I consider myself a liberal. left leaning, tree hugging Democrat. I frequent all the "liberal" blogs and am becoming increasingly baffled by many in my party who are supporting Dr. Ron Paul. Maybe these people are one issue voters? I mean, I understand how ending the Iraq war and ending the war on drugs can be appealing. But when you dig deeper you find out how conservative the man really is. Am I living in some alternate universe here? When have liberals ever embraced the ideologies of a conservative?
The intent of my journal is not to disuade the libertarins and republicans who are voting for Ron Paul. If you really believe his stances, then I have no issue with you voting your conscience...we all should do just that. But I want to talk to my fellow liberals and ask...why?
His Political report and New World Order fantasies aside, how do you reconcile his 100% ranking by the Christian Coalition and the John Birch Society? How do you explain David Duke's endorsement of him? What about this quote by an anonymous stormfront member?Anyone who doesn't vote for Paul on this site is an assclown. Sure he doesn't come right out and say he is a WN [white nationalist], who cares! He promotes agendas and ideas that allow Nationalism to flourish. If we "get there" without having to raise hell, who cares; as long as we finally get what we want. I don't understand why some people do not support this man, Hitler is dead, and we shall probably never see another man like him.
Pat Buchanan's book "Where the Right Went Wrong" is a prime example of getting the point across without having the book banned for anti semitism. The chapters about the war in Iraq sound like a BarMitzvah, but he doesn't have to put the Star of David next to each name for us to know what he means. We are running out of options at this point, and I will take someone is 90% with us versus any of the other choices.
Not to mention if Paul makes a serious run, he legitimizes White Nationalism and Stormfront, for God's sake David Duke is behind this guy!
Now, obviously he cannot be held accountable for comments by his supporters. But what about this little diddy:"Cross burning could be a crime if they were violating somebody's property rights,'' he said during his campaign. But if you go out on your farm some place and it's on your property and you put two sticks together and you burn it, I am not going to send in the federal police."
When you first hear this, it's easy to agree that what one does on their own property is their own business. But can we still claim that cross burning is free speech when it is used to terrorize another culture of Americans? Cross burning is considered a hate crime in most parts of the country...and I am totally creeped out by his denial of it (he's focusing on property rights, not civil rights here.) Speaking of denial please look at this piece about ghost writers and his claim that those weren't his words in his survival report. His argument doesn't hold water. Is all this just coincidence? You decide.
Back in 1996, Molly Ivins tried to warn us with this:Dallas' 5th District, East Texas' 2nd District and the amazing 14th District,which runs all over everywhere, are also in play. In the amazing 14th, Democrat Lefty Morris (his slogan is ''Lefty is Right!'') faces the Republican/Libertarian Ron Paul, who is himself so far right that he's sometimes left, as happens with your Libertarians. I think my favorite issue here is Paul's 1993 newsletter advising ''Frightened Americans'' on how to get their money out of the country. He advised that Peruvian citizenship could be purchased for a mere 25 grand. That we should all become Peruvians is one of the more innovative suggestions of this festive campaign season. But what will the Peruvians think of it?
Why aren't we listening? How do we reconcile becoming Peruvians to protect our money and his desire to become our President? Again, odd. Why run for President if you despise the federal government?
But the biggest concern in all this is his desire to privatize everything. He is anti-environment...because apparently the environment isn't part of the constitution. Well I have news, there's a little clause in the constitution that provides for federal government intervention in the interest of the general welfare. I'm positive stabilizing our environment is in the best interests of the people of the United States. I guess his solution would be to contract the EPA out to the highest bidder...maybe even an oil company? <sigh>
Lastly, social security and medicare resulted from the great depression. There are problems with these two programs, but nothing that can't be solved. I firmly believe that our government is supposed to help it's citizens when they are down so they can succeed. I think most liberals feel this way. It may not be happening now, but my dream is that to be a reality one day. So when Dr. Paul makes comments like this I would like to know if the great depression wasn't as much as a national tragedy as my history books say it was? Maybe it didn't even happen in his world? History has a way of repeating itself....and if elected, I hope those who vote for him are prepared for it.
As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation."
Liberals for Ron Paul....do your research before supporting this man...make sure he stands for what you stand for before you pull the lever. There is much more to him than just his anti-war policy.
Check out some of the top posts today in Groups: