Politics The Marginalization of Ron Paul (or How Media Plays Favorites)

Right.

He supports protecting personal property over preventing race based discrimination.

And ending government services that provide a safety net to minority residents of inner cities or white residents in rural areas or anyone and anywhere, telling low income citizens of any race that they are on their own.

 

looks like paul and romney will be the only ones on the ballot in virginia. ahuge blow to newts campaign and a nice boost for paul.

 

While I think Paul is wrong on a lot of things, it's hard to see him coming out in favor of killing Americans abroad based solely on the "due process" provided by a secret committee (or a secret memo from one of his underlings) or failing to veto a bill that raises the specter of the military acting as a domestic police force. In other words, seeing as how the current president seems to be fairly ineffectual when it comes to not going back on his campaign promises and all too effective at actively pursuing many of the policies that he campaigned against, I don't know that we'd be much worse off under a Paul presidency. It's not like Paul would be able to get that much done with congress united against him, plus, he'd be a lot less likely to act as if the executive branch is his own personal fiefdom because OMG! teh terrorists!, which seems to be all the rage lately.

 

I dont think you can look at Paul's position on national security in a vacuum. I would suggest any attempt by Paul to roll back the Patriot Act would have virtually no support among Republicans and only marginally more among Democrats. The fact is that there is no widespread outcry for less invasion of privacy in the name of national security. He would also face signficant backlash from the right on his approach to foreign policy, particularly on DoD funding, and from both the left and right on relations with Israel.

I disagree with much of Obama's approach to executive power and national security, but it is no where near Bush's unilateral executive across the board.

Frankly, I think we would be much worse off under a Paul presidency on issues that matter most to most Americans-- economic and social policies. I could see him vetoing most appropriation bills and rolling back most regulatory programs and Congress not having a 2/3 majority to override. There would also be a serious threat to social security and Medicare.

Gingrich and Romney would only be marginally better on these issues in that neither is so ideologically intransigent.

 

Well, if Paul were going to go about it like Obama, then he'd probably be just as ineffective as Obama. Congress has a 9% approval rating. How do you get rolled over by them? That's right, you feign indignation and then cave in when push comes to shove. Obama might disagree with 5% of what congress does. Other than that, he's part of the problem. Given the choice between protecting the interests of the average american and protecting the interests of his donors, Obama will choose the latter 9 times out of ten. And he'll throw up his hands and say "I had no choice! Can you believe John Boehner? What a jerk!" I'm not saying that he isn't occasionally stymied by congress. What I am saying is that even if he wasn't subject to Republican obstructionism, we'd still likely be pretty disappointed in him.

I'm pretty sure that Paul would face backlash from people about his foreign policy approaches. Likely moreso from people who have bomb factories or military bases in their districts. Probably not from too many people with legitimate moral qualms. And the US' policy towards Israel is fucked anyway. Why do we give them so much money? Why is the ability to effectively chug AIPAC's cock such an important litmus test in any national political campaign? Is it healthy for our democracy that so many of our politicians are hopelessly beholden to conservative factions in a country halfway across the world who is addicted to our foreign aid?

I don't think we've been watching the same presidency. Maybe you mean unilateral with respect to military action? I'm fairly certain that Obama has gone further than Bush with regards to claiming powers for himself and the executive branch. Many of the same people who flipped out when Bush had the audacity to claim that his administration could wiretap Americans without a warrant were suddenly quiet when Obama went one further and claimed that he could, at his discretion, have Americans assassinated.

Right, and speaking of subjects that matter to most Americans, how do you think American Idol would fare under a Paul presidency? I don't know about you, but I don't see a whole lot of things to be excited about in terms of America's current economic or social policies. We're still being suckered by supply-siders and empty appeals on behalf of "job creators". The war on drugs is still 99% collateral damage. Obama's stance on gay marriage "continues to evolve" at a pace closely resembling actual evolution. I agree with you that regulation would likely go to shit. But Obama's record on regulations hasn't exactly been something to be proud of either. Was it last week that he backed the HHS secretary for going against multiple recommendations of people with more expertise than her and blocking over the counter sale of the morning after pill? He hasn't exactly been bold when it comes to worker safety regulations either, choosing instead to do less as a way to appeal to the "no-regulation-ever" crowd.

 

I'll give you one example of how Obama has not approach Bush's level of executive power -- signing statements to ignore portions of laws enacted by Congress.
In Obama's first three year, there were a handful; in Bush's first three years, the number approached 100.

I can also point to gains in social policy -- from the women's fair pay act to repreal of dont ask, dont tell to Obama's decision not to support the Defense of Marriage Act.

And while the Affordable Care Act is far from perfect, it is a hell of alot better than nothing; millions have already benefited, from those with per-existing conditions to 20somethings able to remain on parent's plan.

And despite the rhetoric, the stimulus program has contributed to the creation of millions of jobs and invested $billions in programs like alternative energy development and basic R&D, critical to competing in a global economy.

Paul's trade policies, along with his policy of eliminating virtually all government R&D would be disastrous for the economy.

But I still want any Paul supporter to explain how his unilateral trade policy would work, or how affordable health care would be available or how the environment and the workplace would be regulated. They like to talk about polls when his numbers are on the rise, but they never seem willing to discuss and defend his policies.

I dont want an intransigent ideologue in the White House from either end of the political spectrum, because neither represents the will of the majority... and there is no one more ideological or intransigent or extreme as Paul.

Bottom line - he is not electable. Republicans will never elect a nominee with his foreign policy positions. This is the party that likes to beat their chest and display military might.

There is a reason why he is not gaining any traction outside of a caucus state like Iowa.

 

Obama realized that he doesn't need signing statements. He just has one of his underlings write him a secret memo/permission slip whenever he wants to do something of questionable legal merit, knowing full well that no one will ever investigate the legality of this process, and that if anything ever goes to court, he can just have it dismissed using ye olde "States Secrets" excuse. He's really no better than Bush when it comes to national security. Why is this so hard to admit? If it weren't for Iraq's refusal to extend immunity to US forces, we'd still be in Iraq, so it isn't even like he deserves credit for ending the Iraq war.

The women's fair pay act is nice and I think the stimulus program was too small. I suspect that Paul might have done things similar to Obama with respect to DOMA and DADT, though I wouldn't place any money on it.

I don't really even like Ron Paul, but I like the fact that he seems to have integrity when it comes to how he goes about his job as a congressman. I don't know his positions, because I don't really like him, however, I did know Obama's positions enough to know that campaign positions don't matter after election day. I think the idea that we should always vote for the guy who's going to fuck us less is inefficient. If we're really shooting for the one who will ensure the smallest velocity on America's path to economic and social ruin, we're wasting our time. We should vote for the person who will get us there quicker. Once we've gotten there, we can figure out what to do next and rebuild the country. It's the difference between pulling a bandaid off slowly or quickly.

You mentioned "will of the majority". If Paul were to get elected, wouldn't that kind of mean that he represents the will of the majority? Who represents the will of the majority now? Certainly not Obama. Certainly not Congress. Certainly not AIPAC. I don't think it's Paul's intransigence or ideology that's important to you, I think that it's the position of his ideology relative to yours. I get the impression that if he were as intransigently committed to political pragmatism (or the appearance of pragmatism) as Obama you'd be totally fine with him, regardless of whether you felt he represented the will of the majority. In fact, Obama's commitment to pragmatism has frequently placed him at odds with the "will of the majority".

 

Ah, so Bush's excessive signing states dont matter. Or his legal justifications for torture, illegal surveillance outside of FISA, extraordinary rendition to oppressive regimes....far more aggressively than Obama. So no, I dont think they reach the same level.

As I said, I dont agree with Obama's national security policies, but they really didnt come as a surprise either if you followed his voting record in the Senate and even his campaign promises. The idea that Obama was a hard core liberal was never the case.

I agree Congress needs guys like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich on the other end of the spectrum., where they are one voice among many. But IMO, both would make terrible presidents. If you look throughout history on themost important public policy issues facing the country, effective presidents either have overwhelming public support or are consensus builders or attempt to be, not ideologues.

I do agree that Obama was not nearly forceful enough in pushing through his agenda.

I dont agree in the lesser of evils analysis. The choices, particularly on economic and social policy are clear.

The issue where both parties have failed is campaign and lobbying finance reform and Paul is no angel here, bluring the lines (breaking the law?) between his issue advocacy organization and his campaign.

 

This is going to be my last post about Obama in this thread, because I recognize things have been sidetracked.

I'm fairly certain that Obama feels as though he has the right to engage in all of these activities - surveillance, rendition, etc. Why wouldn't he? Dude. War on Terror. And Stuff. And signing statements themselves aren't the problem. It's what they represent, which is contempt for the rule of law. If you don't think Obama has just as much contempt for the rule of law as Bush did, then you're not paying attention. Obama realized that he doesn't need to state his intent to break laws as he signs them. He just breaks the fucking laws, has some unnamed lawyer write a secret legal brief to justify it and leaves it at that (perhaps I got the order backwards here). He knows no one is going to hold him accountable. Not after he graciously set the precedent of refusing to even begin to investigate the possibly illegal activities of the previous administration. As soon as he did that, he became complicit in everything they did.

I never thought he was a hardcore liberal. You're mistaking the issue if you think that's the case. And really, you weren't surprised in the least when, after campaigning on how misguided and wrong many Bush policies were, Obama turned around and continued and in many cases even enhanced many of the Bush programs he had campaigned against? I guess I wasn't all that surprised either, but my lack of surprise didn't stem from a notion that I had somehow gleaned insight from his voting record - it came from the fact that he's an establishment politician in a country where money is in charge.

I know it's important to be able to compromise. But I also recognize the ridiculousness in compromise for the sake of compromise, which is what one does when one has the public on his side and still caves in to congressional republicans (which is something Obama has done fairly regularly). This is actively working against the will of the people for the sake of compromise. Plus, what good is compromise when the people you're supposed to compromise with are part of a system that is inherently corrupt like ours?

Which part? The part where Obama has weakly embraced proven-failure supply side economic policies? The part where he deports more undocumented workers than his predecessor? The regulatory policy where he refuses to recess-appoint Elizabeth Warren (or fucking anybody) to the CFPB because he doesn't want to hurt John Boehner's feelings? Or the one where he gets rid of useful worker safety documentation programs because Fox news is able to convince people that they burden "job creators" is some vague way? Maybe the one where his administration decides to go back on its promise and start raiding medical marijuana dispensaries in states where medical marijuana has been legalized? Or perhaps the one where his administration bucks the science-based recommendations of the FDA because a some social conservatives are afraid their daughters might have access to birth control?

I'd bet $10,000 of Mitt Romney's money that the single act of Ron Paul ending the war on drugs would have more of a positive economic and social impact than every one of Obama's economic policies combined. And I don't even like potheads. How much money do we spend incarcerating nonviolent drug criminals? How much do we spend on law enforcement? How overly militarized have the nation's police forces become because of the war on drugs? How many families are torn apart because someone gets sent to jail for drug-related crime? How much additional revenue could be created if marijuana were a taxable commodity?

I think many of Paul's policies would be disastrous. However, I think that many of Obama's policies are going to end up being disastrous too, except that the damage seems muted because this disaster has been slowly unfolding over the last three decades.

 

There were quite a few misstatements of facts that I'll let pass and focus only on Paul.

Ending the federal war on drugs would have little or no economic impact, given that drug crimes, for the most part, are state crimes.

Or perhaps he would make a Constitutional case based on the argument that the federal government's authority to prosecute drug-related offenses is derived from the commerce clause. But then of course, he would have a hard time claiming the same commerce clause argument wouldnt apply to the Affordable Care Act mandate.

added:
One recent positive development re: drug crimes and tearing apart families was the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act that lessened the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine and eliminated the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1789

I would guess that Paul would have signed it as well.

 

I'm going to dispute your characterizations of my facts.

Does the DEA know about drug crimes being the jurisdiction of individual states? How much money does the federal government spend on drug enforcement? How much more likely would wide scale legalization be if the federal government stopped throwing good money after bad and just admitted that this whole war on drugs was misguided from the get-go and by all measures has failed miserably?

 

The federal govt spends $20-25 billion, mostly on border enforcement and related activities.

The real cost is at the state and local level - police, prosecution, prison.

 

Right. And as long as the federal government is actively prosecuting drug crimes, states have no incentive to decriminalize. States that have decriminalized certain types of marijuana use are still subject to federal enforcement. Just my opinion here, but without the support of the federal government in terms of enforcement and propaganda, the war on drugs doesn't last at the state level, at least for marijuana, more than ten years.

 

The fact remains that it was the Supreme Court, as recently as 5 yrs ago, that has maintained that the possession/sale/use of marijuana is illegal....using the commerce clause argument (which is why the current Court would have a hard time rejecting the same commerce clause application to the ACA).

A president cant change that decision but the Obama DoJ has stopped enforcing the federal anti-marijuana laws applied to small users and medical marijuana in states where it has been decriminalized. That, along with the Fair Sentencing Act cited above, are reversals of federal policies and two steps in the right direction.

States can stop committing resources to apprehend and prosecute as those that have decriminalized have done, but I would suggest the disincentive in many states is not the federal role, but lack of public support.

The public attitude is changing, but there is no mandate or public support for decriminalization of marijuana.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123728/u.s.-support-legalizing-marijuana-reaches-new-high.aspx

 

The Obama DoJ is actively targeting medical marijuana dispensaries in California.

Why did you link to a two-year-old poll? The poll from this year http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/Record-High-Americans-Favor-Legalizing-Marijuana.aspx (the one that shows up right above the one you linked to when you search for "marijuana" on gallup's website) estimates support for legalization at 50%. If one follows the trend, that number should only increase in the coming years. This is my opinion here, but I'm fairly sure that it would only take a few mainstream politicians to come out in favor of legalization - what with the blatant alcohol double-standard and the obvious fact that, like prohibition, criminalization of marijuana has mainly resulted in a robust black market rather than the wide-scale prevention of drug use - for the public to come around en masse.

 

As I understand the current policy, it is to target the abuses in the CA system,...selling to persons w/o evidence of medical need.

And I apologize for the old poll. I agree that we are closer than ever to public support for decriminalizing marijuana.

I agree that the so-called War on Drugs has been a failure. I agree that the aprox. $1 billion spent on public service announcement is a waste.

I dont agree that we should end efforts at interdiction nor do I think we should end the $8+ billion of federal funds (out of the $20-25 billion "war" budget) that go to treatment (through Medicaid, Vets Admin, etc.)

 

Redux, I think we probably agree on more things than we disagree.

 

Probably so.

But I still want a Paul supporter to explain how reneging on trade agreements is good economic policy or how an isolationist foreign policy is in the best interest of the US (statements like "trade with everyone make war with no one" is not a policy) or how deregulation will protect the environment, the workplace, etc.

 

I certainly think we should stop sending money to other countries to get them to help us with the "war on drugs." Monies such as the "Merida Initiative" probably is hurting more then it's helping.
--- merged: Dec 26, 2011 8:31 PM ---

Every answer from the "man" himself on such subjects come down to, basically- "we'll just do it and market will adjust itself." You know because people who make billions off polluting will suddenly see that there's more money in not polluting.