are still learning about our constitution. This is why we must continue to educate the people and expose the statist and their ways. This as you know will not happen as quickly as we would like, but it will happen. RHM is correct when he says that the people and DC are not ready for a Ron Paul. They don’t understand what liberty is and how precious it is yet. But one day that will change and there will come a time when a liberty loving constitutionalist will be a welcomed thing in DC.
      John Carey recently posted..Ron Paul’s Reality CheckMy Profile

  • RightHandMan
    RightHandMan January 16, 2012 at 6:31 PM

    Robert
    well in some ways we are on the same page but not on this article, it is way to early to predict any certain outcome. the differnce between my view and yours is I see the people supporting the movement more and more everyday and if they can realize that they are the government not the representitives they send then this movement will be a gamechanger. I like this blog but you shouldnt result to trying to marginize other views by personal attacks. your view should be defensble without it.the truth is i felt you were attacking american’s reasons for having faith in him and thoroughly attacking the message

    That is absurdly false. *hits head against “Most Patient Man in Blogging” trophy*

  • crawford jennings January 16, 2012 at 6:39 PM

    Would not the reality, and so called unlikelihood, of a Ron Paul Presidency, reflect an absolute paradigm shift in the American electorate, and therefore show a clear mandate from the American people to enact his policies? I would wager if Ron Paul were elected, congress and senate would have litle choice to go along with his campaign promises. Obama lost his majority in Congress not because of the opposition to him, but because he did not enact the policies he promised and thus betrayed the people that voted for him. I was an ardent Obama supporter, however I feel he has betrayed us. The signing of the NDAA was the last straw for me, and I see him now as an enemy of liberty, due to his contravening of the 1st and 4th amendment of the Constitution. Now I will vote for Dr. Paul, because he is the only candidate proposing a paradigm shift in politics, foreign and domestic policy. A Paul, Obama contest would be one of the most exciting and contrasting elections ever, and would lay bare the true divide in America happening right now. Imagine Ron Paul challenging Obama on the War on Drugs; our current President is an admitted illicit drug user, and if as a young man he would have been caught and arrested, charged and imprisoned; with a criminal record such as that there is little chance he would have gotten to where he isnow. How is that someone who is lucky gets a chance to be President, but some poor kid in the ghetto gets thrown in jail, and lose his right to vote forever? How could Obama defend such hypocrosy?

    • proof January 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM

      “I would wager if Ron Paul were elected, congress and senate would have little choice to go along with his campaign promises.” I’d take that bet. I can use the money! When Bush 41 had close to an 80% approval rating, did Congress go along with him? When Arnie was elected governor in CA, did the Democrat legislature go along with him? What you are wagering would happen has not been seen in modern politics.

      Let me put the shoe on the other foot: If Obama is re-elected by a wide majority, would you and Ron Paul go along with his campaign promises? I’d wager not.
      proof recently posted..Martin Luther King, Jr. – "I Have a Dream"My Profile

      • RightHandMan
        RightHandMan January 16, 2012 at 9:19 PM

        Thanks, I need not respond.

      • crawford jennings January 18, 2012 at 2:22 PM

        Ron Paul is calling for a change in America so fundamental, that Obama’s promises, promises I voted for, would ring hollow. The Nobel Peace Prize winner is now an enemy of Liberty for signing the NDAA. Obama will not have a huge majority this time. I listened to this speech and understood how Obama has betrayed us, and I how people like me will never forgive him for it. Ron Paul is the true Peace candidate, and if only one of his actions, like recalling our soldiers from around the world happens – we will be the much better for it.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U

        “Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without first having spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence I cannot be silent. Been a lot of applauding over the last few years. They applauded our total movement; they’ve applauded me. America and most of its newspapers applauded me in Montgomery. And I stood before thousands of Negroes getting ready to riot when my home was bombed and said, we can’t do it this way. They applauded us in the sit-in movement–we non-violently decided to sit in at lunch counters. The applauded us on the Freedom Rides when we accepted blows without retaliation. They praised us in Albany and Birmingham and Selma, Alabama. Oh, the press was so noble in its applause, and so noble in its praise when I was saying, Be non-violent toward Bull Connor;when I was saying, Be non-violent toward [Selma, Alabama segregationist sheriff] Jim Clark. There’s something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say, “Be non-violent toward little brown Vietnamese children. There’s something wrong with that press!”

  • Steve Dennis January 16, 2012 at 7:50 PM

    I agree with your analysis; I love what Paul says on domestic issues but the fact is there is no way he will ever be able to pull it off without using the power he rails against on a daliy basis. He will never be able to do what he says he will do and that says more about the state of American politics than it says about him because he truly believes what he says is right, but he won’t be able to deliver because the Congress will not go along with him.
    It is sad that this is where we are in American politics but it is a reality and even if he were only able to do a fraction of what he wants to it would still be a victory for the American people.
    Steve Dennis recently posted..Jon Huntsman drops out of the race and endorses Mitt Romney for presidentMy Profile

  • LD Jackson January 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM

    Well now, you certainly stirred things up a bit. I had not thought of a Ron Paul presidency in the terms you have, but you are most likely correct. As much as I would like to disagree with you, I can not. The reasons are simple.

    If Ron Paul wins the White House, he would have to go against a Congress stacked against him by people who have too much invested in certain areas of our government to allow him free reign. It sounds terrible when I say it like that, but I think that would be the case. Between the military industrial complex, and other areas where he wants to cut spending, he would be facing an uphill battle. Couple that with his desire to remove the government from our lives, reign in the Federal Reserve, etc., and you get a recipe that would require Paul to exercise extreme authority to achieve his goals. Extreme authority that he has railed against. It would be difficult for him, to say the least.

    PS: RHM, I hope you haven’t too many bruises on your head from banging against that trophy.
    LD Jackson recently posted..Ron Paul Surging in South Carolina, To Gain Endorsement of Senator Tom DavisMy Profile

  • rickybob January 17, 2012 at 9:17 AM

    I disagree. A Paul presidentcy would send a strong message to Washington. I hate to generalize, but you guys always write about how nothing can be done about corruption in Washington. Elect an honest man, we haven’t tried that in awile. What we need is sunlight. Of course there would be opposition, there always is, but you don’t know what would happen. What I do known what will happen without Paul, nothing. If we give up on the process what’s left.

  • theCL January 17, 2012 at 10:34 AM

    I don’t see Paul not being able to “get things done” being nearly as big of a problem as any of the other candidates “getting things done.” In fact, I’d say DC’s ability to “get things done” is the sole reason we’re up our arse in debt and lost so many of our liberties.

    I also think few, if any, Paul supporters expect him to enact his entire program. The president doesn’t, er, is not supposed to have that kind of power. It would be a kick in the face to his supporters for him to exercise it. There is, however, a lot a president Paul could do. Especially in terms of downsizing the power, size, and cost of the executive branch.

    As a Paul supporter, what you see as a potential negative (“get[ing] little done”), I see as a huge step in the right direction. More than anything, I want to see the conversation changed. I want to see a fight for liberty, because more than anything (in politics), liberty is worth fighting for. In the immortal words of Barry Goldwater:

    Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

    As for “the people aren’t ready” … I hear this argument all the time, and have for years … But it doesn’t make sense. First of all, says who? Second, what is it we’re supposed to wait for? Third, what does that even mean?

    In 1775, the Tories outnumbered the Patriots. Should they [the Patriots] have waited? How long, and for what, do we wait until we do what is right? How much more status quo statism can we handle before America becomes completely unrecognizable to anyone at all?

    I want that fight. I want Congress to fight President Paul tooth and nail. Why? Because it would fundamentally change the political discourse in America by requiring us to address, head on, the philosophies of limited-government individualism and statist collectivism above and beyond tiresome partisan rants.
    theCL recently posted..Ron Paul — The Spirit of 76!My Profile

    • 5etester January 17, 2012 at 3:40 PM

      “Third, what does that even mean?”

      IMO, it means Americans having to take their medicine because Dr. Paul would do his best to administer it. As I see it, that’s the caveat to any Paul success. The debate in this post is about politicans heeding a Paul mandate, yet the real test would be the American people losing their dependency nation. That’s what people mean when they say we aren’t ready for Paul.

      Those who believe the establishment politicans would somehow find religion and suddenly become responsible for fear of not being re-elected haven’t been paying attention to history.
      5etester recently posted..The “New Great Game” of natural resources control is U.S. foreign policy unless Ron Paul winsMy Profile

      • theCL January 17, 2012 at 11:05 PM

        The debate in this post is about politicans heeding a Paul mandate

        I understand. I’m just trying to illustrate a different point of view – that we need a genuine fight between congress and the executive. Badly. Because Congress heeding the will of the executive has wrought everything wrong with our country.

        Paul’s strong support represents not a desire to tweak the system, but a complete rejection of the status quo. This, I think, is why Paul supporters and conventional conservatives talk past each other so often. As someone who thoroughly rejects what Washington, DC has become wholesale, it’s difficult for me to see Paul not “getting things done” because of the status quo system as a negative. Quite frankly, I see it as damning evidence of congressional degeneracy. In other words the problem lies with congress, not Paul.

        the real test would be the American people losing their dependency nation

        People cannot, will not, learn they can live comfortably, peacefully, and successfully without a Mommy and Daddy government until they’re “kicked out of the nest.” Pacifying statists, the frightened, and welfare queens, just because they’re “not ready,” is worse than a fool’s errand … because it makes willing enablers out of us all.

        This response (and the one before it) is in no way a complete argument, I’m going to have to think about it for awhile in order to better explain my thoughts. Because I see liberty as the highest political end, maybe you can understand why I don’t find arguments based on “politics as we know it” discouraging. Quite the opposite in fact, I say “of course!”
        theCL recently posted..Ron Paul — The Spirit of 76!My Profile

  • John Galt January 17, 2012 at 11:15 AM

    John, we wanted you to know that we are taking back our agreement with RHM in this post and switching our support to Ron Paul.
    Sorry, RHM!

    We just can’t resist the most explosive economic policy plan of all times: 0% Tax Rate which he proposed at the SC debate.
    John Galt recently posted..Europe Is Warning The US – Are We Listening?My Profile