POLITICO: Ron Paul gains mainstream steam

[bobbyw24]

Is libertarian rock star and Texas Republican Ron Paul going mainstream?


He’s got everyone from South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint to Minnesota moderate Democrat Collin Peterson to California liberal Barbara Boxer on his side in his audit-the-Fed crusade. He’s drawing liberal support in his push to rein in the cost of the war in Afghanistan. Senate candidates like Democratic Rep. Paul Hodes of New Hampshire are finding Dr. No’s populist economic anger to be useful in the campaign, echoing Paul’s criticism of the Federal Reserve.


Even Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is delivering backhanded compliments, taking credit for merely allowing a vote on Paul’s amendment to audit the central bank.


This convergence of odd bedfellows, and the economic angst that’s driving it all, is yet another signal that President Barack Obama is going to have more and more trouble keeping his traditional Democratic allies on his side as the economic debate continues. It seems that everyone is looking for something new to latch on to in the economic debate — even if those ideas belong to one of the more eccentric members of Congress.


“This brought people together [from] the whole political spectrum, from progressives and liberals and libertarians and conservatives. ... they all came together. That, to me, is what is really so important,” said Paul, who has been introducing his audit-the-Fed measure since the early ’80s.


After so many tries, this time Paul’s measure attracted 313 co-sponsors in the House, representing every possible point on the political spectrum. It also scored a strong vote in a key committee and has a companion in the Senate that’s supported by a bipartisan coalition of senators.


And Paul’s economic views, long dismissed by the political establishment, seem to be resonating more broadly than just the audit-the-Fed measure, both in the larger financial reform debate and the growing concern about the cost of continuing the war in Afghanistan.


To be sure, Paul’s bill to abolish the personal income tax or to end the United States’ membership in the United Nations still puts him well outside the mainstream.


But lawmakers — and, more important, the voters they represent — are starting to believe that the financial meltdown and the dramatic government rescue effort seems to have gotten Wall Street back on its feet quite nicely while leaving regular folks on the curb, analysts say.


“On financial regulation matters, most Americans sympathize with Ron Paul’s outrage,” said Cook Political Report House analyst Dave Wasserman.


Take Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), a firebrand liberal who infamously declared that the Republican health plan is for people to die instead of to use the health system. Despite being on opposite sides of the political universe from Paul on a wide range of issues, Grayson paired up with Paul to help push the amendment version of the Fed audit bill in the House Financial Services Committee.


The committee victory for the Paul-Grayson amendment came at the defeat of a weaker alternative offered by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) and backed by Frank. In normal times, the Watt amendment was just the kind of chairman-backed compromise Democrats would usually dutifully embrace. Instead the committee, including more than a dozen Democrats, opted 43-26 for the more intrusive Paul-Grayson measure.

“So far, the Federal Reserve has refused to answer questions about special loans and deals for Wall Street banks. I support an audit of the Federal Reserve to provide answers for working families and to protect New Hampshire taxpayer dollars,” said Hodes, a Democrat who is running for Senate in New Hampshire and backed the Fed measure.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29986.html

[Ethek]

Well, as a friend of mine says, people have to be coddled into liberty. Can't go strait for the reach-around.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

#5 Comment is a dumbass. Someone post the John Stossel road 20/20 clip. Roads would be MUCH MUCH MUCH better off in private hands. Tragedy of the commons and all that jazz.

[bobbyw24]

http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_gains_mainstream_steam

[tajitj]

Solid article, is that so hard.

Given the people a little look into who is really fighting for them, will not kill Politico.

[sratiug]

http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_gains_mainstream_steam

dugg

[angelatc]

dugg

[PreDeadMan]

#5 Comment is a dumbass. Someone post the John Stossel road 20/20 clip. Roads would be MUCH MUCH MUCH better off in private hands. Tragedy of the commons and all that jazz.


do you or anybody know where that video is by any chance? On privatizing roads and such i downloaded a walter block seminar on that it was extremely informative I'd like to see Stossel's take on it also.

[cindy25]

all this means nothing as long as the GOP base remains pro-war

[bobbyw24]

http://www.amconmag.com/headline/1037/index.html

[lester1/2jr]

how much did this guy hATE writing this article lol

[speciallyblend]

all this means nothing as long as the GOP base remains pro-war

i hear you. i am still a registered republican. we honestly need 30-45% of the gop leaders to see the light or get voted out. until we change the foreign policy of the gop. the gop is just blowing smoke for us to inhale.

They must be pro-peace/anti-war/strong defense (they do not even get a 1% on this. they are still at -100% on this issue.

They must be anti-drug war, they are not even close on this(-500%)

They must be for 100% Marijuana Legalization,they are not even close on this(-1000%)

all 3 of these issues tie into small government, which the gop is not even close to!

these will be uniting issue for voters in the future and the only way the gop will ever get my vote is to run republicans on the ron paul platform which means to endorse these platform changes.

I have yet to see a sign the gop is even close to waking up from their big government ways.

The gop has 0 credibility to even a run a republican under the TRUE Republican Platform aka The Ron Paul Platform. the gop is like the boy that cried wolf. i would rather the boy get devoured by the wolf. If the boy continues to cry wolf. which they are.

Ron Paul 2012 is the only one i see having any crediblity in the gop, that hasn't been corrupted by the corrupt gop leadership! when i hear steele say they are against undeclared wars and for peace and against the failed drug war. then i will say maybe the gop has seen the light,until then they are just speaking double talk.

[lester1/2jr]

this article shold have come out a year and a half ago!

it comletley amazed me when we were filling stadiums with people and raising record funds the media was like "ron paul raised 6 million dollars... and in basketball"

it was like, lets cover the story but NOT cover it

[speciallyblend]

this article shold have come out a year and a half ago!

it comletley amazed me when we were filling stadiums with people and raising record funds the media was like "ron paul raised 6 million dollars... and in basketball"

it was like, lets cover the story but NOT cover it

the gop better start hoping the media and the gop starts covering the ron paul platform and message,if not i predict the gop will become the whigs of history! you can count my vote on that;)

[The Deacon]

To be sure, Paul’s bill to abolish the personal income tax or to end the United States’ membership in the United Nations still puts him well outside the mainstream.

"Well outside the mainstream" of the D.C. bureaucrats? Or the American people?

See what they did here? "To be sure" my foot.

[georgiaboy]

Yeah, not too long ago, auditing the Fed, or discussing the Fed at all, was not only not mainstream, it wasn't even heard of.

We've come a long way, still a long way to go.

[bobbyw24]

this article shold have come out a year and a half ago!

it comletley amazed me when we were filling stadiums with people and raising record funds the media was like "ron paul raised 6 million dollars... and in basketball"

it was like, lets cover the story but NOT cover it


Once again, Ron Paul deserved to be in the headlines and once again the national media totally ignored him. Wednesday, the nationwide “Tea Party” protests of big taxes and big spending was the number two story in the nation on most television networks and number one on some. And how could they avoid it? Thousands showed up from coast to coast to express their dismay. What is Obama doing? How can we keep printing paper money? Doesn’t he know that a wave of inflation will hit the shore?

The fact is that the first, notable, Tea Party since Boston was launched at a Ron Paul campaign rally in Austin, Texas in December of 2007. The second was the famous “money bomb” fundraiser for Ron Paul on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party in the middle of the 2008 presidential run. And most of the crowd and organizers of yesterday’s event were Ron Paul supporters. But congressman Ron Paul, the Nostradamus from Texas, who predicted the crisis we now face, was not mentioned once by the national media.

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/screwed-again-how-the-national-media-ignored-ron-paul-and-why-it-will-be-their-undoing/

[bobbyw24]

Libertarian's anti-Fed campaign draws mainstream support

(Newser) – Ron Paul is suddenly the belle of the ball on Capitol Hill, with legislators from around the political spectrum backing his decades-old crusade against the Federal Reserve. Paul’s been pushing an amendment to audit the Fed since the early '80s, but this time it attracted a whopping 313 co-sponsors. Democrats who might normally have voted for a compromise backed by Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank sided with Paul instead.

“On financial regulation matters, most Americans sympathize with Ron Paul’s outrage,” one analyst tells Politico. Paul’s fierce opposition to America’s interventionist foreign policy is also earning him fans. Two Democrats joined him on Nov. 18 to make floor speeches against spending more in Afghanistan and Pakistan. “Eventually we’ll win,” says Paul. “Not because they’re going to listen to us and have another foreign policy but… because we don’t have any money, we’re broke, and the troops will come home.

http://www.newser.com/story/75065/suddenly-ron-paul-feels-the-love.html

[Matthew Zak]

We should campaign hard as the anti-democrat party.

[BlackTerrel]

all this means nothing as long as the GOP base remains pro-war

We're not anti-war and they're not pro-war. Our commonality is that the majority of us support wars that protect America and oppose wars that do not. If we start from that common ground and then discuss why we don't believe these current wars make America safer we have a very good chance.

But you're right. If we have the mentality that "they" like war and "we" hate war we don't have a shot.

[klamath]

We're not anti-war and they're not pro-war. Our commonality is that the majority of us support wars that protect America and oppose wars that do not. If we start from that common ground and then discuss why we don't believe these current wars make America safer we have a very good chance.

But you're right. If we have the mentality that "they" like war and "we" hate war we don't have a shot.

Yep.

[Slutter McGee]

The GOP doesn't have to be 100% anti-drug war.
The certainly don't have to 100% pro-marajuana legalization.

Not only are those things not going to happen, but its silly to expect it to.

But if the GOP would become 100% pro-states rights, then you can move the battleground of these issues to the states. In that case, outside of Foreign Policy issues, the GOP can become the party of liberty at the Federal Level.

If we can secure a less intrusive Federal Government, then we will have the freedom to make these arguments to the States.

Proper Federalism may mean support for one party at the Federal Level, and support for another at the State Level. But then again, we don't have a proper Federalist system anymore.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[speciallyblend]

We're not anti-war and they're not pro-war. Our commonality is that the majority of us support wars that protect America and oppose wars that do not. If we start from that common ground and then discuss why we don't believe these current wars make America safer we have a very good chance.

But you're right. If we have the mentality that "they" like war and "we" hate war we don't have a shot.

well you let me know when the gop backed a declared war. let me know ??? until then the gop is pro-war. they want to continue the war and if you try to tell me anything different. then show me a republican that is running to actually declare war or call out the pro-war bush republicans. the gop stands for pro-war aka the neocons. the gop is anything but pro-peace and strong national defense except undeclared wars.
we can argue over positions but over all the gop stands FOR WAR-MONGERS, granted there are anti-war republicans in the gop,but overall the gop leadership is fine with undeclared wars or they would be reminding their own republicans they never declared war. i am still waiting for the gop to call its own out.

if we had a scale the gop would be farthest from anti-war. will the gop ever declare war? until then war-mongers fits their platform fine. maybe the gop can change their platform if they do not like the term pro-war but hard to change the platform when they endorse undeclared wars..

[speciallyblend]

[QUOTE=Slutter McGee;2431527]The GOP doesn't have to be 100% anti-drug war.
The certainly don't have to 100% pro-marajuana legalization.

Not only are those things not going to happen, but its silly to expect it to.

But if the GOP would become 100% pro-states rights, then you can move the battleground of these issues to the states. In that case, outside of Foreign Policy issues, the GOP can become the party of liberty at the Federal Level.

If we can secure a less intrusive Federal Government, then we will have the freedom to make these arguments to the States.

Proper Federalism may mean support for one party at the Federal Level, and support for another at the State Level. But then again, we don't have a proper Federalist system anymore.

Sincerely,





not silly when a majority of citizens and voters agree on ending the failed drug war and ending marijuana prohibtion. the fact is it seems the gop lacks the ability to grab onto issues that bring voters together. i can tell you things are gettign done in colorado on those very issues with or without the gop. so i guess im just talking for colorado. the rest of the country is on their own. so if the gop wants to ignore what voters have said they want in polls or at the voting both. i suspect the gop refuses to see the light.

i can tell you the gop will not get my vote if they do not support legalization and if they want to ignore over 70% of our local voters. then let the local gop ignore what voters want.
i suspect more republicans will lose locally/state if they oppose marijuana legalization. i will make sure the 70% of voters(in colorado,summit,lake and eagle) know who is for or against. let the gop keep playing number games. they got sent packing in colorado and i see it coming again!

I will make sure every voter in summit/lake/eagle counties knows who is for and against, so we cna vote'em out. The bright politicians if against it, are keeping their mouths shut. the politicians that want to get voted out are the ones that are speaking against over 70% of the voters. hold'em all accountable

the gop is full of it ,until they get 14 fused vertabrae and a a phd. this issue hits home for me and a majority of c olorado voters,so i look at it the gop supports hard pharm drugs and supports keeping marijuana illegal. when one of the top back doctors knows better then the gop. i will hold them all accountable and make sure i tell the majority of voters in my counties . who to hold accountable for their bad positions.

i can tell you this if the local gop(where i am) keeps going against the legalized marijuana in colorado(medical or personal), i suspect the gop will alienate themselves like they already are. i cannot wait to educate the majority of voters, who is for and against the majority of registered voters who vote!!

i guess the gop always can run on a uniting issue like gay marriage(sarcasm)

[BlackTerrel]

well you let me know when the gop backed a declared war. let me know ??? until then the gop is pro-war. they want to continue the war and if you try to tell me anything different. then show me a republican that is running to actually declare war or call out the pro-war bush republicans. the gop stands for pro-war aka the neocons. the gop is anything but pro-peace and strong national defense except undeclared wars.
we can argue over positions but over all the gop stands FOR WAR-MONGERS, granted there are anti-war republicans in the gop,but overall the gop leadership is fine with undeclared wars or they would be reminding their own republicans they never declared war. i am still waiting for the gop to call its own out.

if we had a scale the gop would be farthest from anti-war. will the gop ever declare war? until then war-mongers fits their platform fine. maybe the gop can change their platform if they do not like the term pro-war but hard to change the platform when they endorse undeclared wars..

Did you read the question I was responding to. Someone said how can Ron win the nomination when so much of the GOP is "pro-war". Ron Paul is running GOP. Therefore he has to win support of GOP voters.

Yes if you like he can go ahead and say you are all war mongers and go fuck yourselves. But he shouldn't.

What he should do (and what we should do as his supporters) is say:

"Look, we're not anti-war and you're not pro-war. What we both want is what makes this country stronger and safer and we support wars that strengthen that goal and we oppose wars that weaken that goal. Regarding these current wars I think they make us weaker and less safe as a nation and here's why..."

It's semantics but it makes a difference.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Did you read the question I was responding to. Someone said how can Ron win the nomination when so much of the GOP is "pro-war". Ron Paul is running GOP. Therefore he has to win support of GOP voters.

Yes if you like he can go ahead and say you are all war mongers and go fuck yourselves. But he shouldn't.

What he should do (and what we should do as his supporters) is say:

"Look, we're not anti-war and you're not pro-war. What we both want is what makes this country stronger and safer and we support wars that strengthen that goal and we oppose wars that weaken that goal. Regarding these current wars I think they make us weaker and less safe as a nation and here's why..."

It's semantics but it makes a difference.

Actually thats a horrible arguement conceeding philosophical positions and sacrifices principle. Not only is it vague, as in what you define as stronger, but there is no moral ground there.

The only position we should take and defiantly at that, is an anti-war stance based on the Christian Just War Theory. The only time a war is justified is when we get attacked, and we can only declare war against another Nation-State not an organization. Again, the GOP as of now is mostly pro-war period. I would have thought the last 29 years might have drilled this point home, but guess not. Then again, the Democrats are mostly pro-war also.

Peace, Commerce, honest relations with all nations, alliances with none.

[BlackTerrel]

Actually thats a horrible arguement conceeding philosophical positions and sacrifices principle. Not only is it vague, as in what you define as stronger, but there is no moral ground there.

The only position we should take and defiantly at that, is an anti-war stance based on the Christian Just War Theory. The only time a war is justified is when we get attacked, and we can only declare war against another Nation-State not an organization. Again, the GOP as of now is mostly pro-war period. I would have thought the last 29 years might have drilled this point home, but guess not. Then again, the Democrats are mostly pro-war also.

Peace, Commerce, honest relations with all nations, alliances with none.

So how does Ron Paul win the GOP nomination? How do you win over the people who you describe as "pro-war"?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So how does Ron Paul win the GOP nomination? How do you win over the people who you describe as "pro-war"?

Most of those pro-war, neo-cons are Christians. The simplest and easiest way is through the Christian Just War Theory. Secondly, you pound home the Thomas Jefferson quote that conquest is not a principle of this nation. In the end maybe the GOP is dead. We'll come to that point in 2012 when we find out whether or not to totally ditch it or not. Secondly, Ron Paul is the only candidate that can possible beat Obama, so pound that home also.

We might have to resign ourselves to the fact also, that electoral procedure may not be the best course of action. At that point it turns inward to the states. That's where the FSP, Civil Disobedience, Agorism, etc. come into play. Naively believing that we can solve our woes in such a short time, through only electoral politics I think is not setting ourselves up for the greatest chance at success. In any event, educating people takes time. Abandoning our principles to try and pander is not the way, PERIOD. My god, everytime I see people ready to throw out their principles for political whims I want to vomit.

[bobbyw24]

Politico.com, which long ago surpassed WaPo, TimesCo, and WallJo as the best source of mainstream political news and analysis, features a very interesting front-page article about Ron Paul today. The site recognizes that he is attracting support from across the political spectrum—liberal and progressive to conservative and libertarian—for auditing the Fed, clipping its evil wings in other ways, and opposing the war on Afghanistan. This, by the way, is an indication of how real political reform will come about. First, we have Ron Paul’s 38 years of leadership against the Fed and the empire. Then there is the vast movement of young Americans especially he has called forth. Their pressure has brought other politicians around. That is, change will come not from the top down, but from the bottom up. Once again, the right ideas—combined with the Rothbardian-Paulian populist strategy—proves correct. (Thanks to Brad Funkhouser)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/43915.html

[BlackTerrel]

Most of those pro-war, neo-cons are Christians. The simplest and easiest way is through the Christian Just War Theory. Secondly, you pound home the Thomas Jefferson quote that conquest is not a principle of this nation. In the end maybe the GOP is dead. We'll come to that point in 2012 when we find out whether or not to totally ditch it or not. Secondly, Ron Paul is the only candidate that can possible beat Obama, so pound that home also.

Fair enough. Different strategies but I can live with yours.