When I saw this item, I felt a little sorry for Ron Paul.


Of course, no one can control those who would support a campaign, but I do think it would behoove Rep. Paul to address this issue before it becomes even more embarrassing. Not responding looks....mmmm...bad.

I can see what you are saying DaffyGrl, but don't you think that addressing it is far worse for his campaign? It legitimizes these groups importance in my mind. Also news reports of Paul addressing these groups puts the Paul campaign and these extremists together in the news which is not beneficial even if he is denouncing them. In my opinion, the best course of action is to ignore the extremist groups and go forth preaching the same message.

I don't think a response would legitimize them. All he has to do is answer in a way that might cause them to rethink their support.

"Mr. Paul, how do you respond to allegations that white supremacist groups are supporting your candidacy?"

"I think that any group like that must not have read and understood my platform if they are supporting me."

While I don't agree with White Supremacy or hate mongerers, their voice should be heard and it's nice to see a candidate that will listen. Each group, unions, white supremacists, catholics, anti-catholics, blacks, latinos, or whatever, has a message, while the whole of the message may not be desirable, portions of it are. Catholics talk about abstinence as a means of birth control and spiritual purity. Who can argue with that? Blacks want equality in society, financial, legally, and ethically. Latinos want to come to the United States to realize that American Dream. White Supremacists, while I don't claim to actually know any positions, I can assume that they want more political power for white people. While there may be some on this board who scoff at the idea that white people need more politcal power, I would argue that all races are getting screwed by this government, this government meaning the United States of America, whether it's Bush or Clinton running it. This government has never been a government of the people, by the people and definitely not for the people.

Special interests control the treasury from your local municipality up to the White House. Insurance Companies, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Automotive, Weapons dealers, police and the fireman all want your money. They have their messages and a means to get them out, the only Special Interest Group that isn't represented is the People. Never have been, never will be. Ron Paul's isolationist, take care of America first message speaks to most Americans, Black and White alike. Mark my words, if Ron Paul is elected President of the United States, his foreign policy will get him assassinated faster than he can say, "I, Ron Paul, do solemnly swear."

I don't believe Paul speaking about these 'supporters' legitimizes them in any way. They exist, there's no reason to believe that if he ignores them, they cease to exist.

He should make a brief statement along the lines of "although the goals of my platform and the goals of this radical group may obliquely intertwine at some given points, the overall vision of my candidacy and the aims of these people could not be farther apart. I stake no claim to their support, and will refuse any overture or monetary donation to my campaign."

I don't envision how anybody could claim a linkage between Paul and these nitwits, it's not his fault that they see him as an end to their means. But a simple concise statement should put it to rest.

Clinton may have announced later, but he was a known entity, a rising star amongst his fellow governors and an instrumental leader in the DLC. Ron Paul clearly doesn't have the stature and same status in his party as Clinton did. Clinton's Iowa poll numbers in '92 and elsewhere where around 16%, not 2% to less than 1% that Ron Paul continues to pull down. In relation to the debate questions, Paul does stand out given his views, but he's hardly a Goldwater figure storming the party barricades, leading an ideological wave of some sort. To do that, you actually have to have support. Yes, he has raised $5 million, however, it is also true though, that major GOP donors are sitting on their hands rather than donate at this point and time. They want a more conservative candidate, they won't turn to a libertarian one.

Without a top 3 finish in Iowa, Ron Paul will be quickly forgotten and his responsible spending message will be forgotten along with it. His fund raising for the 3Q should get a few politicians to pay attention to the potential money that this message has, but don't expect a bunch of 'taxpayer's best friend' converts.

Latest polls still show Ron Paul at 2% in Iowa (7th place). The smear machine on this guy has just gotten started too. If he can spend the $5 million wisely and get his message to the voters before the machine discredits him, then I could see him actually beating Guiliani in Iowa. Still wouldn't be enough, but it would be funny.

Alex Jones is a complete nutbag, who claims the ills of the world are caused by the illumati, the Bildebergers, and some scary right-wing druid/pagan child-sacrificing devil cults named "Bohemian Grove." He makes his living by selling DVD's on the new world order conspiracy. Tinfoil hat stuff.

Ron Paul regularly appears on Mr. Jones' radio show.

How, indeed, could one link "these nitwits" with Rep. Paul? Other than by using common sense, that is.

Carlito, great points. Kind of trivial though don't you think?
If the best that you can do is attack the company someone keeps and not the person themselves, then that says good things about that person IMO. It's like when people link Michael Moore and Al Gore. Or the old Billy Carter attacks.

If you have an issue with Ron Paul's message, what about the message don't you like?

According to these polls, Guiliani may very well be beaten by Romney. Romney is also looking good for New Hampshire. I could almost see a Romney/Paul ticket in the future. You could cover a lot of ground in the Republican party and some independents too with that duo.

The exact part of the statement I objected to was "it's not his fault that they see him as an end to their means." By appearing on programs like Alex Jones, he is telling them that he's one of them. That he doesn't reject the most paranoid fantasies of New World Order government - black helicopters, secret camps, GW blowing up the World Trade Center. It's not enough to mildly deny these things in public while speaking with the sane. Rep. Paul, by descending into the fever swamp and railing against "the government" is empowering the message of lunatics like Mr. Jones and his cohort of white supremacists, militias and other tinfoil hat types.

The reason I left the Libertarian Party - isolationist foreign policy just isn't realistic.

For example...




If a man won't "pick sides" in a battle between good and evil, he's not entitled to be President of the United States. JFK and Reagan would return from the grave to scold us if we elected this idiot.

Understood. I'm not a party guy either. I disagree with you on the foreign policy issue because America was isolationist up until the Cold War really. We didn't go into WWII until Japan hit us. But the one thing a President has control over is foreign policy. Paul probably serves the people better in the legislature, but I still respect his principles.

An interesting CBS News interview with Ron Paul.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=51049

Today is November 5th (Guy Fawkes Day) and a grass roots effort to raise $10 million dollars for Ron Paul in one day is underway. Currently he has raised approximately $1.5 million dollars, with a lot of day left!

Here's an interesting mash-up of sorts-V for Vendetta meets Ron Paul.

non intervention and isolation are different... sanctions and embargoes are more isolationist than what Dr. Paul proposes... open trade and travel, but no alliance.








hmm and what do you think Jefferson and Washington or Adams would do if we did elect this Mastermind?

Spare me the quick, out-of-context quotes. That's not really an argument. "Non-intervention" is a fantasy that would have enslaved about 2/3 of the world in the 1940's.


Given that those guys understood rudimentary math, and founded the electoral college, they would probably ask how we elected a guy who only polls at 3% in the most libertarian state in the union.

Am I the only one who thinks that fund-raising themed on "V for Vendetta" or Guy Fawkes day is a little creepy? Did Ron Paul supporters ask for "a penny for the man?" If so, $3 million is a lot of pennies.

What are you talking about carlito? Non-interventionism is a policy that was the staple of the GOP for decades. Do not attack countries needlessly. Do not send troops in harms way for humanitarian measures. Non-interventionism does NOT mean that you do not need a military or that it can never be used. It means that you use your military ONLY when there is a direct threat to our national security. Not the 10 years down the road threat, the 10 minutes/hours kind of threat.



The fact that November 5th was used was only a ploy to gain more attention for the fundraising. They could have picked any day, but Nov5th has a special significance when it comes to government oppression and individual liberty.

The fact that Paul was able to rake in $4.2 million on a single day without it even being organized by his campaign is amazing. He is well on his way to raise $12 million or more for the quarter. What is even more amazing is that his contributions are not coming from corporate & special interests. They would obviously not like Paul. His money and his base are every day people who are fed up with the wars, the mismanagement of the economy, and the size of the federal government. The momentum that is currently in this campaign is getting contagious. People BELIEVE in democracy again. People believe that despite media efforts and the efforts of powerful individuals that ideas can prevail. I would love to see Ron Paul elected president although it is still unlikely to happen. But what is more important is the recognition that a good portion of the people in this country are not liking the way that we are heading. Ron Paul's candidacy is not just hope for 2008, it is hope for the future of America.

I don't vote for a President who can't think beyond the next 10 minutes. I vote for a President who can spot emerging threats and take action to prevent them fully forming. This goes for domestic and foreign policy. If we wait until the "10 minutes" threat, given our CIA, the speed of technology, the advancement of viruses both real and virtual, then we run the risk of waiting too long. No thanks. When Washington was talking about Europe, it was a days-long boat ride away. Now Europe is effectively here and we are effectively there, whether banking and financial systems or 5-hour flights.

As for the decades of policy in the GOP, excuse me for not being impressed with the foreign policy stylings of Charles Lindberg and the America First crowd. Looking at history, they were just as wrong as the pro-communist leftists here.

It's interesting to note how many of the supporters of this policy, both pre-WWII and now, blame their troubles on the Jews.




I'm just saying that it's creepy to talk anti-establishment and have a fund raiser on the date a guy tried to blow up Parliament. The Rudy Giuliani $9.11 fundraiser was worse though.

Perhaps I should be more clear. Non-interventionism is a policy that means you do not act with your military unless it is absolutely necessary for the national security of your country. Can you please let me know if this needs to be any more clear. The United States' policy of intervention throughout the Cold War and post-Cold War era has brought us nothing but misery. Korea (still there), Iran, Vietnam, Latin America, Somalia, Yugoslavia (still there), Afghanistan, Iraq. Could you explain how any of these instances of interventionism benefited US security?




I am looking at history carlito, thats the point. Thousands of lives and billions of dollars have been lost on these foreign policy adventures, with no improvement to our security. Now we have an administration that is gearing up for a go at Iran. Are we kidding? Am I really supposed to be afraid of Iran, a third world country?

Was FDR a failure as the war president for not preventing Pearl Harbor, even though we had contingency plans for the Pacific and we knew the expansion of both our militaries might lead to either country "neutralizing" the other through preemption?

Maybe this discussion is better suited for another thread, but I don't know why you expect prescience from a branch of government that doesn't even have the power to declare war. What you describe, your expectations, require a constitutional amendment. I don't know why you demand intervention as if it's a bygone conclusion.

I don't expect prescience; I expect people to think beyond the horizon of the next 10 days. "Take action" could be diplomacy, embargo, covert action, incentives, or a lot of other things. It doesn't have to be war. I did specify domestic policies as well. Our presidents (and corporate boardrooms) are too short-term focused, pandering to get votes and stay elected for life. This matters a lot when faced with an existential threat from an enemy who is planning for the long term. Saudi funding of extremist mosques has been going on for decades. The Muslim Brotherhood have been around for decades. We are at least noticing them now, but the dolts in charge are reaching out to them rather than cracking down. Since they present no imminent threat. While they work to destroy Western Civilization from within.

Can't speak for FDR - I suppose he did the best he could given the forces arrayed around him and against him.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul supporters raise millions, spoof internet polls, create spam emails and fake forums, websites and blogs. That actually is forward thinking. Maybe he can save america.
Who's Nuttier, Apple Fanatics or Ron Paul Enthusiasts?

leder:

The problem simply isn't Iraq and/or Iran. The problem is that your man wants to depart from all of our bases overseas. As for why the problem, simply put, human conduct often imitates scientific principle. Here, the scientific principle is that nature abhors a vacuum. So who does your man believe is going to fill the vacuum when we leave? There are otherwise other threats that we must interdict far from our shores and so we will not be safe with all of us here at home. Perhaps you might also remind your man of Jefferson's war on the Barbary Pirates. That war was fought to preserve our trade in and through the Med. A goodly amount of our wheat export and also our dried and pickled fish export went into and through the Med. Today, our GDP is something like 25% of the world's GDP and we trade all over the world. That explains why the US Navy can be found just about all over the world. We are otherwise not in Korea and Japan for their interests, but for ours, as our having surrendered the place earlier would have undermined the entire US position with respect to Asia. Leaving now will accomplish the same result. Perhaps you might suggest to your man that he look at China's ever encroaching position in that part of the world. Here's a link that you can share with your man:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/06/chi...nsion_in_t.html

Suffice it to say that your man's policy in this regard is naive, downright dangerous, and perhaps even lethal.

Now, as further evidence that your man simply has no business in the Republican Party:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676 [hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act]. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society."

Your man has the same view as those who opposed Reconstruction in the South, and so as I said prior, he is not worthy of being in the Republican Party. And no surprise that the white racists support Ron Paul in droves: The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent... Your man enables their racism. The vote on H.Res 676 would have otherwise been unanimous but for his "no" vote.

Your man is otherwise, well, how does one say this? Whose racial tension is he worrying about? The "black" American always lived in fear [and still does]. So the racial tension that your man is concerned with is the tension that accrues to the racist who now has to live as an approximate equal to "people of color". And no increase in freedom? Funny, but the Rosa Parks of this nation can now ride anywhere on the bus, and stay at very nearly any hotel of their choosing. So on that score your man is patently wrong.

Which brings me to my next point. Your man's view of the US Constitution is absurd and entirely pathetic. I'll just give you the one example. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, which upheld Title II of the CRA of '64, was done on a 9-0 vote. But more to the point, let us assume that the putative "black" traveler rejects the "white" hotel owner's invitation to leave the premises on the basis that we don't accomodate "blacks" here, and so goes ahead and occupies a room. Query, how does the white hotel owner enforce his private right? Through the trespass law of the state in question? So in enforcing the private right, the state sanctions and supports the racism.

And so your man knows, it is precisely on the stated basis that the Reconstruction Amendments can be used to eliminate the stated problem, and Congress only chose the Commerce Clause as that was easier to accomplish under existing jurisprudence than making the argument that with the exception of Justice Harlan, the other souls then serving on the US Supreme Court were racists who wrongly decided the Civil Rights Cases. Your man ought to read the following:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...756C0A9669C8B63
www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol41_2/ugarte.pdf

And your man apparently believes in a conspiracy to establish a "new world order," and so commenting on the use of Dutch and Mexican troops following Katrina:

"It's a horrible precedent and it's all part of the NAFTA scheme and globalization and world government..."

And when your man was out of Congress:

"Dear Friend. Will you survive the "new money"? You must be prepared, because within one year, the U.S. Treasury will impose a radically different currency on the American people. Government officials won't tell you the truth about this ominous new development and most of your neighbors will be caught napping.... I saw the ugly new bills, tinted pink and blue and blighted with holograms, diffraction gratings, metal threads and chemical alarms."

So, your man was a shill for all those who try to get you to buy gold with their line of impending financial collapse [when gold will then be the only thing able to save you (all hail gold!)].

And ever hear of the John Birch Society? Your man:

"Asked about the John Birch Society Society by the author, Paul responds, 'Is that BAD? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well-educated and they understand the Constitution. I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with.'"

Here's the JBS:

http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/jbs.html

Now note the agreement between the remarks in that first paragraph and your man's quote above re just what Dutch and Mexican troops in the US following Katrina means.

I can't help but think that if not for our war in Iraq, well, Iraq and/or the ability to smoke dope and crystal meth without limitation, that you and some others wouldn't be on the bandwagon, but would instead be calling him the fringe nut. That's what he is.

But what are these examples? Do we need a troop presence in Germany, or S.Korea, Or Japan? How long have we been in the Balkans? How many years and how many (tr)billions of dollars are we going to spend in Afghanistan and Iraq. You forget that there is a fundamental shift in the nature of warfare. Large great power wars of conventional weaponry is a thing of the past. Nations are too integrated into the global economy and weapons are too destructive for Great Power wars to occur. This makes the presence of army bases and conventional forces unnecessary. Do we really have to worry about Chinese power increasing militarily if we left S.Korea or Japan? Relative to what? Just because we would not have army and naval forces in the area doesnt mean that we could deploy there within a short amount of time or that our air force could not be an active deterrent. There would be no vacuum.


How would we be undermining our position? Asia would still need our goods and our market is essential to the global economy. Whether or not the US Navy is present is insignificant. We have the largest Navy in the world by a ridiculous margin. Do we honestly have to worry about another naval power emerging? All probability points to no since conventional military action is obsolete.



The only thing that it is dangerous and lethal to is our economy. Paul is correct to assert that if we focused the billions of dollars we have spent maintaining bases and army presence abroad here at home, we could allow people to be phased off of SS and Medicare while still maintaining the current system for those dependent on it.



I am surprised such an intellectually short-sided would come from you Kivro. Paul believes in an individualist ideology. That means that every person is deserving of rights. There is no such thing as white rights, minority rights, gender rights, gay rights....there are individual rights. The very act of diversifying people into social groups is in and of itself racism. Paul is arguing that even racism, something abhorrent, is not something the government can regulate because it is an idea.




Only if you misunderstand his point. INDIVIDUAL rights that are protected by the force of government ensure equality. The government should not be concerned with the rights of this group or that group because there are bound to make differences. Government should be concerned with the rights of every SINGLE person. If every INDIVIDUAL has their rights protected, then there is no institutionalized racism and there is no need for social rights.



That is patently false. It is akin to saying that allowing the KKK to hold a protest rally under the guise of the 1st Amendment supports their racist views. Allowing individuals to make a private decision is not an endorsement of the decision that they make. It would be an acknowledgment that you have the right to make a personal decision regarding your interests and welfare. I do not support the views of people who are racist or who believe in communism or who want a welfare state. But that does not mean I support the suppression of their views. This is supposed to be a free society.




For nearly the entirety of human history, at least since the conception of currency, money has been backed by some sort of material wealth whether it be gold, silver, etc... It is only in the past couple of years (a blink of an eye), that we seem to believe that money doesn't need any material backing. That money can just be worth whatever the government wants it to be worth. We can get into the economics of it, but that's for another thread.




A fringe nut who voted against the war with Iraq. A fringe nut who voted against the Patriot Act. A fringe nut who has never voted for the raising of taxes or expansion of government power not expressed in the US Constitution. If that is you definition of 'fringe nut' then it reflects the very sorry state of contemporary United States.

link 1 - note that I added a few links for context. Obviously, no links to things like stormfront, etc.

Perhaps someone somewhere could point me to a link where Ron Paul publically disavows support from these groups?

Or perhaps he just wants their money? Being an 'internet sensation' and all.

link 2



His campaign was informed of the donation and said they needed time to look into it. First, that's just stupid and not showing enough political savvy to be president. Second, it's really offensive to have to take time to 'look into' whether you should refund donations from racist skinheads.

carlitoswhey, this is a non-issue to everyone except to those detractors who wish to smear Paul due to his rising popularity. Anyone who sits down and reads about his political views will not find any racist sentiment. If neo-nazis or skinheads wish to donate to his campaign then they do so at their own folly. I couldn't tell you what part of Paul's platform they find attractive because i cannot enter the mind of these fringe groups.

The fact is that Paul's fundraising ability is beginning to gain media attention and he is slowly but steadily rising in the polls in the early primary states. The $4.2 million in a 24 hour period on November 5th was amazing. But it will be dwarfed by what is coming up. It will be impossible to ignore Paul's presence and popularity after the next big fundraising day.

The Lone Star Times is hardly impartial about Ron Paul as it is featuring an anti-Paul ad right on it's front page. I would not go as far as leder to declare the way White supremacists have gravitated to Paul's campaign as a "non-issue." Paul needs to publicly distance himself from these nuts and return their tainted donations.

The Huffington Post ran a story about Paul's problem with White supremacists:

Through no fault of his own, Rep. Ron Paul's anti-globalist, anti-government campaign for the Republican presidential nomination has become a magnet in neo-Nazi networks, pulling in activists and supporters from the fringe white nationalist community where anti-Semitism, anti-black and anti-immigrant views are commonplace.

In some cases, these internet-based activists acknowledge that even though the Paul campaign does not have a racist or anti-Semitic agenda, it can serve as a vehicle to find sympathizers and to recruit new loyalists drawn to the Republican congressman's opposition to international trade agreements, federal police authority and to the income tax.

Such web-based organizations as Stormfront (motto: "White Pride, World Wide"), Vanguard News Network ("No Jews. Just Right.") and the Nationalist Coalition ("working to create the relationships that will lay the foundation for the White community that is necessary to our survival") have become sources of support for Paul's bid for the Republican nomination, and in some cases have set up separate Ron Paul discussion groups.

Among those backing Paul this year is John J. Ubele, the National Coalition's Operations Manager. In an emailed reply to an inquiry, Ubele said, "I know that Ron Paul is not a white separatist or a white nationalist. However, he is the most honest and responsible of all the presidential candidates and that is why I support his candidacy. link

From what I can determine Paul himself is not a racist or an anti-Semite. The problem is his campaign is attracting people who are and Paul is not going out of his way to distance himself from these bigots. A former senior aide to Paul who is now backing Rudy Giuliani echoes that sentiment:

I stumbled onto David Duke’s website the other day while googling Presidential politics for the day.

He’s practically endorsing Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has had some ties that are nothing to be proud of in the past to far-right groups. My former boss IS NOT AN ANTI-SEMITE. However, he is grossly inattentive in dealing with groups who are blatantly anti-Semitic.

It’s worse when you consider that his anti-War on Islamo-Fascism views happen to correspond perfectly with the views of many of these far-out radical groups.

Whether they are using him to gain in credibility, or whether it’s just coincidence doesn’t matter much. It’s the image that counts. No doubt this will all come to haunt him in his race for the Presidency. Eric Dondero

Now of course, Ron Paul has nothing to fear from someone like me as I am not supporting his candidacy, but I think you're being too casually dismissive leder, if you don't think Paul won't be hurt with those considering supporting him when racists are so enthusiastic about leeching onto him and he doesn't disavow them.

Politically it would be smart to turn away their donations as an act of repudiation towards these groups. Should the same be done to any votes cast by the same group of people? The point is that every candidate is going to attract fringe groups that will latch onto their platform for self-interest. There are fundamentalist Christians, white supremacists, extreme feminists, ultra racial groups, communists, nationalists, anarchists etc...

I am not worried if white supremacists are throwing their support behind Paul. You and I both know that their political agenda in no way reflects Paul's platform of ideas. If I did believe that there were racist or anti-Semitic parts of Paul's platform, then there would be reason to worry. But you can't control who decides to vote for you. A candidate can speak out against these groups all they want but it won't affect their support. I think that continuing to profess the same anti-war, anti-big government, pro-liberty message is the greatest repudiation of these groups that he could possibly give.



I think people are smart nighttimer. I think that those who actually listen to Paul's message and who have learned about him know where he stands on such issues. Neocons are claiming that his message is anti-American. Neo-liberals are claiming he is anti-free trade. The pro-Israel lobby claims he is anti-Israel. And now we have racial groups claiming he is racist. He addresses all of these groups at once every time he speaks at a rally or a debate. I do not believe that I am being dismissive on the issue nighttimer, because the political power of the white supremacy movement is minimal in American politics. If David Duke held more considerable sway over a large population, then perhaps you would be correct in claiming that Paul should try to publically distance himself from the groups (although his campaign has done it several times). I, however, do not believe that a Presidential candidate should have to answer to every crazy nut who has a fringe ideology and a website.

leder:

Let me take your last in parts and so for part 1, you wrote:

"But what are these examples? Do we need a troop presence in Germany, or S.Korea, Or Japan? How long have we been in the Balkans? How many years and how many (tr)billions of dollars are we going to spend in Afghanistan and Iraq. You forget that there is a fundamental shift in the nature of warfare. Large great power wars of conventional weaponry is a thing of the past. Nations are too integrated into the global economy and weapons are too destructive for Great Power wars to occur. This makes the presence of army bases and conventional forces unnecessary. Do we really have to worry about Chinese power increasing militarily if we left S.Korea or Japan? Relative to what? Just because we would not have army and naval forces in the area doesnt mean that we could deploy there within a short amount of time or that our air force could not be an active deterrent. There would be no vacuum."

Some soul otherwise wrote in a post on another thread here on AD:

National security is not the same thing as "the security of our interests in faraway parts of the globe where free-trade capitalism would better serve the American economy."

Now, for my rebuttal to both:

JFK: World trade is more than ever essential to world peace...We therefore must resist the temptation to accept remedies that deny American producers and consumers access to world markets and destroy the prosperity of our friends in the noncommunist world.

You can take out the "noncommunist", as both then and now it's unneeded as our friends are our friends.

One would otherwise hope that one and all would understand that our national security depends on our economic security. Let me put the matter this way, simply recall our Cold War with the former Soviet Union:

"...the military strategy of the United States (and, indeed, of NATO) was increasingly based on the premise that the advantage of the Soviet Union in numbers of manpower and equipment would have to be overcome by the continued technological superiority of the United States.

However, the military security of the United States depends not only on the prevailing gap between American and Soviet technology, but also on the overall economic strength of the United States."

Just as our overall economic strength in relation to Japan sealed US victory in that war right from the day of Pearl Harbor [all that was left following Pearl Harbor was the matter of the timing of Japanese defeat/surrender].

And, collectively, our forward bases send the message to the entire world that we are the leading player when it comes to global peace and stability. And why we do this? We are the only ones who can. And it isn't because we want war, but because we don't want war that we have the US 2nd Infantry Division on the DMZ in Korea. The US 2nd Infantry Division on the DMZ tells the North Koreans that if they attack the ROK, they'll have to kill a few too many of us along the way and that we will ending up crushing them for the same reason[s] that we crushed Japan during WWII.

And you might consider:

"How the United States projects power and presence into an antiaccess environment will be central to the global security dynamic for at least 2 decades. All grand strategies—such as balance of power, containment, and deterrence—depend both on capability and will. That the United States has the capability to project power into any regional theater is beyond question. What is at issue is America's willingness to do so. The question of what constitutes unacceptable losses to Americans in the pursuit of what kinds of interests has been tested by regional aggressors and would-be hegemons.
***
Once an adversary discovers what the actual American tolerance is (that is, what kinds of costs Americans will accept for what kinds of interests), the limits of U.S. power will have been defined. From a strategic perspective, it is sensible to maintain strategic ambiguity about the real limits to U.S. power.
***
Deploying some forces forward in critical areas, however, is essential as an expression of U.S. commitment and willingness to protect its regional interests. 'Trip-wires' helped contain the Soviet Union during the Cold War and will constrain would-be hegemons in the 21st century. Forward-deployed forces also can serve as a casus belli; Americans will support fighting anyone who kills many Americans, regardless of how important U.S. interests in the region are.
***
The presence of U.S. forces in a region (unless they are just passing through) sends a message to everyone in the region that U.S. interests are of such importance that it may use military force to defend or advance them. The act of deploying forces forward during peacetime also signals an awareness (on the part of the United States) that its interests in the region are being threatened...This message, if credible, should reassure friends and allies and deter potential threats to those interests. U.S. forward presence makes the United States a global power. It reassures allies and friends; it sends a message to potential aggressors; and it positions the United States for rapid response to smaller-scale contingencies and humanitarian relief missions. U.S. presence forces are there to be seen and deal with lesser contingencies. They address the will side of the U.S. deterrent against large-scale aggression.
***
U.S. power projection forces, on the other hand, must be highly lethal and highly survivable, capable of frustrating an aggressor’s plans and inflicting great pain. These forces address the capability side of the deterrent against large-scale aggression. Conducting rapid global strike strictly from the continental United States (CONUS), however, makes it too difficult to mass the fires needed to halt aggression. U.S. power projection capabilities would be greatly enhanced if the United States could operate from robust, heavily defended, assured access bases on the periphery of a regional theater. The United States would initially wage standoff war from these periphery bases and then use them as staging areas for follow-on forces. For example, bombers operating from Guam, western Australia, and Diego Garcia could cover the vast Asian theater. Defending these periphery bases from missile attacks would be critical but much easier than defending closer-in bases from heavier antiaccess attacks.
***
In short, there is no lack of critical missions for U.S. naval presence forces. In fact, what the United States needs is more naval forward presence in more places. This is what a global power needs to stay a global power."

See: http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books_2002/G..._02/26_ch25.htm

And the single proposition that Ron Paul does not understand:

"The next regional aggressor is likely to attack U.S. assets in theater early in the conflict in order to test the will of the United States to intervene."

And so, after 3,000 or so dead, Ron Paul calls it "blowback" and suggests that we cede the world to the enemies of Cruising Ram's progress by bringing all of our people home. Not the vision that I was looking for.

And that leaves us with the nature of war[fare] and the Chinese. Re the nature of war[fare], you mean like how the machine gun changed the nature of war and so WWI, the Great War, was the war to end all war? Didn't happen. Not likely to happen any time soon. The fundamental shift you are looking for isn't otherwise in the means of war and accompanying increase in destruction, but in human nature. I am simply unaware that any such fundamental change has occurred.

Re the Chinese, well, simply consider in addition to everything else already related:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail....&con_type=1

Our friends from India otherwise report their disagreement with you on this point as well:

http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idIN...-30499920071115

And some are working on the vision of the nation, one apparently different than yours:

http://www.marc.cn/2007/10/fake-chinese-ai...ft-carrier.html

Sorry, almost forgot, but re that vacuum, well, if the vacuum doesn't exist then how come those pirates? Now change the "pirate" to "rogue" and we go from individual and loose collection of souls to the nation-state.

For one more, we even help the North Koreans, in our continuing war on the Barbary Pirates:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ipMHyUW...eMrqFwD8SJO2M00

Edited again to add a more worthy piece on our efforts against the pirates:

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?...&ran=189084

I'm sorry Kivro, but I find the argument that the US needs to maintain all of its 1000 army bases worldwide in order to protect American shipping lines against pirates to be quite weak. The use of the US Navy in escorting merchant ships along trade lines is not the issue. The issue is the presence of large numbers of US troops in Germany, SKorea, Japan, the Balkans, the ME, and other areas. The amount of money that it costs to support and maintain this military structure puts an enormous strain on the US economy and the livelihood of everyday Americans. Having troops all over the world does not make us safer, it takes great leaps in logic to reach that conclusion. "Blowback" is a concept that does not originate with Ron Paul, but was first coined by the CIA and is even well documented in the 9/11 Commission Final Report. Furthermore, the concept is sound. If we meddle in the affairs of other nations, there is the greater likelihood that someone in that country would take offense and attack us. Do you side with Giuliani in asserting that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom? When Hezzbollah bombed a US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 - did they bomb it because they hate freedom or because we built a damn army base in their country? Logic prevails in this issue. If you would like to know more about the shift in the nature of war, I would suggest reading The Economist of Oct27th-Nov2nd.

His logic is unimpeachable in the case of our attempt to hold global hegemony, and it is harmful to our nation. I can't say I agree with everything he says- I am against his stance on abortion, for sure. But I respect the way he comes to his decision-

the white supremecists? Ya, he needs to repudiate them, because, obviously, they are everything the libertarian party dislikes the most- the idea of stifling freedom in the manner of a racist, disrespecting the freedom of others for any reason is completely anti-libertarian to it's very core.

Racism is fundamentally anti-libertarian, as it ignored alot of the personal responsibility aspects of our philosophy by blaming other races for individual failings. The free individual does not blame others for his failure, even in an unfair situation, he/she strives for a more free life for his/her self, no matter what the enviroment. Sure, you affect change in any system you can, by any means that promotes more freedom for everyone, in a non-violent manner in a representitive liberal democracy.

Ron Paul, though a longshot, to me, represents a small kernal of hope for this nation to finally set it self free, truly free, that we may have never had in this country, ever.

The civil rights movement would be at a pinacle in US history with the election of Ron Paul, because it would mean a siesmic shift to the ideals of liberty, liberty for all, that has never had the opportunity to happen in this country.

for FDR, we were in a fight for our survival- but black poeple were second class citizens still. Lincoln fought to end slavery, without getting into the details of realpolitik of the civil war, Jefferson and others where privileged white men, that believed owning property should allow you to vote, etc etc.

It is a longshot, but Ron Paul really does represent the last best hope for freedom in this country, and I doubt even if elected, that the entire platform of the libertarian party will be inacted, anymore than the entire platform of the democratic party or republican party.

I have to hand it to Dr. Paul. His answer to this medical marijuana patient was great. I believe that this same guy threw Romney for a loop with the same question. Paul reminds us that, in order to ban alcohol, we needed a Constitutional amendment. Yet we fight the "war on drugs" without any constitutional authority. Brilliant and principled.

Less than two hours until Ron Paul's next big day. I think that this could be the day that breaks the record. Can the media continue to ignore Paul's candidacy after he is the top GOP fundraiser for the quarter?

I saw Ron Paul on NOW this past Friday. He was asked about the white supremacists support. He was not sure why he had their support as he does not agree with them. He was also asked if he would give any donations from them back. He said he would not as he does not wish to support such groups. Ron Paul wants to use the money for good and giving it back would allow such money to be used for bad.

Frankly, it is such an obvious thing to do, not give the money back. Voters are so programmed into thinking politicians can be bought that they do not believe the deal when they have a principled representative staring them in the face.

I have to say- this makes you REALLY wonder who owns the media here? After the way they ignore this guy and 'annoint" the "frontrunners"- I would say neither left nor right- just corporate interests.

Great notice there CR, I travel a lot in my job and talk to a lot of people in my everyday workday and what I see on the news does not match at all what I hear.
People are very nervous about the economic future. Its harder to make ends meet and benefits and the like are being slashed--all the while companies try to claim they are actually benefitting the employees--takes some real nuts to lie to people like that right to their face.

If the GOP and the Free Marketeers are not careful in their frenzy to profit at all costs--and sacrificing Main Street for Wall Street in the process-- they are going to hand the keys to the socialist types as people begin to worry about the safety of their families.

I do not hear support for Romney (He is most often referred to as untrustworthy and overly polished and "rehearsed" more like he says what he should say not what he believes)or Clinton (who is also considered to be a fake and will go hard left if elected) no one really cares much for Guliani.
People do like the Huckster and are very disappointed in Thompson.
While not wild about Dems I do hear lots of angry republicans in regards to small government and their willingness to rush our jobs to other countries. They won't vote for the Dems but people who hear about Paul--which I do at every chance -- become VERY interested.
Why?
He sounds the most like Reagan, the last Republican to act like one instead of the Democrats the GOP has become.
On the Dem side of the equation I hear more Obama but LOTS of Kuchinich and Edwards--more Edwards. I also hear lots who are sure if the Dems pick Hilary they will lose yet again. She is the Kerry of the coming election.

But the polls all show Hilary? Doesn't match up at all.

Once again, the facts get in the way of one of CR's posts.... Next week on Meet the Press, they are going to spend (waste) an entire hour on an in-depth interview with Ron Paul. This will give him the opportunity to prove to all of America just what an idiot he truly is. Comparing him to Reagan is.... not among one of the most insightful things I've read here....

Aquilla

An idiot? Oy vey.

You are right, Aquilla, he is not Reagan, and thank God. Reagan was a failure, if you consider the reduction of government a success.

When you set a record for Presidential campaigning with regards to raising money in a day, and then subsequently break your own record just months later, guess what? You're newsworthy. Of course RP won't win, one of the individuals whom the press anointed as 'frontrunners' or 'viable' a year ago will.

At least Dr. Paul can be happy with his ability to awaken the 18-24 year old bloc of voters that has eluded ALL politicians in the last several election cycles. His campaign has not been pointless and I am thankful, that as a result, it will not go down in history as irrelevant as the likes of Joe Biden and Fred Thompson

CP

Lets see- Reagan , moronic hollywood actor- Ron Paul- Dr- um, who is the idiot again

I don't think the MSM has a choice but to pay attention these days.

You are right, I hate the comparison to RR, that guy truly WAS a tree stump with eyes, that had no idea what the hell he was talking about, and no clue about, well, anything, except looking grandfatherly on TV, it was quite plain to see when he thought the cameras were off.

However, the thing about Ron Paul- is that smart doesn't play too well to the American public- and that is the thing that worries me too much- Americans appear to REALLY LIKE idiots- look at how we have dumbed down the offices over the years, and even the debates themselves. Seems to me they don't seem to do well with nuanced positions on issues. In fact, i would say nuance is a completely lost art in American society. Black and white solutions for grey problems, bumper sticker comments to complex issues. Sieze upon one sound bite, to make or break a candidate, instead of listening to everything, in context.

Reagan talked a good game about small goverment- but in office, he, like all conservatives after him, GREW goverment to amazing new hieights and abuses.

Reagan talked about ending pork, and all those other nice things he paid lip service to like the lame B movie actor he was- but Ron Paul actually DOES adhere to the ideals, even at the expense of his own district.

There won't be a sound of "concrete cracking".

Instead, you will get common sense answers and real world solutions to problems, because the DOCTOR is in the house!

I will vote for him, I will stump for him, I will support him, but, I fear for my country, as most likely, it could very well be Huckabee (another corrupt Arkansas politician) Romney (another GW) or Hillary (um, another Clinton )- I do think Obama is probably the best of the dem bunch, but if Ron Paul were to actually get the nomination of the republican party- he will wipe the map with Hillary. Libertarian leaning Dems have NEVER been as lock step monolithic as the republicans, and will defect in droves to a libertarian candidate- just due to her negatives.

I believe that any candidate that is the ordained "front runner" of the MSM of the republican party will probably pretty much hand Clinton (IF she is nominated- which is anyone's guess at this time- I think even Edwards has a good chance at this point) the presidency, simply because there isn't a Republican standout that can distance himself far enough away from GW and his failed presidency. Heck, Mitt Romney accused Huckabee of acting like a democrat for his comments on GW- which, I think, shows that Huckabee is smart, at the very least, and Romney is just more of the same- GW lite.


Only Ron Paul is removed from the stigmata of having an R behind his name, because, of all of them, he doesn't resemble the secrectly gay in bathroom stalls, corrupt and tied to the corporate culture type republican- the rest have that stain all over them.

In other words- he is the only one that is ACTUALLY conservative- and also, possibly the only one to have held office since goldwater that can call themselves that and actually be true to some of those ideals.

I don't agree with everything he says or does- not by a far reach. But he is way smarter than any other candidate, and he scares the crap out of the corporate culture and the MSM- which right there makes him my guy!

Ya, but PLEASE don't compare him to that moron RR, he isn't fit to lick Ron Pauls boots.

To me- it goes down like this- and I would bet money, depending on party nominations- If hillary and romney win- both so negative, anybodies gues- but my money is on Hillary on that one. Hillary and anyone but ron paul- Hillary wins. Edwards and anyone in the repub side- INCLUDING Ron paul- Edwards wins.

Obama and anybody but Ron Paul, Obama wins.

It is not because any one of them are my candidates EXCEPT Ron Paul- it is who wants to go where. Edwards has a pretty good appeal, in the bumper sticker sound bite stuff, and he has distanced himself very well from the Clintons, and he is not a GW clone.

Romney actually defended GW yesterday- bad, bad decision. Huckabee is scary right wing relgious nutjob- though, I still kinda like him, and his occasional burst of honesty- though, just look at his corruption issues in Arkansas, and we have the religious right version of Bill Clinton.

Obama is good, personable, and NOT GW- however, he is also black, and if Ron Paul wins, he will get all the repub faithful, all the independents, and all the anti-liberals.

Voted against the war. Voted against the patriot act. Never voted for a tax increase. Voted against any legislation not authorized by the Constitution. If thats you definition of 'idiot' Aquilla, i'd hate to see your genius.