Op/Ed: Ron Paul remains media poison

[Flagg]

Well I'm not defending the media on this, I'm just pointing out that the polls showing Paul as a contender are BS.

[Thanas]

Steadfast in his convictions? Are you shitting me? The man is a walking contradiction and is profoundly unworthy of any serious conversation.

*Shrug* I mostly look at this from a civil liberties and non-imperialistic standpoint. To my knowledge, Paul has done more against both than the vast majority of democrats have.

Okay, so since you care for civil liberties, what is Ron Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act? Or by "civil liberties" do you mean Bush era wrongs? This, to me, is the danger of focusing on a narrow issue or range of issues.

I fully well know about his policies - they are consistent with his beliefs.

And pray tell, what "broader range of issues" are you talking about when considering this? What other GOP congressman has consistently opposed the Bush and Obama era of NSA politics?

[Darth Wong]

You guys are talking past one another because you're using the word "consistent" differently.

Thanas is saying that Ron Paul is consistent, in the sense that he has a well-defined platform and he doesn't change it over time, whereas other Republicans will support an idea and then scream that it's EEEEEVIL the moment Obama proposes the exact same idea a year later.

The others are saying that Ron Paul is inconsistent, in the sense that his platform is not logically consistent with itself.

It's temporal consistency versus logical self-consistency. Ron Paul spews illogical bullshit, so he is not logically consistent, but he is temporally consistent, in the sense that he spews the same illogical bullshit year after year, even as the rest of the Republican party sways wildly to and fro.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The daily show had a bit about this yesterday. They even showed a news clip which had 4 republicans ranked 1-4, and the commentators talked about the ones ranked 1st, 2nd, and 4th. Guess where Ron Paul was ranked.

[Phantasee]

Rogue linked to it earlier in the thread, Chewie. It was a little ridiculous to watch, especially the CNN clip. Ron Paul is speaking behind the reporter on the ground, and the anchor actually tells him to send any Bachmann clips he can get, and then tells him to leave out any clips of Paul. I know the media shapes politics but I've never seen it so blatant, across networks.

[Cecelia5578]

And pray tell, what "broader range of issues" are you talking about when considering this? What other GOP congressman has consistently opposed the Bush and Obama era of NSA politics?

Um, how about civil rights in general? Admittedly, I think we are using different terms here. By "civil liberties" you are focused solely on what happened with the Bush Administration with the GWOT and all that. I was using the term to focus on civil rights of Americans in general, (like the Civil Rights Act, etc) not just with regards to the War on Terror and its abuses.

[Darth Wong]

And pray tell, what "broader range of issues" are you talking about when considering this? What other GOP congressman has consistently opposed the Bush and Obama era of NSA politics?

Um, how about civil rights in general? Admittedly, I think we are using different terms here. By "civil liberties" you are focused solely on what happened with the Bush Administration with the GWOT and all that. I was using the term to focus on civil rights of Americans in general, (like the Civil Rights Act, etc) not just with regards to the War on Terror and its abuses.

The problem is that civil rights are not necessarily the same thing as civil liberties. Some rights (such as the right to be treated equally and without discrimination) cannot possibly be put into place unless other peoples' civil liberties (ie-to engage in racial discrimination to protect the status quo) are infringed. Libertarians believe the latter is more important than the former.

[Flagg]

I dunno, I still think the terms are interchangeable.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I feel the straw poll was pointless - all of Bachman and Paul's sycophants turned out en masse to vote for their respective demagogue, while the Republicans who felt like participating in the straw poll chose their pick from amongst all the contenders.

[Flagg]

I feel the straw poll was pointless - all of Bachman and Paul's sycophants turned out en masse to vote for their respective demagogue, while the Republicans who felt like participating in the straw poll chose their pick from amongst all the contenders.

The straw poll isn't pointless, it's a fundraiser for the Republican party. You have to pay to vote.

[Hillary]

For UK people, the link that Rouge 9 : posted doesn't work. Here's a reasonable You Tube link.

Very, very funny stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO93P6uz9t8

[Lord Zentei]

Ron Paul opposes government intervention to ensure civil rights not merely because he thinks liberties are more important, but on account of the libertarian philosophy that protection would be in place regardless, as an emergent property of human interaction - IF you ensure liberty. While I question this view, he is certainly consistent with this philosophy (moreover, I have seen libertarians assert that it is government, not profit-seeking businesses who is more likely to discriminate).

Frankly, for all his alleged inconsistencies, I certainly prefer Ron Paul to most Republicans. I certainly prefer him to Rick Perry who increasingly looks like he might be the next Republican candidate.

[Zaune]

Ron Paul opposes government intervention to ensure civil rights not merely because he thinks liberties are more important, but on account of the libertarian philosophy that protection would be in place regardless, as an emergent property of human interaction - IF you ensure liberty. While I question this view, he is certainly consistent with this philosophy (moreover, I have seen libertarians assert that it is government, not profit-seeking businesses who is more likely to discriminate).

Frankly, for all his alleged inconsistencies, I certainly prefer Ron Paul to most Republicans. I certainly prefer him to Rick Perry who increasingly looks like he might be the next Republican candidate.

Each to his own, chum. I personally would rather be ruled by a follower of the "fuck the poor, we're rich 'cause we don't suck!" school of conservatism than someone stupid enough to believe that the innate fundamental goodness of humanity makes big government redundant. At least the former has a good grasp of human nature.

[Lord Zentei]

Not the innate fundamental goodness of humanity, but the consequence of enlightened self interest in an environment where people have to respect each other's liberties.

Besides, Rick Perry is outright corrupt, and in addition would pursue the current war doctrines, the curtailing of civil liberties (such as the Patriot act), extraordinary rendition, would certainly appoint anti-choice justices to the SCOTUS, and in general believes in the blurring of the line between Church and State. Besides, it's not as if he would institute regulations that improve the lot of the common man - any regulations he'd approve would have quite the opposite effect. In that case, less new regulation would indeed be better.

But if you're OK with all of that, then yes, to each his own.

[Celador]

I feel the straw poll was pointless - all of Bachman and Paul's sycophants turned out en masse to vote for their respective demagogue, while the Republicans who felt like participating in the straw poll chose their pick from amongst all the contenders.

Well, historically the Ames Straw Poll isn't pointless because it gives campaigns a chance to demonstrate their organization and ability to mobilize support. It's not important in itself, but it's more visible than the other parts of the primary process at this point. That's why it has a history of weaning the field and turning attention to previously ignored candidates like Mike Huckabee who show that they might be capable of launching a serious campaign.

This year will continue to raise doubts about the effectiveness of Ames, especially if Bachmann doesn't win in Iowa. Pawlenty (who was treated as a serious candidate) came in third and dropped out. Santorum, who has shown no ability to fundraise so far and who could easily drop out before the caucuses, came in fourth. And Herman Cain placed fifth, which was actually a very disappointing finish for him. With Ron Paul, these candidates comprise the top 5 - and none of them seem likely, or even plausible as nominees. This would have been the story if Paul had won.

[Darth Wong]

The problem is that civil rights are not necessarily the same thing as civil liberties. Some rights (such as the right to be treated equally and without discrimination) cannot possibly be put into place unless other peoples' civil liberties (ie-to engage in racial discrimination to protect the status quo) are infringed. Libertarians believe the latter is more important than the former.

I dunno, I still think the terms are interchangeable.

That's because you're American, and you've unconsciously bought into the notion that a "right" can only be a personal liberty, and never an entitlement. A Canadian can refer to health care as a right, but if you think "rights" and "liberties" are interchangeable terms, you can't.

[Zaune]

Not the innate fundamental goodness of humanity, but the consequence of enlightened self interest in an environment where people have to respect each other's liberties.

Same difference, ultimately. And the only environment where people have to respect each other's liberties is one created wholly artificially by an outside agency with enough firepower to slap down the predators, and ideally the will to counteract everyone else's extreme difficulty giving a toss about anyone they don't know personally.

Perry might well be a first-rate shit for all I know -I'd never even heard of him until that thread about the radioactive drinking water- but at least his ideology doesn't amount to going back to pre-Roman levels of government and rule of law.

[Flagg]

I actually don't agree with that at all. My position is that both are rights. I think it's a civil right to bar someone from your business based on race, but it's in societies interest as well as the rights of others to infringe upon the right to discriminate based on race.

[Darth Wong]

I actually don't agree with that at all. My position is that both are rights. I think it's a civil right to bar someone from your business based on race, but it's in societies interest as well as the rights of others to infringe upon the right to discriminate based on race.

As I said, this is precisely what I never liked about the way Americans think of rights. Even something as simple as saying "hey, you can't kick that guy out of your restaurant for being black" cannot be described by Americans as a defense of rights. It can only be described by Americans as an infringement of rights.

[erik_t]

Uh... I think the entire American left would describe that as a defense of rights.

[Darth Wong]

Uh... I think the entire American left would describe that as a defense of rights.

There is an American left?

More seriously, they might use the word "rights" to describe it, but only by converting it into something that sounds like a liberty: they call it "freedom from discrimination". And when confronted with the fact that you have to infringe upon peoples' liberties to enforce it, they can get uncomfortable and lose their assertiveness. Look at how people react when you start slinging the word "quota" around in such a debate.

[Mr Bean]

Uh... I think the entire American left would describe that as a defense of rights.

There is an American left?

Here we call them Progressives, the only one left in government at the moment is Bernie Sanders Senator of Vermont since he can't run as a socialist democrat.

[Lord Zentei]

Not the innate fundamental goodness of humanity, but the consequence of enlightened self interest in an environment where people have to respect each other's liberties.

Same difference, ultimately.

What a profoundly ignorant thing to say.

And the only environment where people have to respect each other's liberties is one created wholly artificially by an outside agency with enough firepower to slap down the predators, and ideally the will to counteract everyone else's extreme difficulty giving a toss about anyone they don't know personally.

So?

Perry might well be a first-rate shit for all I know -I'd never even heard of him until that thread about the radioactive drinking water- but at least his ideology doesn't amount to going back to pre-Roman levels of government and rule of law.

See point #1.

[Lord Zentei]

I actually don't agree with that at all. My position is that both are rights. I think it's a civil right to bar someone from your business based on race, but it's in societies interest as well as the rights of others to infringe upon the right to discriminate based on race.

As I said, this is precisely what I never liked about the way Americans think of rights. Even something as simple as saying "hey, you can't kick that guy out of your restaurant for being black" cannot be described by Americans as a defense of rights. It can only be described by Americans as an infringement of rights.

It probably comes from the fact that the Bill of Rights is a document enshrining only so called "first generation" rights, namely political rights and rights to due process. Second and third generation rights have been added only incrementally (notably, FDR wanted a "second bill of Rights" which would be second-generation rights - i.e. economic rights such as employment, education and a living wage, etc.). Thus, these don't have the strong association with the document to which most Americans ascribe the founding principles of "rights".

Also, some theorists who reject the concept of entitlements being "rights" argue that a "right" is, by definition, something which cannot be withheld, which potentially leads to problems if it entails significant resource costs.

[DPDarkPrimus]

With Ron Paul, these candidates comprise the top 5 - and none of them seem likely, or even plausible as nominees. This would have been the story if Paul had won.

There was a quote in the Gazette from some political analyst that said if Ron Paul would have come in first the story in the news would be "What's wrong with Iowan Republicans?", rather than what the straw poll meant for the Republican Party as a whole.