January 14, 2008
Ron Paul: Vision vs. Reality
This article by Bruce Walker over at American Thinker is one of the better ones I've read about Ron Paul's presidential candidacy. While the congressman from Texas has a lot of excellent ideas about a return to federalism, smaller government, lower taxes and so on, there's that small matter of his wanting to crawl into a shell of isolationism.
But other parts of Paul's policies simply do not fit our age. The notion that we should disengage from the Middle East, for example, suggests that Israel is "just another nation," like, say, North Korea or Syria. The foundation of the Jewish state was based upon the undeniable facts of history continuing, dreadfully, through the Holocaust, that Jews are not "just another people," but are rather a persecuted people who were not welcome when escaping Nazified Europe. Ignoring that is ignoring salient history.
But don't take my word for it; read the whole thing for yourself.
Show Comments »
First off - I am not spamming your site - just offering reasoned debate - okay?
Pam it isn't isolationism at all - it is anti-interventionist nation building like we have been engaged in.
I am an American Jew. I feel that we have done more damage to Israel with our foreign policy in the past two decades and now she is dying a death by a thousand cuts. We have weakened her by making her continually make concessions for peace by giving up land and territories which were her buffer zones. Those concessions have not yielded any real lasting peace, and yet she is being asked to give up more and more. Now we are asking her to give up half of Jerusalem. We arm and finance the Arabs 3 times more than what we give to Israel - didn't we just deliver arms to the Saudis today? How does that help Israel? It hasn't and it won't.
She is in much worse shape now then ever as far as having security. We have tied her hands in many respects and that has been bad for her too.
This foreign policy has been a disaster.
We should mind our own business and stop financing all these countries already, and let them deal with their problems in their own way without us butting in. As we continue to aid and arm everyone in the Middle East they will eventually use it against us as well, and they have.
Rest assured Ron Paul is for strong defense and retaliation. He voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. That is not isolationism.
There is a vast difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.
Thanks for listening.
Posted by: Judy Aron at January 14, 2008 10:07 PMoh and also, I think what is more appalling and alarming is the fact that our media is manipulating this election. They have not at all been fair in allowing ALL candidates to get their message across to the American people on the cable TV news. The voting irregularities in Iowa and New Hampshire have also been something that is being swept under the rug. This election process is being manipulated - there is no doubt about it. I don't even think Fred Thompson is getting a fair shake. Tell me how the media can call elections when only 20% of the precincts are reporting? As far as I am concerned it isn't even about Ron Paul - Something is just not right with the way these races have been polled, reported and ultimately how the votes have been counted.
Posted by: Judy Aron at January 14, 2008 10:19 PMJudy, yeah, I know what you mean about the media, they have NEVER manipulated anything to try to throw an election before, wonder why they just now started? That is just sooooooo unlike them completely. Sorry, I'm a smartass.
I researched all the candidates when I was trying to find for whom to cast my primary vote. I scoured their records. It took me over a solid month to weed through the crap and decide.
Paul is good on domestic economic policy, damn good, just two bad votes in ten years. And one really didn't count because the money that he voted to spend was offset with a greater amount in another area.
It's the sheer racism and the complete disregard for the fact that there are responsiblities to being the United States. Like it or not, we are the policemen of the world. We can reject that idea and everyone on the planet will perish.
Final thought, don't you think that it is odd that you have to begin your comment with the spamming disclaimer because of other Paulies?
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 14, 2008 10:49 PMHi Judy; I know you aren't spamming my site! And I don't mind a reasoned discussion about Ron Paul at all. I hate to tell you that you haven't convinced me, but if he is the candidate for you, by all means vote for him. Isn't that what primary season all about?
I have to echo what Two Dogs said: it's the complete disregard that we have responsibilities, like it or not. Sure we can curl up on ourselves and let the rest of the world sort out their own problems, but then don't be surprised when there's a big conflagration somewhere and we end up getting involved because our interests are ultimately threatened. We are no longer a 3-month plus journey from other continents, we are only hours away. And it could take even less time for an armed missile to make its way here. The Islamofascists want us dead, make no mistake. We must maintain vigilance and if that means a military presence, then I am all for it.
I'd LOVE to get our troops out of Germany, though. Let those ingrates defend themselves. And I would LOVE to pull out of the UN. Why should our dollars continue to be the biggest funding of an organization that does its best to thwart us at every turn?
(It would be nice to get a little recognition for all the good we do around the world, but I am not a big believer in modern miracles.)
There are countries I'd rather we didn't support, like Saudi Arabia, but since we need oil, what to do? I suppose we could drill our own, but the lefties won't let us. In strategic alliances, you often have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: Pam at January 14, 2008 11:13 PMForgot to mention, I do agree with you about the media manipulation of the election, but that is what has always been done. It's just that as the world of the Internet and other alternative media sources expands, we are more aware of it. They are too, and they are fighting tooth and nail to keep their supremacy. That's why bloggers like you are so important!!!
Posted by: Pam at January 14, 2008 11:15 PMyesh yeah yeah - I know the media has always manipulated things - but it is so damn blatant now and is even creeping onto the Internet. Anyway - I know I hadn't convinced you - that's ok. I just hate to see the other choices we have in our own party acting more like Democrats.
If we must be the world's policeman then we have to have some sort of sensible foreign policy. Right now our foreign policy has been a disaster as far as I am concerned. You have to admit that it seems lunatic to give arms and aid to the Saudis! including $123 million worth of sophisticated precision-guided bomb technology, (despite concerns from some members of Congress that the systems could be used against Israel) It's being sold as a multibillion-dollar arms package to bolster the defense of U.S. allies in the Gulf but who knows if those countries will continue to be our allies? or if they truly are now! Consider that Fifteen of the 9-11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon!!
And I will tell you that even many Israelis want Ron Paul. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/weisman1.html
Be that as it may - where exactly does it say we have responsibilities to police the world? Isn't that the job of the UN forces? and where exactly are our allies in helping us to police the world? Seems they have left the building. Islamofascists want everyone dead. That is nothing new. Whether we police the world or not - a big conflagration is coming, and whether we have a presence or not will not matter much especially since we are so global now.
In the meantime what are we becoming as a nation? We are losing an awful lot to be the world's policeman - it's everything our soldiers are supposedly fighting and dying for - Liberty and Freedom and all of the rights we have spelled out by our Founding documents. There's the irony, and its a painful irony at best.
Love ya Pam.
Keep up the good work.
If it's any consolation Fred's my second choice :)
I especially liked the way he beat up on the Huckster in the SC debate.
Two dogs ...racism? The head of the Austin NAACP came out in defense of Dr. Paul. "President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment."
The claim of racism was totally bogus.. you can even listen to Paul's interview on the Bill Moyers as well ...
but such is politics... nasty stuff.
Posted by: Judy Aron at January 15, 2008 01:09 PMWell, to completely ignore the NAACP as a blantantly racist institution is one thing. "He's not a racist because this racist says he's not." is not a strong argument, but maybe you discount those publications simply because Dr. Paul says to do that. I would be sued if I published something with my name on it without vetting it. The only reason that it has not been a bigger issue is because the MSM loves it and will make it an issue should Paul get the nod. Play it forward, please. I am simply pointing to your misguided statements about the bias being so blatant.
Something about the Rather thing with the completely fabricated National Guard lie seems a little more out in front to me. Trying to lie and smear, on the national news, a sitting President seems a little more harsh than excluding a racist fruitcake from news items. Call me crazy.
I always use Moyers as a reference.
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 15, 2008 03:58 PMTwo Dogs.. so then why wasn't Paul sued?
Look - you can discount the NAACP as a racist saying another racist isn't racist.. but Paul never wrote those pieces, and his actions and words and writings in his entire political career do not even match those writings. It is ludicrous to suggest he is a racist. There is absolutely no proof to that claim. He has taken responsibility for not being more careful about what had gone out under his name - and this claim has been around for some time - so this is nothing new - It's an old claim, and Paul being a racist has absolutely no credibility. The media and Republican establishment are just using the usual nasty tactics - and Paul knew they would. It's the usual means to divert discussion away from the real issues - like why our dollar is crashing.
Perhaps you ought to take a look at this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important
LOL
Uh, what would someone sue Ron Paul for? Copyright infringement on racist statements?
And Conservative Republicans are not even paying attention to Ron Paul. He's a non-factor in the Republican Primaries to our side. True, some folks that like the hippie-lettuce will vote for him. Which is silly to the core.
Personally, I need a little more MAN in my President. Ha.
I do like his voting record on appropriation bills. Two bad votes on money in ten years is impressive. You can check my blog for that, if you would like.
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 20, 2008 01:36 AM
