Is Paul a precursor of a more presentable candidate in 2016?

US Politics
on 77 Comments

I’m stunned by the way that mainstream newscasters continue to overlook Ron Paul. He’s running second in the New Hampshire polls after Mitt Romney, but commentators can only talk about Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich– even when those polls are right up on the screen. The blindness (evident on NBC Nightly News, Chris Matthews, and NPR) feeds conspiracy theory– and may only foster the movement that Paul is leading. A couple people have pointed me to this video above, in which CNN reporter Dana Bash says she’s “worried” that Ron Paul will continue to hang in there through the nominating season. 

Meantime, here are two realists arguing that while they couldn’t vote for Ron Paul, he presages an important shift in our politics.  

Pat Lang says Paul is too old to be president, but likens our historical moment (as I have done) to the 1850s, when the slave power was regnant and it required a new party to break it.

IMO what you are seeing in the highly disciplined mass of young people who support Paul is the commencement of a powerful movement that will result in a political party.

In 1856 the Republican Party ran its first presidential candidate.  Paul should run as a representative of a new party.

By the way, Lincoln, who of course ran on the Republican ticket in 1860, repeatedly attacked a “conspiracy” of the slave power inside our politics in the 1858 Douglas debates, a race he lost. He said the conspiracy corrupted Whigs and Democrats, who coordinated matters like the Dred Scott decision behind the scenes. He wanted the debate out in the open.

Then here is Steve Walt’s view of Paul as a precursor:

Paul comes with too much baggage to persuade many people to follow his banner, and his views on other issues provides the media and other mainstream groups with an excuse to ignore the more interesting parts of his message.  If by some miracle Paul managed to win the Republican nomination, the general election would probably look a lot like Johnson’s crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964.

But that historical analogy got me wondering. Contemporary political historians argue that Goldwater’s defeat in 1964 laid the foundation for the modern conservative movement, which came to fruition with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Paul has done surprisingly well during this primary season, and his views clearly resonate with a sizeable core of young and fairly well-educated voters. Is it possible that Paul’s brand of foreign policy restraint just needs a better champion, one who is both more broadly appealing but also not saddled by so much poisonous baggage? In short, just as Ronald Reagan eventually built on the Goldwater movement and made its core principles appealing to many Americans, might Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy be awaiting the arrival of a candidate (in 2016, or maybe 2020) who can put them in a more attractive package? 

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

77 Responses

    • kalithea
      January 7, 2012, 11:38 pm


      America, you are being played. Keep Ron Paul’s picture in your mind, because the media is trying to erase him.

  1. HarryLaw
    January 7, 2012, 11:43 am

    Paul is campaigning for the GOP nomination he is head and shoulders above any other candidate, in a face off with Obama, Paul could not but open up a healthy debate in US on Foreign Policy. In the meantime how about this poster for Pauls campaign.
    See here:-

    • Bandolero
      January 7, 2012, 5:10 pm

      Great poster – that would be the ultimate path to confront the lobby and eventually win.

      PS: there is just a minor problem with the Sharon quote. That quote is disputed and may be a fabricaton. May be this one would be better: “Believe me, America accepts all our decisions” – Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman.

    • kalithea
      January 7, 2012, 11:48 pm

      Obama’s also the Lobby’s puppet.

      Ron Paul represents freedom in every sense of the word.

  2. Scott
    January 7, 2012, 11:49 am

    Rand Paul is one natural candidate– it’s not clear to me he’s up to it, but he might be.

  3. yourstruly
    January 7, 2012, 12:10 pm

    wait til 2016 for an anti-war/pro-demilitarization candidate? given, the other republican candidates (by conviction) as well as president barack obama (by caving) most likely will attack iran, leading to ww iii and the end of what’s left of u.s. democracy, can we afford to wait until then?

    • Bandolero
      January 7, 2012, 5:35 pm

      Waiting till 2016 or 2020 will most likely be useless. Until then every candidate will have adopted Ron Paul’s foreign policy views more or less, because the financial restrictions don’t leave them any other choice.

      For 2016 the IMF expects China to overtake the US as the world’s largest economy in terms of GDP in PPP. In the past the IMF has always overestimated the US and underestimated China, so the actual speed might be even greater. In 2020 the Chinese economy can be expected to be ~30% larger then that of the US in terms of GDP in PPP. In the following years the gap between the Chinese and the US economy is expected rapidly to become larger and larger, and China’s GDP can be expected to quickly overtake the combined GDP of the US and the EU.

      Of course, with the larger economy China will be able to throw more money in absolute terms to it’s military than the US wil be able to finance in the long run. The US hegemony over the world comes then to a definitive end. And year by year from now on the picture will become clearer and clearer. More US military adventures in the coming years will only fasten the process of relative decline of US world power, like the US-led wars against Afghanistan and Iraq only fastened the rise of China.

      So all that aggressive military posture by the US in the meantime will have in the geopolitical sphere no other effect than the US becomes more indebted. What Ron Paul offers would be to have a peaceful transition into the inevitable multipolar world led by China, spare millions of lifes, and, despite of loosing the economic sway over world affairs, to conserve American economical well being.

      But to get that peaceful transition – instead of a transition forced by wars and bancruptcy, US policy needs to change now – and it needs to change dramatically.

      • yourstruly
        January 8, 2012, 9:11 am

        and what of the refusal of the u.s., china & india (among others) to get serious about global warming? what effect, this, on your prognistication, por favor?

      • Bandolero
        January 8, 2012, 11:18 am

        I think the global warming topic is a serious topic, but there are two big propaganda machines sitting behind it spreading disinformation, one is the fossile energy industry spreading propaganda lies that there is no problem, the other is a global warming propaganda machine doing everything to make appear the problem as grave as possible – even when it means distorting facts for this.

        I’m not sure how serious the topic of global warming in reality is. Will there be a catastrophic hunger crisis due to global warming? Or will the global warming problem be less bad than the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora? Maybe global population growth is a more serious challange than global warming regarding a catastrophic hunger crisis? I don’t know for sure.

        But what I know for sure is, that the topic of global warming is in realpolitik all about big money transfers between developing (China, India, …) and developed (USA, …) countries.

        When it looked like greenhouse gas regulation would hurt the US economy, it was dismissing the topic of global warming completely, see the Bush years. When it looked like global warming can be used to get large money transfers from developing countries into the US – and especially filing the pockets of US banksters with the tool of “co2 stock markets”, the US government was a most serious proponent of doing something bold against global warming, see Obama in Copenhagen 2009. As it turned out that the Chinese didn’t fall into Obama’s trap to use global warming as a way for tribute payments from developing to developed countries in Copenhagen, but instead demanded the developed countries to compensate developing countries for building up a stock of greenhouse gas in the higher atmosphere in the past the Obama-led US government turned around 180 degrees and became again completely against doing anything against global warming, see Durban 2011.

        Kishore Mahbubani cited Jagdish Bhagwati to make the world understand the position of developing countries like China and India: The accumulated fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 1850 to 2004 shows the damage attributable to China and India to be less than 10%, while the EU, Russia and US jointly account for nearly 70%”. So if the US and the EU want China, India and other developing countries from restricting their economical development for fears that some inhabitants of their coastal towns like LA and NYC will get wet feet when it gets globally warmer, they should compensate the developing countries with big mone for this restraint. Of course the imperial US empire is not going to do this, instead it does everything to suck money from developing countries and keep it’s economic edge over these countries.

        So that’s how it is now: China and other developing countries dont’t want to buy CO2 emmission rights from developed countries and the US and other developed countries don’t want to compensate the developing countries for abstaining from adding up more than absolutely neccessary to the atmospherical stock of greenhouse gases while developing their economies.

        However, there is a little bit of light: both, the US and China, and other countries as well, remarked that oil and gas are expensive and therefore they try to slightly move into the direction of a green economy – among others the US with the promotion of fuel-effective vehicles and China with the promotion of energy-effective house building.

        However grave the problem of global warming is in reality, my understanding is, that wars and hostilities between countries, imperialism and colonialism, are the last things needed in terms of the ability of humanity to solve global problems like global warming, global population growth or hunger.

      • yourstruly
        January 8, 2012, 7:54 pm

        meanwhile, alas, if the latest estimates of levels of global warming gases are correct, i worry as to whether it’ll be one of my grandchildren or great-grandchildren who’ll have to answer the call, “will the last one out please turn off the lights?”

      • Bandolero
        January 8, 2012, 10:10 pm

        I guess you missed my point. The generally most ugly feared consequence of global warming in the medium run – until the end of the 21st century – is that climate change may cause agricultural problems and result into a large hunger catastrophe. See Wikipedia:

        However developing countries are already suffering hunger and extreme poverty – right now. So people in developing countries have a huge desire to overcome todays hunger and extreme poverty. China for example sees it as a big success that it managed in the recent years to free hundreds of millions of people from extreme poverty. Billions of people in many other developing countries want also a decent living standard, at least free from hunger.

        I can understand the position on global warming of these billions of people. They see the industrialization of their countries as a way to overcome such extreme poverty, and hunger. People there calculate that it’s better to risk hunger due to global warming in the year 2100 than being hungry now. So these people go on to the same economical development path as today’s developed countries went almost a century ago.

        To bring these people away from such a deveopment path, the rich countries would have to give the people in the poor countries green technology and a fair share of economic chances in clean technics, so they could go a different – more green – development path than industrial countries went. However, the ich countries do not intent to give poor countries anything. Instead the rich countries try to steal – or buy chanceless cheap – the few things the poor countries have. If poor countries are not willing to be plundered, than comes NATO and throws unwilling countries back into dependency. Several juridical features like trade rules and intellectual property rights like patents make it additionally hard for poor countries to develop and overcome poverty. Global warming is a relatively minor problem for those poor countries, which are confronted with severe problems like permanent US-sponsored wars, wide-spread hunger and exteme poverty caused by US-led imperialism and capitalist greed.

        The top of it all was that the rich countries – led by Obama – tried to trick poor countries in Copenhagen to promise paying big compensation money to rich countries if they follow an industrial path of hydrocarbon driven economic development – without that the poor countries would have gotten anything substantial in return for that.

        Of course, the greedy capitalist western mass media didn’t report it like that. But in the media of the developing countries it was accurately reported that way.

    • kalithea
      January 7, 2012, 11:50 pm

      NO. This article’s a joke.

  4. Krauss
    January 7, 2012, 12:15 pm

    Walt once again proves why he published a book well ahead of it’s times, but still right at the precipice of change.

    Same here. Same instinct at play.

    • kalithea
      January 7, 2012, 11:52 pm

      Wrong. What he’s really saying is: Ron Paul’s not good enough; be patient, hold your nose and vote Obama. Ridiculous. The time is NOW. The urgency is NOW.

  5. MRW
    January 7, 2012, 12:44 pm

    Age has nothing to do with it. I have no problem with Paul’s age. It’s obvious he has the strength and energy to be in the race, and frankly, I enjoy older people who have all their marbles for the arc of history they can provide. The best things I have learned in my life came from people in their late 70s, 80s, and 90s who with one sentence encapsulated something I was going through and turned my life in another direction.

    That said, the over-40 crowd are not listening to what the Millennials find attractive about Paul’s views. They, the over-40 crowd, are the ones with the baggage, and they can’t put it down. US Millennial voters will be nearly 100 million by 2016, the population of the entire country in 1910. Millennials are the largest population group in human history. Multiply that actuality by all the countries in the world, and you can take it to the bank that this group is going to put its foot down and crush what they find distasteful or outmoded.

    In studies done on them, they don’t like war and they don’t like racism, they are community-oriented, do not hold to the view that money trumps all, and the researchers discovered that while they cherished their parents, the researchers predicted that they would come to despise everything the Baby Boomers stood for.

    • Philip Weiss
      January 7, 2012, 12:46 pm

      are there blacks and hispanics supporting paul?

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        January 7, 2012, 1:09 pm

        @ Phil re “are there blacks and hispanics supporting paul?”


        Forget those decade-old racist newsletters that he did not write or even read. Black (and Hispanic) America needs to support Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign.

      • gruseom
        January 7, 2012, 1:19 pm

        Some, at least.

      • MRW
        January 7, 2012, 1:23 pm

        Latinos, yes. But behind the scenes. Don’t know about Blacks, although in my neck of the woods, yes there are Paul supporters among the older vet crowd.

        I have a Latino friend in TX who has his pulse on the community. He should be running for office himself. He said that Obama is going to lose the entire Latino community–and he claims Latinos put him in office–if he doesn’t fix immigration by the Nov 2012. He said he will lose them en masse. (Remember, Phil, it was Kennedy who went on the Spanish ‘Tweetybird’ radio show flakking for Obama for an hour in May 2008. Tweetybird (think it’s El Piolin) reaches 44 million listeners everyday from 4 AM to 11 AM in more than 50 markets. He was an illegal alien until a couple of years ago. He is bigger than Limbaugh, Stern and the other early morning shows combined according to Arbitron.) Tweetybird asked his listeners once to write Congress for him. They sent in 1,000,000 letters from one request on one show. El Piolin delivered them to Congress.

        It is the most powerful radio show in the country. And my friend’s cousin works for it, too. My friend said that what Lou Dobbs did on CNN with his racist anti-Mexican diatribes in the 00s was activate the young male teenagers to vote the instant they got the chance to, because they saw the Lou Dobbs-et al-induced shame their parents had to go through because they were Latino, even though born in this country. My friend says their rage is deep and they intend to change the country and vote every anti-immigrationist mo-fo out of office, his words. He told me he was shocked by what his son and his friends were saying at the age of 12 then. He said Jews and Germans and Italians are immigrants and no one complains about them taking jobs, nor do they have to justify being Americans. My friend was born here, and so are his kids.

        Anyway, excuse my long-windedness in answering your question. The short answer, from him, is they will support the Republican candidate to punish Obama, and they like Paul but don’t see him standing a chance of being Prez. But understand, from what he tells me, the issue is what Obama promised and didn’t deliver, and punishing him as a result.

      • homingpigeon
        January 7, 2012, 2:08 pm

        We have focused on how out front the man is on issues of foreign policy and war. But libertarians are also the most tolerant on issues of immigration. I wonder when the attack will start on that. It will be curious to see how the liberal Democrats and progressives will deal with someone who is most compassionate about the right of foreign born people to earn an honest living within our borders and send some income home to their families. How will they try to diss this spontaneous transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, and how will they sneer at this wonderfully just and efficient manifestation of people’s foreign aid.

      • atime forpeace
        January 7, 2012, 1:39 pm

        Phil, i for one am a supporter, but my community as they say, is part of the raptor wing of the Republican party.

      • ahhiyawa
        January 7, 2012, 2:07 pm

        There is some, but most will vote for another Obama presidency in spite of perceived grievances and disappointments. This is especially true of the far left in or out of the Democrat party.

        Lang is like a blind folded machine gunner spraying bullets everywhere. Once in a while he hits a bulls-eye. Walt otoh is an intelligent analyst and very prescient person. I daily visit the FP site to read his posts.

        Though Paul traumatizes and is giving the destroyers of America a run for their money, it would be nothing less than miraculous should he win the nomination. At this time the Paulist movement is a developing and growing phenomenon in the Republican party, and the test of Ron Paul’s legacy will be if the movement he has inspired survives his retirement or death.

        Paul is the father of a movement all other libertarians, constitutionalists and bonafide, limited government conservatives have tried and failed to create in opposition to the welfare/warfare state and creeping imperialism since the late 19th century. Its probably the last chance to defend and preserve the republic.

      • gazacalling
        January 7, 2012, 2:07 pm

        It’s impossible to tell, at least from polls. Looking at exit polls (or even national telephone surveys, though the crosstabs from these aren’t released) reveals nothing, because the percentages of the total republican vote in these demographics are too small to be statistically significant. You’d have to poll so many more people, but that’s cost-prohibitive.

        So it’s just anecdotal evidence, which is of course of limited value.

    • john h
      January 7, 2012, 1:55 pm

      Two very informative posts, MRW, thanks

  6. Midwesterner
    January 7, 2012, 12:48 pm

    What is “baggage”? Who decides what’s baggage and what isn’t?

    Why doesn’t lying through your teeth count as “baggage”?

    Why doesn’t being a sock puppet for special interests count as “baggage”?

    Why doesn’t repeatedly hoodwinking the people you’re supposed to be representing count as “baggage”?

    Just wondering.

    • VR
      January 7, 2012, 1:46 pm

      Well, I would not necessarily call some of his position “baggage” Midwesterner (I will provide a link), but it causes concern among many – some of the things Paul is against I am also against, but there are other issues which would do nothing but take the poor and needy (which are growing exponentially as we speak) and further divest them of any support mechanisms (as an example, listen carefully to the link) –


      There are some further things that some would consider “baggage,” so this link certainly is not exhaustive.

    • john h
      January 7, 2012, 2:02 pm

      Most voters will decide that’s all baggage when they recognize it, Midwesterner.

      Unless they have their own agenda.

  7. VR
    January 7, 2012, 1:06 pm

    I find it interesting that people think they can split domestic issues from foreign policy, as if the two are not hand in glove. But what else is to be expected with the propagandist corporate media function today, which is a mass of lies and selective silence? Yet you deal with the marriage of foreign and domestic every day, don’t you Mr. Weiss – in the sense of the interest of the Lobby, and there are broader economic interests which are not dealt with too much here?

    It is also interesting that we have this base of Paul supporters who can be described as “young” that seem to have very little understanding in regard to US historical moorings, it is like they have the same reverent and fact void faith of what the USA is supposed to be as the far right “patriotic” crowd, they have bought the proverbial Brooklyn Bridge from the academic institutions. It is amazing listening to them talk about some fantasy market that does not exist (and never did), or pine for a past which never was. I suppose Paul might serve the same function among Republicans that Dennis Kucinich does with the democrats, since he cannot win he just brings the disillusioned mass of followers into the fold of the status quo in the end.

  8. homingpigeon
    January 7, 2012, 1:51 pm

    For all that the mainstream media have tried to ignore Paul, it might be that he gets plenty of great publicity from liberal social fascists who are freaked that a free marketeer is more peace oriented than anyone they can come up with. What impressive discussions come up in comment sections whenever a liberal Democrat attempts to twist up a case that libertarian social theories are more horrifying than their own white phosphorous, their cluster bombs, their ghastly humanitarian wars, the gutting of the Constitution by their darling President, and on and on……..!!!

    The attacks against Ron Paul invite responses and hence more publicity and opportunity to discuss libertarian concepts. It’s wonderful!

    • VR
      January 7, 2012, 3:29 pm

      Perhaps the best treatment of what “libertarian” means in the USA was voiced (many times, not just this linked audio below) by Noam Chomsky, who I am persuaded to agree with in regard to his judgement call (factual and informed, both contemporary and historical elements).

      US Libertarianism

      In regard to what has grown up here in the USA, try the same choice – Chomsky, who tells us that America is not historically or presently a functional democracy. Historically Chomsky is correct, his remedy which I call the”seesaw standby” argument, that the best you are going to get is a give and take fight I strongly disagree with. This might be due to the fact that I have strong revolutionary views, and do not think that that any amount of “reform” will accomplish anything substantive (the position due to the very historical arguments that Chomsky voices), and this can be seen by the cyclical divestment of the people – over and over again ad nauseum (or should I say with increasing severity). Apparently everyone is waiting for everything to completely hit a brick wall so that their chances of accomplishing anything are almost nil, which I see as delusional –


  9. Scott
    January 7, 2012, 2:28 pm

    Rand Paul, auditioning for the role. Not exactly Fulbrightean, but compared to his GOP peers he could be Socrates.

    • ToivoS
      January 7, 2012, 10:40 pm

      Rand Paul is an interesting possibility in the future. I seriously doubt that he would have the support of many of us who are now encouraging his old man in this year of 2012. My strongest impression of Rand is his appearance in ads all over the internet that he supports Right to Work bills. I am from the left. Right to Work laws were designed to undermine the influence of unions. There is no question that the greatest period of income equality in the US in the last century was from about 1950 to 1975 — exactly the period where more workers in the US were represented by unions. Since then union representation has dropped and income inequality has increased.

      Sorry folks, in the long term Rand Paul is just another reactionary politician that will undermine the standard of living for both the working and middle class. Ron Paul, today in 2012 is in a unique position — he has our backing because his voice is the only sane one out there on the question of perpetual war and intervention in the affairs of other nations. Today this is an issue that is dominant because it is not just because of the issue anti-imperialism but there is also the obvious problem that these wars, foreign bases, interventions and so on are bankrupting our nation. If the US dollar collapses our social welfare programs will be quite irrelevant. In four years (especially if Obama is defeated now) there is a very good chance that a pro-Union, pro-civil rights, pro personal choice candidate inside the traditional left will emerge that also has some credentials among those of us who do not support the US as the world’s policeman and defender of every imperialist scheme (including the Zionist experiment in Palestine).

      • MRW
        January 8, 2012, 10:33 am


        “Rand Paul is an interesting possibility in the future. I seriously doubt that he would have the support of many of us who are now encouraging his old man in this year of 2012.”

        Got that right as far as I’m concerned. I don’t see his old man’s wisdom in him. Paul Pere got where he is today–and I am still neither a supporter nor a non-supporter of Paul, I’m neutral, but I hew to Phil’s call that his ideas are important to discuss–by genuinely pursuing his ideals and sticking to them in congress. He is a follower of Richard Maybury’s economic ideas. Google him.

        Back when I was a right-wing Repub, I was a big Ayn Rand fan. Now I think she’s an asshole, and for this reason: protecting, or extolling, individualism is a splendid American value, but the individuals that make up the United States of America are not autonomous. They are not chopsticks in a drawer. They exist in a society that has a collective set of values, and have a responsibility to it. It is not a matter of simply what an individual can do. It is also what an individual ought to do–the soft power of values–within that society that makes the individual a vibrant part of the larger society. Ayn Rand sneered at obeisance to the latter as socialism because she was not smart enough to understand the place she landed in after Russia. I maintain now that Ayn Rand had a grandiose idea of her own intelligence, and a paucity of imagination of the alternatives. She was a grown-up version of the precocious 12-year-old who impresses with memory and rote, but is unable to understand the consequences of enacting his or her own thinking, which are long-term, as Greenspan’s awakening in 2009 proved.

  10. mudder
    January 7, 2012, 3:07 pm

    Ron Paul is a fundamentalist. Although I know he doesn’t accept the theory of evolution or global warming, religious fundamentalism is not what I’m talking about. Fundamentalists are ideologues, with their own scriptures–facts be damned. Market fundamentalists like Paul worship at the shrine of Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek and novelist Ayn Rand, who was “telling the truth” and can never be proved wrong, because no amount of evidence can convince a fundamentalist otherwise.

    • mudder
      January 7, 2012, 3:55 pm

      And in the April 2009 global warming clip he has the “foresight” to criticize Paul Krugman and complain about the “inflation ahead”. So how did history work out for you, Ron? Just what has the inflation rate been the last three years, Ron? Nevermind, facts do not matter to fundamentalists.

      • gazacalling
        January 7, 2012, 4:32 pm

        I hate ideologues too. Rand is disgusting to me. Hayek is very different than Rand, however. I’m not saying I agree with him, necessarily, but he’s an interesting read. Have you ever read Hayek?

        I really hope that Ron Paul is wrong on inflation ahead! But it would be really rather foolish to render judgment at this point.

        Tell me mudder, in 2000 were you praising Greenspan like the rest of Establishment in 2000?

      • mudder
        January 7, 2012, 5:18 pm

        To be truthful, gazacalling, I was neither praising nor criticizing Greenspan in 2000. My cowardly reaction to all I disagree has been to say nothing then bombard with criticism when I’m proved right. No courage here. Sigh.

        But Paul Krugman has more courage than I have. And he has always been proved right by history.

        Oh yes, they made me read Hayek in MBA school.

      • mudder
        January 7, 2012, 5:40 pm

        Krugman is always correct.

      • mudder
        January 7, 2012, 6:14 pm

        And they made me read Milton Friedman too, a supposedly radical ideologue who said that the Fed didn’t sufficiently pump the money supply in the 30’s. But now the Fed is the Antichrist in the GOP. It shows just how far to the right the GOP candidate freak show is. All–including Paul–would denounce Milton Friedman’s monetarism today. It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there now. Gotta go…buying dog food.

      • Duscany
        January 7, 2012, 9:18 pm

        Anyone who thinks there’s no inflation hasn’t been buying gasoline or food lately.

      • mudder
        January 8, 2012, 8:52 am

        About that fact of the nowhere-to-be-found inflation, Krugman says “Alan Meltzer wept”. (I’m not complaining–Meltzer gave me an A+ in econ class.)

      • mudder
        January 8, 2012, 8:58 am

        The serious risk to our economy is not inflation, but disinflation.

      • MRW
        January 8, 2012, 10:10 am

        mudder, I like your comments. Gave me a smile this Sunday morning, especially your comment about your own courage. The serious risk to our economy is the people (Americans) not understanding how it works operationally. Krugman is coming around to explaining it much better and putting it in his op-eds, but it’s ignored. Like the whole Greece thing in which our hysterics think we’re going to wind up like it. We have a sovereign currency and Greece gave up the drachma when it joined the EU. Greece is phucked. We’re not. As Krugman says, we can’t go broke. All these cries about the bankruptcy of the country is the bankruptcy of knowledge of how a real, genuine sovereign currency works. Sigh.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        January 8, 2012, 11:28 am

        Just what has the inflation rate been the last three years, Ron? Nevermind, facts do not matter to fundamentalists.

        Inflation is flaring all over the place. Oh, and Krugman is a boob. -N49.

    • NorthOfFortyNine
      January 8, 2012, 11:10 am

      >> Although I know [Paul] doesn’t accept the theory of evolution

      Yeah, if there were one reason I could never vote for him it would be this. Anyone who does not accept the power of Darwin’s theory does not understand science nor the scientific method. I don’t get how a medical doctor can be of this mindset. Maybe it is that he went to school a long time ago. But I don’t trust anyone who does not understand science and doesn’t seem to care that he does not understand science. -N49.

      • ToivoS
        January 8, 2012, 9:11 pm

        N49 let’s us know But I don’t trust anyone who does not understand science

        Really? Are you aware of the number of good people who post regularly here at MW cannot believe that the collapse of the World Trade Centers are completely explicable by what we know about physics, energy conservation and modern engineering? Scientific ignorance in even some of our good comrads is just something we will have to live with. As someone who has taught basic science in medical schools for over 30 years, let me tell you something — scientific illiteracy among many MD’s is not at all uncommon. Some of the best clinicians I have known can come up with some really dumb science and this includes elementary errors in evolutionary thinking. Modern medical sciences and clinical practice are two different universes.

  11. dumvitaestspesest
    January 7, 2012, 4:01 pm

    For many 2016 may not happen.
    Here is the newest news.
    “We learned today that Britain SENDS its best warships TO the Gulf.
    Britain’s newest warship is heading to the Gulf for its first mission at a time of tensions over Iran’s threat to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a key transport route for oil.
    The Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyer HMS Daring, which has a “stealth” design to help avoid detection by radar, is to join other British ships in the region, the Ministry of Defence confirmed Saturday.
    This fact shouldn’t take us by surprise considering the embarrassing fact that 80% of Britain’s ruling party’s MPs are members of the rabid Zionist ‘Conservative Friends of Israel’ (CFI).”
    So while people are talking the talk , corrupted politicians led on a tight leash, are walking the walk.
    The POWER does NOT care what average citizens think.
    The POWER just does whatever they think is necessary at the moment.
    Democracy is left on the paper. The few, who have the Power, rule.
    Totalitarianism is creeping around the corner waiting to be called for action.
    Everything is ready for it to be installed. Except for, “we the people”.
    But people, for dictators and totalitarians, do not count. When the Power has their iron grip on them, people’s voice do not matter. They just do not matter.

    • yourstruly
      January 7, 2012, 4:20 pm

      let’s surprise them!

      • dumvitaestspesest
        January 7, 2012, 4:51 pm

        How?? When many people are still deeply in the la, la land, and they prefer clinging desperately to the empty, meaningless promises of the puppets led on tight leashes. People prefer to delude themselves and try to put off facing harsh reality even when is kicking them in a face.
        Lots of people in America have no idea what dictatorship, totalitarism is.
        That explains a certain naivness and illusive hopes.
        But is has also good points.
        Many people will not hesitate to protect their freedom and rights with all their minds, hearts and might, since their spirit have not been crushed by oppressive regimes. And I hope they will put a good fight.

      • yourstruly
        January 7, 2012, 6:55 pm

        by way of occupy, occupy, occupy!

  12. HarryLaw
    January 7, 2012, 4:35 pm

    Dumvitaestspest Britain sends its best warships to the Gulf In a war with Iran the UK and US would be advised to remember the war games played in the Persian Gulf in 2002, then General Paul Van Riper of the red team sank 16 of the US fleet with nothing more than small boats and other unconventional hardware

    Astutely and very covertly, Van Riper armed his civilian marine craft and deployed them near the US fleet, which never expected an attack from small pleasure boats. Faced with a blunt US ultimatum to surrender, Force Red suddenly went on the offensive: and achieved complete tactical surprise. Force Red’s prop-driven aircraft suddenly were swarming around the US warships, making Kamikaze dives. Some of the pleasure boats made suicide attacks. Others fired Silkworm cruise missiles from close range, and sunk a carrier, the largest ship in the US fleet, along with two helicopter-carriers loaded with marines. The sudden strike was reminiscent of the Al Qaeda sneak attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Yet, the Navy was unprepared. When it was over, most of the US fleet had been destroyed. Sixteen US warships lay on the bottom, and the rest were in disarray. Thousands of American sailors were dead, dying, or wounded.

    If the games had been real, it would have been the worst US naval defeat since Pearl Harbor.

    What happened next became controversial. Instead of declaring Force Red the victor, JOINTFOR Command raised the sunken ships from the muck, brought the dead sailors back to life, and resumed the games as if nothing unusual had happened. [Rense .com Myth of US invincibility floats in the Persian Gulf.

    Of course he did not factor in the sunburn and other anti ship missiles Iran has recieved from China, the sunburn an unstoppable sea skimming missile which can be fired from anywhere and can sink a large warship, or the many submarines and other undersea surprises the US navy would have to face. Bottom line the US surface fleet with the aircraft carriers most vunerable could be turned into submarines overnight, low tech is lethel when in the hands of a resourceful and determined opponent. The Shia also take their shrouds to the battlefield. If the US/ Israel only decided just to hit Irans nuclear facilities causing a hugh dirty bomb effect all over the middle east then this would break every military and political rule in the playbook ie leaving Irans retaliatory capacity intact [ Dan Pletch Director, centre Int studies and diplomacy]. And so a massive attack would have to target all Irans navel ports and military installations which would neither be limited nor surgical opening up the middle east to a widespread war and global economic chaos,will US/ Israel do it, I personally doubt it but after watching the Iowa primary, who knows?

    • ToivoS
      January 7, 2012, 11:11 pm

      Harry Law this is one sensible comment. The information you relate has been out there for six years now. What I find amazing is that it is not part of any of the scenarios of a possible war with Iran. Do the people who write these articles know this stuff or do they simply rely on the usual neocon think tanks for their information?

      One small quibble, the sunburn and onyx antiship missiles are not low tech. They are ram jet (mach 2 – 2.5) cruise missiles that are self guided. In the game Van Ripper played he was using exocets, the French missiles that the Argentinians had against the British in the Falkland Island war from 30 years ago.

    • split
      January 7, 2012, 11:57 pm

      ‘The sudden strike was reminiscent of the Al Qaeda sneak attack on the USS Cole in 2000’ – It didn’t take a Bismarck-class battleship to put USS Cole out of commission – I wouldn’t ignore their fleet of practically stealth speed boats and mini/midget subs equipped with newest destruction toys in tandem with Muslim’s will to sacrifice their life for the cause ,…

  13. Richard Witty
    January 7, 2012, 5:05 pm

    What makes you think that libertarianism has any widespread appeal?

    Does it to you?

    • john h
      January 8, 2012, 6:01 pm

      Two questions to somebody called “you”.

      Richard, what makes you think anyone knows who your post was to?

      • Richard Witty
        January 9, 2012, 9:43 pm

        Phil Weiss.

      • john h
        January 10, 2012, 1:35 pm

        Thanks Richard, I think that will be news to him.

  14. HarryLaw
    January 7, 2012, 5:25 pm

    In my above comment I did not Imply that Iran could win any such confict only that in any realistic cost/benefit analysis the US, just as in Iraq and Afghanistan could not win and would lose on a bigger scale than in those two wars.

  15. MHughes976
    January 7, 2012, 5:39 pm

    For the moment, all this seems to me to be sabre-rattling rather than sabre-swinging. Obama isn’t a complete idiot and though I think Cameron is lightweight by comparison with his peers he isn’t a complete idiot either. The cunning plan is to create tension, division and violence around the Iranian elections which I think, subject to correction, are due in March. That should shut them up until Obama is re-elected – well, I think that’s the theory.

    • kalithea
      January 8, 2012, 12:32 am

      And this arrogant display of military force is going to backfire because Iranians are going to rally around their flag and rely much more on their religion and look to the most Conservative anti-America candidate out there. Do you really believe they’ll allow themselves to be manipulated and humiliated by this tactic?

  16. Oscar
    January 7, 2012, 5:42 pm

    Phil, this post truly pissed me off. Are you gonna kick the can down the road for another four years? You’re talking 2016 now? A Romney presidency backed by Sheldon Adelson will assure that the Palestinians will be fully ethnically cleansed by then.

    Ron Paul supporters realize that anyone who wants to END THE WARS NOW has no other choice but RP. We are not looking to 2016, that’s far too late. Resist the neocon propaganda. Ron Paul defies the stupidity of the left-right paradigm. So should we all.

    • kalithea
      January 8, 2012, 12:40 am

      Your absolutely right! Palestinians don’t have the luxury of waiting until 2016. But apparently some people around here want them to wait around patiently til then. Besides, I believe that this “theory” that Republicans will come up with a more presentable anti-war candidate is total bullshit. Republicans are going to be so up to the wazoo with Obama, they’re going to go for a hardliner who can kick Democratic ass.

      It’s not Ron Paul who’ll set the stage for an anti-war candidate; it’s what happens with Iran. Ron Paul will influence the here and now, the pre-war debate and if he’s the nominee, he may embarrass Obama back to the Left. This is the only hope we have. It’s now or its never.

      This other theory is a pipedream and best.

    • Richard Witty
      January 8, 2012, 12:24 pm

      Sheldon Adelson backed Gingrich, committing $5 million to his campaign last week.

  17. Duscany
    January 7, 2012, 9:55 pm

    It amazes me how frightened some people are about even the minuscule prospect Paul might somehow win his party’s nomination. Yesterday Gene Lyons on Salon called Paul an anti-Semite for not wanting to bomb Iran for Israel. Lyons said Paul had the right position. But he came to it for the wrong reason, which Lyons said was his dislike of “the Jews.”

    • kalithea
      January 8, 2012, 12:44 am

      Yes and that’s exactly why this theory that Ron Paul should fold up his tent and relinquish to some “more presentable” candidate is being put out there by “Liberal” Zionists. They’re working hand in hand with the Zionists whom they pretend to oppose every second day.

    • dumvitaestspesest
      January 8, 2012, 8:20 am

      I think we can definie a more proper definition of Anti-Semite here.
      “Anti-Semite is a person , who DOES NOT want to fight or die for Israel”.!!!!!!!
      So…all American (European,wordly) people and soldiers.
      If you are not ready to do so, you are all anti-Semites.

      In case of all warmongers? They are not planning to fight or die for Israel,
      but they aren’t counted as Anti-Semites because they are calling loudly for others to do so. So they are absolved. And handsomly rewarded for their “war propaganda”.

  18. dumvitaestspesest
    January 8, 2012, 9:34 am

    Funny to see the hysterical reaction of the EU, and some of the politics ( H.Clinton included) to the recent changes that took lately place in Hungary.
    The reaction is somewhat similar to the reaction of lunatics in the USA.
    “It’s poisonous, it stifles democracy, ( I’d say it stifles demon-cracy for sure)
    and freedom, it takes away human rights “, and some other everyday liberal B..lS..t.
    Bravo Hungary and Orban. Stay on the right course. Do not give up.

  19. dumvitaestspesest
    January 8, 2012, 10:49 am

    BTW. In Hungary recent chances were done by DEMOCRATICALLY chosen Hungarian Parliment, and approved by a majority of its citizens.
    What does give a right to some EuroU.-political-quacks and Hellary C. whine and kvetch about fall of democracy there??
    All changes in Hungary were done in a democratic way, and the outrage and the outcry of the corrupted global political puppets ,lead on the invisible leash, is a cry over the potential Paradise (that was on the list to be robbed) to be lost.

  20. atime forpeace
    January 8, 2012, 10:52 am

    Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air in a room filled with stale tired air.

    He hit it out of the ballpark in some of his remarks in N.H debate.

    Ron Paul will not be the end of the world for the many good causes that deserve to remain and be improved upon, but i guess some in the left are allergic to accountability.

    Some of the better social programs must remain, others either ought to go away or be improved and streamlined for accountability.

    Ron is a breath of fresh air.

  21. American
    January 8, 2012, 12:38 pm

    O.K. don’t laugh— but my dream team is Chuck Hagel and Caroline Kennedy.
    Too bad neither of them is willing to enter the cesspool.

  22. kalithea
    January 8, 2012, 2:46 pm

    I for one am elated that Ron Paul is against Neocon policy. When Zionists hear the words “the U.S. is not good at nation-building” from true, respected Americans besides Ron Paul; they cringe; because Zionists NEED ULTIMATE CONTROL in order to feel secure. Ron Paul changes the FEAR justification/narrative that Zionists use to brainwash American policymakers. He wants to inspire Americans to LET GO of the Zionist narrative: the need to control others and limit freedom for the sake of security.
    American policy has been hijacked by the Zionist Neocon cabal and it’s high time someone brings freedom back to America. I’m glad he believes that bombing Iran or bailing out Israel, should they attempt that stupid move alone, is out of the question. I’m glad he’ll be the one to end funding to Israel. But apparently, he’s not “presentable” enough to do so, but Obama, with blood on his hands is.

    Imagine, no more special relationship and no more special INFLUENCE? But strangely, liberal Zionists or Jews who pretend not to be Zionists fear Ron Paul more than they love their “just” causes.

    Example: apparently, Ron Paul’s age and “baggage” whatever is meant by THAT, matters more than freedom for the Palestinians, stopping war, ending wars you name it! Couldn’t this site AT LEAST come up with better excuses? But we’ve seen it run the gamut of excuses and now it’s come down to: he’s not PRESENTABLE; wait, be patient. Change will come in 1016!! LOL! It soooo transparent.

    Maybe this sudden lapse in judgment is a tribal thing? I, personally, love Ron Paul’s “individual responsibility”, but this wacky, paranoid reaction to Ron Paul arising from tribal mentality is not only hilarious in its hypocrisy it also interferes with personal responsibility, you know, “humanity first, the tribe second”? It’s easier to stick with the tribe and enable some of that tribal paranoia TO STOP RON PAUL’S MOMENTUM than to rise above it intelligently and responsibly by going out on a limb on behalf of the causes one pretends to believe in that would BENEFIT from Ron Paul’s platform.

    The time for Ron Paul is NOW, and anyone with integrity will NOT vote for the man who stood before the U.N. and denied a Palestinian state! So you’re gonna hold your nose and vote for Obama, huh, with all HIS BAGGAGE and all the blood he has on his hands? Hmmm…can I respect that? No, I don’t think so.

    I’m starting to see that it won’t be “Liberal” Zionists or Jews after all who will rescue the Palestinian people because when reality comes knocking and Palestinian freedom and equality loom, the TRIBE WILL ALWAYS TAKE PRECEDENCE. “Oh wait a minute…let’s just delay this and talk about it a little more, let’s not rush into anything.” Yeah, because Liberal Zionists have ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD to devote to their “favorite” cause!

    Let me just borrow a term that’s been bandied about a whole lot in reference to American foreign policy: And then they wonder, why do they hate us so much?

    The other stuff, religion and what not is not the real reason, the real reason is that when it comes down to a choice between acting humanely and justly or confronting the challenge that POSITIVE CHANGE represents by letting go of fear, i.e. paranoia and hubris, the need to control that is an extension of fear, they choose the status quo delusionally believing that doing so is protecting the tribe. And this tribal mentality has been going on since the Roman Empire! Because a huge spiritual change was happening then too; a spiritual revolution was emerging. There was this revolutionary “crackpot” running around then too preaching “peace and love” and trying to stir the pot but he too was silenced. Mind you, there were a few who actually did go out on a limb and let go of their tribal mentality, but they were just dismissed as traitors. Unfortunately, history has proven that resistance to evolutionary change can have disastrous consequences because there is one fundamental universal premise that should unite us no matter what: our loyalty to humanity first! It’s not Israel first, it’s not even America first, it’s HUMANITY FIRST.

    The time is right to LET GO and take the risk. Don’t gimme those shitty excuses. Of course, letting go means becoming ONE, becoming equal, letting go of the past with all its “historical justification”. Now the latter is what I call baggage and a crutch but mostly it means letting go, not of one’s uniqueness, but of the tribal mentality that LIMITS ONE’S HUMANITY. Oh my, what a radical thought!

  23. Richard Witty
    January 8, 2012, 10:28 pm

    Again, at the risk of spamming:

    ‘Money in politics is constitutionally protected free speech’.

    “Progressive” Ron Paul.

    • homingpigeon
      January 8, 2012, 11:40 pm

      Yes, that means AIPAC could give all the money they want to a politician. However said politician would be unable to give our tax money to Israel or work to compel American military allegiance to it.

      • Richard Witty
        January 9, 2012, 6:48 am

        You’re wrong Pigeon.

        The only action that a President Ron Paul could do would be to veto a proposal, which would then require a 67% majority to override.

        On, virtually all of the war resolutions, on the question of aid to Israel or other countries, 67% majority would happen.

        A war authorization relative to Iran probably wouldn’t, as the majority of democrats and some republicans would oppose.

        The republican conventional wisdom is that libertarianism is a bridge too far, and that increased defense spending and increased US bluster in the world (you know “strong”) is the preferred approach.

        Paul wouldn’t get to be Calvin Coolidge. He’d be forced to George W.

    • anonymouscomments
      January 9, 2012, 1:24 am

      You really keep spamming this. It is very odd witty, as your motive seems ridiculously transparent.

      You like the special sway Jewish money has on our politics, and firmly support our bias (you just want the Pals to resume “negotiations”). But then you seem to be screaming to us that Paul would make it worse, and further entrench the pro-Israel lobby.

      But anyone smart enough to follow this blog knows money already IS considered free speech, and even before that regrettable court decision, money always found its way to “speak”.

      So if Paul does not actually threaten to change a thing relative to money in politics, why the disingenuous “advice” witty? …..maybe because you fear the complete opposite, and realize a Paul presidency would not give a sh$t about pro-Israel money or lobbies….

      It’s ridiculous, so stop spamming your pointless non-point. If anything, your dire “warnings” only make anti-Paul people give him a second thought. We know you are full of sh$t on this one (and much else). Lay off, for your own good, really.

  24. homingpigeon
    January 9, 2012, 12:15 am

    Quoting Pat Lang above: “Paul should run as a representative of a new party.”

    Teachable moment. Paul actually did run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in the 80s, and is a life member. The results were miniscule, unfortunately. Although the Libertarian Party has not reached a critical mass, it is the most stable and enduring of all parties that have come into being in the last half century.

    Within the libertarian movement, there is a debate which parallels that of socialist inclined Americans. The question is whether to set up new independent parties or to join and influence the Republicans or Democrats respectively. The arguments for and against are similar in both cases. In the case of libertarians there is a sometimes respectful and sometimes rancorous divide between those who wish to build the party and those who choose to join the Libertarian Republican Caucus. The rise of Ron Paul has boosted the argument of of the latter, and the members of the Party are waiting for the nomination process to complete before deciding whether to run a candidate. In the event that Ron Paul is not nominated, the Libertarian Party will run a candidate, possibly Gary Johnson. It is hoped that the Ron Paul people will then turn to the Libertarian Party.

Leave a Reply