Paul Suspends Presidential Campaign, Forms New Org

JoeKuboj writes "Texas Rep. Ron Paul announced Thursday he is suspending his bid for the Republican presidential nomination to focus his time on building an organization to help recruit and elect 'limited government Republicans.' Paul's decision to leave the race is an acknowledgment he had no chance of winning the GOP nomination. But even in loss, Paul is one of a handful of candidates who walked away from this presidential contest a winner. His presidential campaign had a broad base of support that included traditionally fiscal and socially conservative Republicans to young people who were angry about the U.S. decision to wage war against Iraq."

Comments

No, I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

His presidential campaign had a broad base of support that included traditionally fiscal and socially conservative Republicans to young people who were angry about the U.S. decision to wage war against Iraq. The socially conservative Republicans were strongly against Ron Paul.

Re:No, I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the submitter has some special definition of "socially conservative" (like how liberal is completely transformed when you call it classical) then yeah, the entire tiny government thing is 100% against the current "socially conservative" movement of having the government making sure you live your life the right way.

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that he still wants to remain a Republican. This is actually good news for his sympathizers.

Whoever wins the Presidential election in November, it's clear that the Republicans are in a the midst of a deep identity crisis. This is a tremendous opportunity to swing one of the major parties in a new direction.

As they say, there is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. I think Dr. Paul is going to try to take the tide. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

Not a bad plan

[CaptainNerdCave]

he could have continued running for a position he had no real hope to win, or, he could step down and start trying to rally people behind a new set of goals.

whether or not anyone here agrees with his positions or thinks he is/n't right about anything, i think we can all agree that this represents a step towards what this country's political system needs most: diversity.

Re:Not a bad plan

[7Prime]

Not sure if diversity is the problem. We've got an insanely divided party system as it is, with ultra-conservative republicans and moderate democrats (we need more liberals). We don't have a lack of diversity in ideology, no matter what these brats say about "all politicians are the same", we've got a lack of diversity in PARTIES. The most efficient forms of democratic government have lots of smaller parties in which none have enough power to filibuster each other. The english have a much more efficient government than we do, so do the Japanese. Of course, they're smaller countries, which has advantages too.

I guess what I'm saying is that there will always be corruption and payoffs, but the more parties there are, the more spread out those things become, and the more breathing room there actually is.

Ron Paul may have acted like a libertarian (a socially conservative libertarian), but by awknowledging the republican party, he made it clear that diversification of party power wasn't a main priority. I'll support (though maybe not agree with) a libertarian candidate, a green party candidate, or otherwise... but Ron Paul was just another republican to me, with more of a "get off my lawn" type of attitude.

Re:Not a bad plan

[Original Replica]

We need a real third party in this country.

As long as we stick to the antiquated "one man, one vote" system we will only every have a two party system. Of course the party bigs know this and would never dream of letting the US transfer to to something like instant runoff voting or range voting. If we had instant runoff voting there would be no "spoilers" like Nader or Perot when a third party is forming. That is why Ron Paul is staying Republican, because he might change the party from within but he will never be able to start a successful third party. Our only hope of ever having a better voting system is to change it first at the State level through referendums, until a majority of States use it and develop viable third parties.

Re:Not a bad plan

[WiseWeasel]

I disagree completely. In most ways, the nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties are incredibly similar. In fact, it's quite difficult to find any substantial differences in the campaign promises of either Obama or McCain, once you get past the different tones they use to the actual meat of what they say they will do. Clearly, there is a large number of Americans that feel poorly represented by both candidates, and this leaves an opportunity for the formation of serious alternative political parties. When we factor in the revolution taking place in media distribution, it's quite possible that we are in for some serious changes in American politics.

Paul has a heavy economist and foreign relations background from the committees he's been a member of in Congress, combined with little hesitation to speak out without fear of ruffling feathers, and this has allowed him to articulate proposed radical technical changes to the structure of our country which get at the heart of the situation we currently find ourselves in. Those types of ideas would not have come from most party apparatchiks, and while it's easy to argue that they are impractical and beyond the scope of the powers granted a US president, they have illuminated some of the fundamental problems this country must wrestle with, and exposed a large number of people to some of the workings of our government, which is never a bad thing.

The fact that we're having discussions on monetary policy, the US's role in the world, and other serious issues often glanced over in most political debate is worth a great deal to this country, and anything that helps more people get involved in their government can only be to our advantage, regardless of ideology. Politics as usual as covered in classic media has been extremely shallow and limited up to this point, and we're witnessing a great shift as populism controls the distribution of information on the internet. If the Democratic and Republican parties can't tell which direction the wind is blowing, and fail to adjust their trajectory, then it is entirely possible that they might start losing support in favor of new groups.

Either way, with such a fundamental change in information distribution taking place at the national and global level, it's foolish to count on historical trends alone to predict future outcomes.

Re:Not a bad plan

[Ed Avis]

The most efficient forms of democratic government have lots of smaller parties in which none have enough power to filibuster each other. The english have a much more efficient government than we do, so do the Japanese.

These two sentences completely contradict each other. The United Kingdom has basically a two-party system, with government and opposition swapping places every decade or so. There is one small third party and the remaining parties are all regional/nationalist ones with only a handful of representatives.

As for Japan, it was ruled by the same single party from 1955 until 1993, and for much of the time since then.

If you want to see a system with lots of small parties, look at Italy. Germany is in between the two extremes, with four or five medium to large parties.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Quattro Vezina]

Paul's "We the People Act" was designed to overturn Lawrence v. Texas and gave express permission to states to forbid homosexual conduct.

Paul doesn't believe in limited government, just limited federal government. He has no problem with individual states violating human rights with no recourse whatsoever.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Quattro Vezina]

Oh, and I've got a link to the text of the We the People Act, too.

Re:A broad base of ..

[morari]

I don't see why. They're one of the largest presences within the Beta Quadrant.

Why Not?

[pavon]

The thing about presidential campaigns in the US is that they, more than any other event, get people talking about public policy. Half of the stuff that gets debated really has nothing to do with the presidency - it is really more the job of congress. But it is these campaigns that frame the political conversation for the next 1-3 years to come. So if you want your ideas, and your issues to have a place in this media short-list, then you are best off if you can get them into discussion surrounding the presidential election.

That is really what "no-chance" third party runs are about. And the Ron-Paul campaign has succeeded in creating a lot of discussion that wouldn't have happened if it was just an activist group. Now that the primaries are over there is no more venue to do this. Neither he nor his cause has anything to gain from being an annoying thorn-in-the side at the GOP Convention. He knew from the beginning that he wasn't going to win the nomination, and stepping down gracefully is the best thing to do.

Furthermore, I don't think there is really anything to be gained from running as an independent. First off, for good or bad, Paul has decided to work within the Republican party. Secondly, I don't really know who his campaign would draw more voters from - McCain, Obama or the Libertarian candidate. Most importantly, Paul wants to return to his congressional seat which he would have to forfeit if he made a run for the presidency. He can do more good serving another term as congressman then he would by extending this campaign another half year.

Paul realized this was the wrong year

[Anonymous Coward]

for a serious third party candidacy, since the two major party candidates both appeal to independents, which is a rarity.

Had the two parties nominated Romney and Clinton, we might have seen any number of serious challengers, including Paul, Bloomberg, and Hagel. At least one of them would've taken 5-7 pct of the vote in November. As it is, I don't expect Barr or Nader to take even half of 1 pct between them.

Re:Paul realized this was the wrong year

[drachenstern]

Three parties is just as bad as two. We need six or seven parties...

I guess just so long as there is no Party of Five on my presidential or congressional election stub...

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!

[drachenstern]

I don't know if you've noticed, but this site is one of the first blogs, it just has a lot more readers than your average blog. Given that the founder PROPOSED on this site, I would say that makes it a lot more personal than, say, the WSJ. Therfore, shaddup. Besides, why am I replying to an AC? Guess I oughta not hit preview->submit

Re:The 13th-15th.

[Hubbell]

Hence the AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION that established civil rights for them and other minorities. If you wanna have something that affects all states that isn't deemed a power granted to the legislative branch by the Constitution, try and get it amended! Otherwise, the states get to choose, or atleast should.

Actually, he's a creationist.

[Valdrax]

On what you learn in science class. (See question 4.)
More detail on that.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[drachenstern]

Sorry Quattro, but I agree with Hubbell here. The states were originally founded to each be sovereign, with a federal system to ensure interstate commerce and to protect the common borders (the oceans and the Canadian/Mexican borders as it stands todate). I don't know if you've noticed, but we've kinda given up any hope of only defending our own borders, as we'ld need to bring all our troops home from all the remote bases around the world. Then, we'ld need to, ya know, protect our own borders. That would be a real shame, eh?

As far as what that bill means, it doesn't mean that the Federal Gov't should say homosexuality is wrong, it says that the federal gov't should keep it's f*ing nose out of my bedroom. Now, once the federal gov't is gone, I'll deal with my state gov't. Mind you, I live in Texas, so I know what I'm talking about when I say I'll deal with the state once the feds are gone.

Plus, "it's like a whole other country here" and I'm getting to the point where I want my brethren in this region to think that way on a more regular basis. Seems there were a couple boys back in the 1800s that thought that way and went so far as to found a seperate nation between the US and Mexico, and the leaders only gave in when the populace wanted to join with the US, just in time for the Civil War. But for to be the only State in this here Union which was previously a successful country of it's own right, to me that's pretty decent. Don't you agree?

The civil war wasn't about the Union trying to tell the South that it couldn't secede, it was about the fact that the southerners didn't want to pay exorbitant taxes to the north for manufactured goods produced in the US. If you don't believe me, go ask a civil war historian (not some re-enactment fella, and not your kids civics class teacher. A real Historian) what the Civil War was started over, and they'll tell you it had nothing to do with Slavery. That was a battle cry that was picked up half-way through, and it made Lincoln look like a bastard to the south. Not only did they now half to pay exorbitant taxes, but they had invested all that money in slaves and now the investment was pissed away too.

You'll ignore this next sentence, I know.

NOT THAT I THINK SLAVERY WAS ALL THAT GOOD OF AN IDEA.

I mean, indentured servitude, sure that was good, because that was for a reason, and that was almost slavery. There weren't as many chains, but still.

Besides, I wasn't even going to go off about slavery or anything, I just wanted to mention the bit about how f*d up it is to have the federal gov't dictate what the individual states should do, any more than the fact that the fed'l gov't should not actively regulate interstate commerce. Yet, I also think that the fed'l gov't should quit asking for taxes in my state, just so they can dole them out in some other state, to a whole lot of freeloaders. And don't think they don't do just that.

Last riposte before I go. Do you know which was the last major democratic country to give a major economic stimulus to it's citizens when the economy was in a bad way? I'll give you a hint, you couldn't use a million marks to buy a loaf of bread. And now this gov't wants to give me an economic stimulus when my economy is going down the shitter? Oh great.

Re:The 13th-15th.

[diamondmagic]

Mod up! No one seems to understand that if the constitution disagrees with something, you can not just write legislation and hope it is never challenged, you must amend the constitution if you don't like it.
There is this class of people who seem to think you can just pass any law you like, it is the supreme courts job exclusively to decide what is constitutional. This is immediately followed by everyone wondering why we suddenly have a huge executive branch and the PATRIOT act...

why stop now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had really hoped he'd was going to continue his campaign though to the end. He could have done to McCain what Perot and Nader did in the 90's and 2000 elections. We need someone to keep some votes away from the third term of Bush.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Hubbell]

Lincoln in his own words said he would have gladly kept the Union together if it merely meant allowing the South to keep their slaves. He only freed the slaves in the SOUTHERN states in the emancipation proclamation so they would revolt and help the North in their war effort. Slaves in the north were left enslaved.

Re:The 13th-15th.

[Valdrax]

Okay, I'm an idiot for doing this, as now everyone'll say "He's a racist arsehole". I'm not racist, I have many black friends, I have many white friends, I don't give a holy f*k about race. I'm a facts man. Alright, let's pretend that's true. I doubt it, but let's pretend. How about some facts...

The facts are that the blacks were trading the folks that got brought over on boats as slaves long before Whitey from the South showed up with empty boats headed to the sugar/cotton farms. Fact 1: Slavery as practiced in Africa was very different from the kind of slavery practiced in the South. African slavery, like most world slavery throughout history, was a practice of taking war captives. Slavery was almost never for life, it did not extend to one's children, and a slave was not the chattel of another person. Read more here.

Observation: Two wrongs do not make a right. Even if Africans had practiced the kind of slavery that plantation owners did, that does not absolve the United States of any wrongdoing in its benefit from the trade, nor does it mean that there was no duty to put an end to rampant discrimination that followed the freeing of the slaves, from the "black laws" of the Reconstruction South that barred freed slaves from voting, owning property, being on juries, etc. to the "softer" Jim Crow laws and segregation of the 20th century.

The facts are that there were white slaves too, and black landowners/slaveowners/slavedrivers. Fact 2: White slavery was largely unknown by the time of the Revolutionary War. Even the indentured servant system recognized indentured servants as having significantly more rights than black slaves. Indentured servitude was not for life, and masters were expected to give their servants a starting package (by law) to help them found their own homes and families. Colonial Virginia, for example, required that white servants be given a rifle, some money, and some minimal provisions.

As for black slaveowners in America: Citation please. (i.e. I call B.S.) Even if true, two wrongs don't make a right, and only the most deluded or ignorant student of history would believe that there was anything resembling equality between whites & blacks in their status in society.

The facts are that anybody currently alive in the US who feels that [the history is still a good reason for active debate and hatred against a group of people who have no way to change their forefathers actions] should get up and leave the country.

Do you need help buying a plane ticket to move to Africa? (See, it's that last comment that's going to burn me, but I'm still asking, and I'm still serious. I advocate changing the system, not blaming the great...great grandkids.) First of all, why do you assume that I'm of African descent myself just because I (like most Americans) feel some disgust for the horrible and degrading institutions of slavery & segregation?

Frankly, I think the fact that you feel you have to state that you're "not a racist" shows that you damned well know that supporting the right of states to engage in discrimination is something that most sane and patriotic Americans react to with disgust.

What honestly motivated you to write this whole "go back to Africa" diatribe in response to someone stating that the problem with letting states do as they wish is the historical tendency of states to oppress unpopular groups like black people? Can it really be anything other than knee-jerk racist resentment?

Next time, if you're going to go off the reservation and rant about how racial equality is such a put-upon for the current generation, at least try to get some of your historical facts straight. Not that I think reality has a firm grip on you as is.

Ironic.

[Valdrax]

There is this class of people who seem to think you can just pass any law you like, it is the supreme courts job exclusively to decide what is constitutional. This statement is ironic considering that the topic of discussion was Ron Paul's proposed Amendment to overturn a Supreme Court decision overruling exactly the kind of Constitution-ignoring legislation you decry.

Re:Happened once already

[grylnsmn]

Before reagan, pubs wanted us to stay out of other nations (except covertly; nam was started covertly by Eisenhower),

Actually, Truman is the one who first sent troops to Vietnam, not Eisenhower.

Not difficult to find differences at all

[weston]

I disagree completely. In most ways, the nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties are incredibly similar. In fact, it's quite difficult to find any substantial differences in the campaign promises of either Obama or McCain

It's not difficult at all to find substantial differences. At least one was all over the news today:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/06/fallout_from_the_gitmo_ruling.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/mccain-habeas-court/

We've recently discussed some substantial differences in tech policy and in advisor selection on slashdot.

I get it that to some extent, certain political realities force every mainstream candidate into certain positions. But it's wildly wrong to take the further step and equate all their positions, and furthermore, it's dangerous.

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[7Prime]

Exactly. This is why I find the, "all candidates are too similar" arguement to be so disturbing. For fuck's sake, I heard it back in 2000 against Bush and Gore. "Bush/Gore...what's the difference?" Holy shit, how naive are these people? If they can't tell the difference between a philistine semi-fascist war-monger, and an intellectual-minded left-leaning "let's listen to the experts" leader... then I don't know what else to tell ya.

Now isn't quite as extreme as the year 2000, which may have been the most extreme in the nation's history. But still the differences are very clear. The main difference, once again, is in the roll of privatization vs. government. THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE. It may not be "abortion" it might not be "should we go to war", but it's the kind of decision that leads a type of decision on substantial issues. For instance, War in Iraq would not have been an issue if not for the fundimental roll that private contracts/armies played.

Do you think that massive privatization is a good thing for the country? If yes, vote McCain, if No, vote Obama... that should be a pretty defining issue.

Secondly, how do you want your leader to communicate with other individuals/leaders? This is a big decision because it shows how likely the person is to be able to convince other people/leaders to follow through with their plans. Both McCain and Obama are fairly wise individuals, and project themselves fairly possitively. But McCain has the ability to intimidate (which isn't neccessarily a bad thing), where as Obama is more likely to adopt inspirational speak. As an idealist, I tend to like Obama's style better... but there is a time and place for the kind of communicative pattern that McCain has.

And we haven't even gotten to the issues yet. But the issues aren't really as important as the philosophy behind them. The bottom line is, most of the important decisions a president will make, we can't even guess at this point (Bush's legacy, no one could have expected in 2000, for instance). Who's going to best processes the incoming issues? Who's going to make decisions that fit with your particular world view.

The fact is, Obama and McCain are wildly different candidates. If you think they're similar, you're either not paying attention, or you probably are just saying that because you don't like either of them. If that's the case, then just say you don't like either of them. I think that they're of the highest caliber politicians we could ask for, personaly. As a liberal democrat, I of course strongly endorse Obama. But I couldn't ask for a better republican opponant.

"Social conservative" in the US

[tepples]

Unless the submitter has some special definition of "socially conservative" In the United States of America, "social conservatism" tends to mean some measure of theonomy, based on a (selective) interpretation of the Torah. For example, social conservatives would be more likely:

• to offer adoption instead of feticide to women with unwanted unborn children ("thou shalt not kill"),
• to recommend execution of people convicted of murder who have lost their appeal ("a life for a life"), and
• not to provide for civil unions of same-sex couples that are analogous to marriage ("a man who lies with a man the way one lies with a woman commits an abomination").

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[zippthorne]

# to recommend execution of people convicted of murder who have lost their appeal ("a life for a life")

Negatory there chief. "An Eye for an Eye" is an argument FOR justice and AGAINST escalation. As in, against the previous unchecked vigilantism. It's better phrased, "no more than an eye for an eye."

not to provide for civil unions of same-sex couples that are analogous to marriage ("a man who lies with a man the way one lies with a woman commits an abomination").

Yeah, you're probably right there, though. On the other hand, there's no compelling state interest in same-sex marriage. Perhaps we should evaluate whether there is a compelling state interest in marriage, at all.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Raenex]

That argument applies to everything we do. "The state knows best for you and society". Anybody who is for limited government should keep government out of marriage and any other "family values" issues.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Entropius]

Yes, but those cultural traditions weren't forced on anyone. That was the whole point of the "freedom of religion" bit: acknowledging that the cultural traditions of the majority shouldn't be imposed on minorities.

Now days, only if you are non-white are you allowed to keep your culture, except for your religion, you cannot keep that unless you change it to be more politically correct and secular. Yes, we know that religion is what makes the core of any culture, but you cannot keep it.

I'm white and have no problem keeping my culture. I can go to concert halls and see the music of my ancestors played; I can go to a restaurant and eat European food; I can go to any church I care to.

I agree that there's been an artificial glorification of minority culture in some respects (ever seen a Black History Month in an elementary school? It's disgusting), but this is no threat to "white" culture.

You certainly can keep your religion; you're just expected to not harass other people with it. If that's a problem, well, it's not my problem that your superstitions require you to heckle others with little nametags that say "Elder Bob".

And religion is NOT what makes the core of any culture. That's an absurd claim. Cultures with indigenous religions often manifest core cultural traits IN their religions (qv. ancient Greece), which is a different matter -- the culture came first, the religion was created to fit it.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Entropius]

Fetus is the US spelling.

Foetus is the British spelling.

I too approve of approval voting

[tepples]

On my English Wikipedia user page, I state that I too approve of approval voting. Approval voting is a special case of range voting; placing the options at 0% (thumbs down) and 100% (thumbs up) simplifies things for voters below the median. In turn, plurality voting is a special case of approval voting that requires no more than one thumbs up per race. But is there anything in the United States Constitution or federal statute that specifies the method of voting in a way that excludes approval voting? For example, Amendment 17 specifies "two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof", but doesn't go into detail about how they are elected.

Re:I too approve of approval voting

[JeepFanatic]

The Constitution was designed such that elections are left for the states to control - see Article 1 Section 4. Before the 17th Amendment, US Senators were chosen by the state legislatures as a type of balance against the power of the federal government over the states - by the Senators depending upon reelection by the "state" - see Article 1 Section 3 (this is something I believe we should consider returning to).

The 17th Amendment didn't need to specify any further "how" the Senators should be elected other than by the people of the each state and was worded specifically to fit with the original wording.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Rinisari]

He believes in following the Constitution. The Constitution is constructed such that, if it were followed to the letter, states would have the power to do anything or regulate anything not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

If the states wanted to have uniform laws, then they should amend the Constitution to permit the federal government to have a say.

This system allows for diversity in such a large country, both in population and in geographic area. Some people might want it a certain way, and that's their right. States that don't agree would have the right to put economic pressure on states doing bad things, just like the US should be doing with foreign states (aka other countries to those who don't understand the nature of a "state").

Of course I don't agree with those who commit human rights violations. However, that doesn't give me the right to force my way upon them through outright aggression or legalized violence--that's just as much of a human rights violation to me. I can simply choose not to purchase their product or otherwise benefit them, and if enough people follow my lead, the violators' hand is forced: keep violating rights and run out of money, or stop violating rights and be in business.

This is a perfect world idea, one where everyone does what is right and within their limits of person, but if we can't dream and work toward such a thing, then we're just wasting our time.

Freedom

[bill_mcgonigle]

Why is this news on slashdot?

Many Slashdotters are strongly freedom-oriented. They tend to like free software and civil liberties, among other types of freedom. Ron Paul was the freedom-oriented candidate. How is this confusing?

Ron Paul was a fringe candidate ... only the most hard core Ron Paul fans would even know he still had a presidential campaign.

Wow, are you Big Media or do you just buy their story hook, line and sinker? The truth is he got between 3% and 24% in the various primaries and caucuses. That's a respectable showing for a candidate, and he did better than several candidates who Big Media deemed "worthy". Have a look at how the NYT covered him on my blog. This is a snapshot of race results when he came in second in Nevada. They refused to list Ron Paul because they were crusading against him and managing the perception you have. Funny, the Democrats' race added up to 100% but the Republicans had a big missing percentage of voters, where could they have gone?

Now, why would reporters now boldly in the tank for Obama have it in for Ron Paul and back a strong socialist for the Republican nomination? We'll leave this as an exercise to the reader.

Re:Freedom

[Omestes]

I don't like Ron Paul, or even agree with libertarianism, but I agree with you 100%. Both of the hardcore idealist canidates in this election were screwed by the media, even before voting began. Kucinich, and Paul. They shouldn't be in the same sentence, I know, but they both must be doing something right based on their massive anti-fan-base.

Standing up for principles, perhaps?

The media painted both of them into being amusing monkeys, dancing to keep the debates amusing, while the "big boys" debated. I tend to read the "big boys" as synonymous with "bland, flavorless, oatmeal".

If I had my wish we'd have a Kucinich/Paul ticket, or visa versa, things would actually get done, and both of them are more honest than the political survivors.

And apparently this is a lamestream media meme...

[weston]

One more thing: I think it's especially interesting that this sentiment isn't just from supporters of Candidates like Paul (who is in fact starkly different from most candidates on several fronts). This portrayal of the general presidential election as one of small differences is actually apparently a mainstream media meme:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-obamacain8-2008jun08,0,543931.story
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aH8EMkkeMCtw&refer=politics

Not unanticipated, or without precedent:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/how-will-the-campaign-be-covered/

I think the question is: Why? Why, when there are easily locatable differences are there people who seem to like level them? I can understand why Paul looks different compared to Obama and McCain, but that's not even who we're talking about -- we're talking about a media that played up the heat of the contest between Obama and Clinton, but now appears to be playing down the much greater gulf.

Maybe it's because McCain appears to be a moderate if you average his positions:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14577.html
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15649.html

Or maybe it's some inner working of mainstream "journalism" that's just too mysterious for me.

Or maybe it's true what my acquaintances who've worked in the Senate have said: McCain's great in front of the cameras, assiduously cultivates one media image, but in private, he's at best a tyrant and quite possibly mentally instable (note: before you try to pass that off on partisan rancor, note that these acquaintances (plural) that I've received these opinions from were *Republican* Senate staff).

But that's a rumor, one you can't verify unless you also have the acquaintance of Senate staff, and I don't expect you to believe a random poster on the internet about this. Just whatever you do, don't fall for the line that McCain and Obama are somehow twins, that voting for either won't make a difference.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080528/pl_nm/usa_politics_issues_dc

Who you cast your vote for absolutely matters this fall. If you absolutely HAVE to -- vote for Ron Paul or your favorite third party candidate to send a message, sure. Everybody has that right and it's a legitimate use of a vote. But make sure you really understand who the candidates are before you cast your vote. If you genuinely think Obama and McCain are the same, you quite simply haven't done that yet, and your vote will be cast irresponsibly.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Fulminata]

Having grown up in the South, I heard this all my life. The problem is that when you look at the actual politics of the day, the only "state's right" that the North was trying to restrict was the right to determine whether or not the citizens of the state could own slaves. Other issues of taxation and economics all led back to the taxation and economics of that "peculiar institution" of slavery. This is something that most "real historians" that I've read have acknowledged. It's the amateurs that get to "state's rights" and stop there without digging into just what rights the secessionists were talking about.

Politicians in the South emphasized the "state's rights" angle for two reasons:
1) To help convince the non-slave holding majority that war was justified.
2) To try to convince foreign powers that the war was not about slavery.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[jeiler]

Being creationist does not mean being anti-science.

I have heard that statement so often that I am forced to the conclusion that people actually believe it. Such a statement, however, is nothing more than "newspeak." Creationism (and it's bastard offspring, "Intelligent design") is not only anti-science, it is blatantly anti-science. Those Creationists and IDers who actually know anything about science have one stratagem to propagate their ideas, as identified by William Benetta: "They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must."

Please, regardless of whether you are aware of these lies, or if you repeat them in earnest good faith, do not waste my time by repeating them.

Being anti-"public"-school means getting government out of forcing one choice for free education and allowing school vouchers means accountability for the (still-taxpayer-funded) schools, improving our education system. I happen to advocate homeschooling and tax vouchers, so it is difficult to argue these two points. However, one must look to motives and results. Will this actually improve our education system, or will it further dilute scarce financial resources for education? Only time will tell--yet if we have not guessed correctly, the generation that deals with the "worse choice" will suffer.

The R3VOLUTION continues...

[psykocrime]

I'm kinda bummed out about Ron Paul dropping out, but also excited by the hope that many of his supporters will choose to support Bob Barr now. Barr is currently the best hope for Freedom and Liberty among Presidential candidates.

Of course there are others of us running for various other offices who also adhere to the ideals of small government, rule of law and the principles Ron Paul has been advocating. My own campaign for Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina might be of interest to some of you, for example. http://www.philrhodes2008.com/

We can regain our Freedom, if we choose to.

Re:The 13th-15th.

[roystgnr]

Ask black people.

Okay, but white people can feel free to answer too:

Slavery was once practiced in Vermont, in Massachusetts, in Pennsylvania, in Connecticut, in Rhode Island, in New York and New Jersey, in New Hampshire... In each case it was ended because the state was allowed to "decide what they want do" without waiting for the entire country to support that decision. So my easy question is: should these states have been allowed to end slavery on their own, without fear that a majority vote on a national level could have overturned their decision? And the harder question is: if centralized decision making had been allowed to keep slavery from being prohibited one state at a time, how much longer would it have taken before abolitionism became the majority belief?

If compromising federalist principles hastened the release of the remaining slaves, I'll stipulate an "ends justify the means" on that one. But you can't pull out "States' rights are bad because a few states might do bad things" without stopping to consider that sometimes a few states might do good things too. The nice thing about letting each state make its own decisions is that, for questions where they don't all agree with each other, sometimes just comparing the effects of the different choices they make is enough to help people understand which decisions are bad and which are good.

Re:Who says that's conservatism?

[Devin Jeanpierre]

Those sound like economic ideals, not moral. "Social conservatism" has to do with how you live morally, generally-- whereas what you seem to be advocating is just "economic conservatism", or "right-wing economics", "libertarian economics", etc. . One can be economically conservative, socially liberal (Libertarian), economically and socially conservative (stereotypical republican, but...), etc. . Social-conservative economic-liberals are considered fascist pig-dogs by everybody, of course. Point is, from your description I wouldn't call you a social conservative, but an economic conservative and/or social liberal. What you consider 'social conservatism' (the belief that one should make their own way in life) is not at all the definition normally used in American politics. Either the definition where you are from is different, you aren't describing something correctly, or your definition is flat-out wrong for your culture and context.

Re:Happened once already

[Guppy06]

"Before reagan, pubs wanted us to stay out of other nations"

Unless they really wanted to build a new canal. Or just plain shoot at some Spaniards and their former subjects.

Maybe it's because 2 isn't nearly enough

[Moraelin]

Maybe because for Joe Sixpack what matters is "how well they reperesent _my_ point of view?" If the answer is "neither", in a sense, yes, they're both the same.

Essentially it's like having to choose between two women as your wife. (Assuming you're a guy.) One is cute, but is really a guy in drag, dumb as a brick and only talks about his/her hypochondriac imaginary diseases. The other is smart and has big tits, but weighs 300 pounds at 5 ft tall, is butt-ugly and is the stereotypical rabid man-hater. Which one, would you say, better represents your tastes in women?

And if you have an urge to say, "whoa, dude, that's a false dichotomy. There are more kinds of women than that!", congrats, then you get my point perfectly. It shouldn't be a dichotomy in the first place.

Way I see it, it's the same in two-party politics. You have to choose between two package deals, and you're lucky if one issue of each really represents your views.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Guppy06]

"Lincoln made it a war directly about slavery only after the Emancipation Proclamation"

The Confederate Constitution, adopted in March, 1861, predating the Emancipation Proclamation by nearly two years, predating even Virginia's secession, has some interesting differences from the original 1789 document it was trying to emulate:

• No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
• The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
• In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

But, oh no, it had nothing to do with slavery until 1863.

Harag (kill) vs. ratsah (murder)

[tepples]

How can you execute someone without killing? In "thou shalt not kill" from Exodus 20, the Hebrew word popularly translated "kill" (ratsah) more specifically meant "murder". Ordinary killing is harag.

Re:Isolationism rising

[Scrameustache]

the oldies that remember Pearl Harbor The US had been providing aid to England, who was officially at war with Japan.
Japan sent a letter to the government of the united states, declaring war.
Japan sent a giant fleet of war planes towards a military base, on foreign soil, in full view of the worlds' most advanced radar system in the world.

The declaration of war was ignored, the radar operators were told to shut up and turn off their equipement, and the attack was said to be a cowardly surprise attack on the united states, rather than the business-as-usual military action against a military target not on US soil.

I can't wait for the generations that bought into the propaganda of the "cowardly attack on the US" to die off. The truth shall set the rest of us free.