Reason Magazine

Site Search

Even Paul Can Pander

This ad's going up on Iowa and New Hampshire TV. After some pleasant footage of (*cough*European*cough*) immigrants arriving at Ellis Island, we see a swarthy figure paddling it across a river and hear this:

Today, illegal immigrants violate our borders and overwhelm our hospitals, schools and social services. Ron Paul wants border security now. Physically secure the border. No amnesty. No welfare to illegal aliens. End birthright citizenship. No more student VISAs for terrorist nations.
Justin Raimondo is sickened:

This is pandering to the worst, Tom Tancredo-esque paranoia and outright ignorance (or do I repeat myself?) and is not worthy of Dr. Paul. I have the utmost respect for the candidate, but in using this unfortunate term, “terrorist nations,” the Good Doctor undermines his non-interventionist foreign policy stance. If these are, in truth, “terrorist nations” – which most will take to mean all predominantly Muslim nations — then why not invade them, kill the terrorists, and be done with it? This phraseology gives the War Party carte blanche – and, believe you me, they’ll use it.

As Murray Rothbard explained, the anti-interventionist conservatives of the 1950s made the same mistake when they jumped on Joe McCarthy’s bandwagon. The “red scare” was payback for the “brown scare” of the 1940s in which prominent conservatives were basically run out of public life on a rail for not getting with the program until Pearl Harbor. The original McCarthyite movement was directed against domestic reds, and was a sweet revenge for those conservatives who had been targeted as “subversive” and even “pro-Hitler” for being anti-interventionist during the Roosevelt era. However, it wasn’t long before the domestic witch-hunt spilled over the border and became an international armed crusade that roped us into NATO, lured us into Korea, and got us bogged down in Vietnam.

Thousands of students from the Middle East, North Africa, and the Muslim countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, and elsewhere come to this country and bring home with them the ideas of liberty, tolerance, and fair play that are the predominant themes of our culture. Barring them would be politically foolish, economically counterproductive, and a prelude to much worse.

Raimondo wants the campaign to skunk the ad, but that won't happen. Paul is a politician: He's pushing one of the few issues where the majority of Republican voters are on his side. He's done this before, many times. I asked him why he spoke so much about abortion rights at the Ames straw poll and he didn't budge:

“I think that’s part of the freedom message,” Paul told me. “You always want to broaden the base, and in this area, in this state, you want to appeal to social conservatives without sacrificing any principles.”

Wink, wink.

If you want to blame feckless Iowans for driving Paul to this, check out Phil Klein's jeremiad against the caucuses.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Send this article to:

« Bring on Bloomberg! | Main | Year of the Dead »

Comments to "Even Paul Can Pander":

JasonL | December 31, 2007, 4:25pm | #

Counting the evils that we can lay at the feet of Iowans, I'm out of fingers and toes.

Stupid farm bill. Stupid energy bill. Stupid candidates.

Randolph Carter | December 31, 2007, 4:26pm | #

Huzzah for hard hitting ads! People seem to forget that 1)Paul is trying to win and 2)Paul is trying to win a Republican party primary.

I would prefer a "they took ar jarbs" baiting ad and a win to none and a loss.

Inkstained Wretch | December 31, 2007, 4:33pm | #

Well, hey, if Justin Raimondo's against it ...

Seriously, all the ad does is make clear what has always been Paul's position on immigration. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

joe | December 31, 2007, 4:34pm | #

Even given that, Mr. Carter, "no student visas for students from terrorist nations" is appalling, both on substance and rhetoric.

"Terrorist nations?"

ghoo | December 31, 2007, 4:37pm | #

he's making it harder for me to vote for him

whiskey | December 31, 2007, 4:37pm | #

I wonder if now is the time to call "no student visas for students from terrorist nations" with all the despondency over Bhutto's assassination that we're getting this past week. I mean really, is this a call for our immigration motto to be "No More Bhuttos?"

joe | December 31, 2007, 4:37pm | #

Hmm, maybe "terrorist nations" is Paul's signal that he isn't buying the "idealist" neocon line about spreading democracy, and wants to provide an outlet for the "those people aren't fit for democracy" crowd. Which must be a lot bigger among the Republican electorate than four years ago.

jtuf | December 31, 2007, 4:38pm | #

No more visas, WTF? Students who come to the US on student visas are following the entry laws. The US should hand out more visas and raise quotas to relieve pressure away from illegal routes.

Bingo | December 31, 2007, 4:39pm | #

Agreeing with jtuf. I don't like this ad.

Graphite | December 31, 2007, 4:40pm | #

I'm a strong Ron Paul supporter, but it's getting harder and harder to ignore his pandering to stump-toothed morons on this issue.

shecky | December 31, 2007, 4:40pm | #

I guess the Tancredo crowd is up for grabs.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2007, 4:40pm | #

Reagan was wrong about a lot of things too, so what? ...he was still the closest thing we had to a libertarian president.

Randolph Carter | December 31, 2007, 4:44pm | #

yeah the word choice is worse than atrocious, but the hope is that it'll play in Peoria...

I am in 100% disagreement with Dr. Paul on this particular issue as well, but immigration's a winner and from what I can tell this is what he's been saying all along anyways.

Benjamin Bolton | December 31, 2007, 4:45pm | #

Fact is, Paul knows that there are no "terrorist nations" at the moment. Nations do not sponsor terrorism; if they did and the US was attacked, you can darn well bet we'd go through the congressional method of a declaration of war.

Paul is about Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity... illegal immigrants who feed off the state's welfare are directly in opposition to the small government that Paul advocates.

Immigration has a place... but it's not illegally. Nothing has changed in Paul's postition. This isn't "pandering", though the phrase "terrorist nations" is poorly chosen.

Duckman | December 31, 2007, 4:47pm | #

There are alot of Ron Paul supporters upset with the line about student visas, even those who generally support Ron Paul's stance on immigration.

Apparently, that last line of the ad may not even actually represent Ron Paul's actual stance on student visas. See this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=68913

The Frith™ | December 31, 2007, 4:48pm | #

Dondero?

joe | December 31, 2007, 4:48pm | #

illegal immigrants who feed off the state's welfare are directly in opposition to the small government that Paul advocates.

And this relates to Saudi Arabian college students paying sticker price at NYU how, exactly?

Ruthless | December 31, 2007, 4:49pm | #

Guy Montag,
I'm continuing from an earlier thread.
How 'bout this for a t-shirt:
"War is the crack of the masses."

This would work equally well:
"War is the crack of them asses."

Bingo | December 31, 2007, 4:50pm | #

Additionally, I'm pretty sure that people with student visas don't swim across rivers to get into the country. The imagery is even dumber than the message.

TLB | December 31, 2007, 4:51pm | #

"SpecialInterestCountries" is a TermOfArt, such as used here. However, if the ad had said that (and included examples of such countries), it would have had to be a few minutes long. And, that term doesn't apply to all Muslim countries as Raimondo implies. And, of course, there have been cases of people coming from such countries on visas, not abiding by their terms, and wrecking havoc.

Let me suggest a better tactic: wonder why they capitalized the word. Whine about that for a while, it'll keep you off the streets.

P.S. Anyone want to sign up and defend me from a smear?

Dangerman | December 31, 2007, 4:56pm | #

Last week, I was in a store that was playing the local country station, and I heard a couple of guys over by the log chains snickering at the end of the ad. I didn't get close enough to see if they were stump tooth'd, but one of them repeated the 'terrorist nations' line again at the checkout, and seemed to be a bit incredulous. I don't think this hits as hard as you might want it too, RC.

brotherben | December 31, 2007, 4:57pm | #

Bingo | December 31, 2007, 4:50pm | #

Additionally, I'm pretty sure that people with student visas don't swim across rivers to get into the country. The imagery is even dumber than the message

But the average voter is even dumber than the imagery. Not a whole lotta voters look very deep at a candidate. Give us a good hook in a jingle and late us know that our little bit of hate is acceptable and we will jump on board.

Bhamba | December 31, 2007, 5:03pm | #

"End Birthright Citizenship"????

Will the Paul administration be ending the rest of the 14th amendment too?

Randolph Carter | December 31, 2007, 5:04pm | #

Dangerman,
That makes me a sad panda. Have you gotten any mailers yet?

Kwix | December 31, 2007, 5:06pm | #

P.S. Anyone want to sign up and defend me from a smear?
The secret is not to defend yourself from the smear. The secret is that there is no smear.

Kwix | December 31, 2007, 5:07pm | #

Obviously Tancredo's .7% was just too good for Paul to pass up.

William R | December 31, 2007, 5:09pm | #

Another reason to vote for Ron Paul. He recognizes the utter foolishness of mass immigration with a welfare state. Importing millions of poor people only grows government.

Brent | December 31, 2007, 5:12pm | #

End Birthright Citizenship =
Amend the constitution, or clarify via Courts, but most likely have to amend the constitution.

No More Student Visas from "Terrorist" Nations =
Being more strict when accepting student visas from nations that harbor terrorist.

Ad is def pandering, isn't Paul's taste - hopefully the campaign knows what they are doing.

Oh, and Ron Paul has always been a pro-life Libertarian. That isn't pandering, that's just what he thinks.

Ron | December 31, 2007, 5:13pm | #

Pandering? He's been saying the same thing since 2001:

"Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department."

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=222

Uh any inconsistency?

Michael McDonnough | December 31, 2007, 5:18pm | #

I guess some of Ron Paul's libertarian supporters had forgotten that Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket for President not the Libertarian ticket as in 1988. Is it so shocking that Ron Paul would highlight his position on strong defense and border security and the amnesty issue. These are all pretty popular in the GOP. Perhaps not so in the LP but I rest my case.

Brandybuck | December 31, 2007, 5:18pm | #

Immigration is the one sole issue I disagree with Ron Paul on. I've ignored the "physically secure our borders" up to now, so I'm sure I can ignore it in the future too.

bryanD | December 31, 2007, 5:21pm | #

Great ad. This is the opening game. The point is to determine all salient points and cover them better than one's opponent.

A salient point is border security. Paul is not now going to be mistaken for a satellite recon proponent or an electric eye guy if this ad gets good circulation, which it had better.

We need to quit feeding the trite Mister Rogers/ Good Doctor/ Ghandi meme. The pot smokers and the droopy-drawers are already in the bag.

Libertarian nationalism is the active ingredient of the Paul campaign and the oppositions' general incompetence and all-around bad intent is the propellent.

Both are highlighted by this ad.

Jon | December 31, 2007, 5:24pm | #

End Birthright Citizenship.

I am definitely for not giving children born to ILLEGAL residents citizenship. Their parents where under US jurisdiction illegally therefore should not get the benefits of say a legal resident.

If a person was under a work visa or a temporary visa and gave birth to a child then yes I believe that child then should have the opportunity to become a citizen.

Graphite | December 31, 2007, 5:26pm | #

Ron,

I think you only need to go back to 1998 to find Ron Paul advocating the classical liberal position of open immigration. He says he changed his position on this because of the welfare state, but I don't see how welfarism is any more or less intractable today than it was in 1998.

The idea that any one constituency is more entitled than another to welfare funds should be ridiculous to a libertarian--it's all stolen money.

MCW | December 31, 2007, 5:27pm | #

Its halarious to watch you wingnuts stumble over eachother to defend Ron Paul's bigatry.

Ron Paul: anti-choice, anti-civil rights, anti-working class.

Pro-immigration restriction, pro-creationism, pro-wingnut.

Kwix | December 31, 2007, 5:31pm | #

Speaking of Paul and New Hampshire:
Apparently Fox News is to have a televised debate on January 6, 2008. Despite Ron Paul polling at 7% in NH, compared to Huck's 10.7% and Thompson's 3.4, Fox has decided not to invite him to debate.

joe | December 31, 2007, 5:31pm | #

He says he changed his position on this because of the welfare state, but I don't see how welfarism is any more or less intractable today than it was in 1998.

Which, once again, has nothing whatsoever to do with Iranian 18-year-olds paying full tuition at GWU to get a business degree.

KipEsquire | December 31, 2007, 5:34pm | #

Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department."

And this ("there are no inherent individual rights, only 'constitutional' rights") is a libertarian position -- how?

The theocrat "endowed by their Creator" inanity is more coherent.

Nash | December 31, 2007, 5:34pm | #

I'd like to once again remind everyone that Ron Paul is trying to win the REPUBLICAN nomination for president and is running the 30 second emotion pandering ad in IOWA.

He's not running as a libertarian. He's not even a true big L libertarian, but he's still the most libertarian candidate running and unlike previous libertarian candidates he's actually impacting the race in a positive way.

The caucus is 2 days away boys and girls. You get votes anyway you can. I could care less what his rhetoric is, only what his voting record says. I don't agree with all of it but I agree with most of it, and I certainly like it better than anyone else's.

Jerry | December 31, 2007, 5:35pm | #

Paul should look to the new Swiss immigration laws. I wish the EU had them. There is nothing wrong with immigration when immigrants actively contribute to society, but the stock that is currently coming in (more so in Europe though) is not quite what you want.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 5:41pm | #

Justin Raimondo is sickened...

That guy is always having a fargin' cow about something. No real surprise there.

I am an open borders guy but it is hard to find fault with someone who believes that one cannot have open borders with a welfare state.

What we need is a wholesale reform of immigration policy and a way to accomodate foreign workers.

And finally, I may disagree with RP on this and a few other things but I'm with him at least 80% of the time. George Smith even concedes 92% of the time RP is on the money, and he's an atheist.

joe | December 31, 2007, 5:44pm | #

I'd like to once again remind everyone that Ron Paul is trying to win the REPUBLICAN nomination for president and is running the 30 second emotion pandering ad in IOWA.

Yes, Ron Paul is JUST ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN, despite the fact that you agree with him on issues. People who are "sophisticated" enough to by cynical towards professional politicians that everybody else supports ought to be sophisticated enough to recognize that agreeing with libertarians on issues doesn't tell us anything about a man's character.

James Anderson Merritt | December 31, 2007, 5:45pm | #

Ron quoted Ron Paul: "Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights..."

From other things he has said and written, I think Paul knows better than this, so I am very surprised to find it in his relatively recent writings. On the other hand, given that it was published less than a month after 9/11, perhaps I am not so surprised. Jingoistic fervor was pretty high then, and you had to be a Harry Browne or a Justin Raimondo to uphold the civil rights of "towelheads" and "camel jockeys" while the site of the Twin Towers was practically still smoldering. That said, I think this was nevertheless quite a gaffe for the self-described Champion of the Constitution. I wonder if and how he'll explain it.

Les | December 31, 2007, 5:50pm | #

Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights...

Can someone help me out here? Does the constitution say that only U.S. citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights?

Lost_In_Translation | December 31, 2007, 5:57pm | #

Yeah,

I knew Paul was going to do something like this, but it doesn't make me any more likely to vote for any of the other republicans (and voting for the democrats..i'd never do that in a primary)

Of course libertarians are always known for letting the best be the enemy of the good, so maybe this will kill the 4% that libs could contribute in NH.

bob | December 31, 2007, 5:58pm | #

Note: This is NOT a spoof...

NH REPUBLICANS: DON’T LIMIT DEBATE PARTICIPANTS

CONCORD – New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:

“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.”

“Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.”

“The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.”

Graphite | December 31, 2007, 6:01pm | #

joe,

Agreed. The "immigration is irreconcilable with the welfare state trope" is even less applicable to student visas.

Graphite | December 31, 2007, 6:02pm | #

"trope" should be outside the quotes, dammit

Bhamba | December 31, 2007, 6:02pm | #

Can someone help me out here? Does the constitution say that only U.S. citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights?

The word "citizen" does not appear in the bill of rights. These 10 amendments frequently refer to the rights of "persons," in contrast to many parts of the constitution and later amendments (e.g. Amendment 11) which specifically mention "Citizens" in contrast to "persons".

There is probably court case that decided this, but I don't know it.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 6:04pm | #

Les,

People who enter the US illegally or overstay their visas are routinely deported without a trial by jury, so plainly they do not have all the constitutional rights that citizens do. However, habeas corpus protections are another matter, so I'm not sure there's an absolute answer to that question.

TBH, I'd have to see the context of that quote to see what Dr Paul meant.

MCW | December 31, 2007, 6:05pm | #

How can people who are "pro-freedom" seriously support someone who is anti-choice?

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 6:09pm | #

The second part of the quote, about people being here at the pleasure of the State Dept, indicates that he's merely saying that non-citizens have no constitutional protections against being deported. He's not saying they don't have constitutional protections against other penalties such as imprisonment and death.

TLB | December 31, 2007, 6:10pm | #

First of all, I'm not AlanDershowitz, but everyone in the U.S. has certain ConstitutionalRights, even IllegalAliens.

Second, the part of the 14thAmendment regarding BirthrightCitizenship was not originally designed (by the author of that part of it) to apply to foreigners. He said that explicitly.

Third, after much consideration, I've decided to no longer support Dr. Paul. I will throw my support to a real libertarian candidate, someone who realizes the wisdom of having completely open border where anyone - whether relative of Osama or former member of the BaaderMeinhof gang - can come and go as they please.

Anything less would not be truly libertarian.

I eagerly await the Coporate Welfare Queens at Reason changing their support to a true libertarian candidate.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 6:12pm | #

MCW, Dr Paul supports the states' freedom to choose their own abortion laws (or lack thereof). So, he is pro-choice in the true sense of the word, if not the jingoized one hijacked by pro-abortion types.

Paul | December 31, 2007, 6:14pm | #

I think we should just start referring to Iowa as "The Welfare State".

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 6:17pm | #

Bhamba, I believe that in the Beginning it was left to the states to define citizenship.

Lost_In_Translation | December 31, 2007, 6:17pm | #

Paul,

Not "Cornholia"?

Bhamba | December 31, 2007, 6:18pm | #

People who enter the US illegally or overstay their visas are routinely deported without a trial by jury

That is true, but being illegally present in the US is a civil, not a criminal, violation. The right of trial by jury is preserved only for criminal prosecutions (and for common law - not civil law - suits of more than twenty dollars). A deportation hearing is a civil law proceeding. Same as a hearing for a parking ticket, no jury required.

So this example does not distinguish citizens from non-citizens.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 6:19pm | #

Paul, I think California has already claimed the title of Welfare State.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 6:19pm | #

Lost wins the thread. Took me a minute, but it eventually sunk in.

Bill Woolsey | December 31, 2007, 6:27pm | #

Some of those commenting here apparently haven't watched the ad. It is pretty short.

The student visas from "terrorist nations" is the only new element. Secure the borders, no amnesty, no welfare for illegal aliens and end birthright citizenship is on the campaign website, has been in radio ads, and direct mailings to voters.

Raimando didn't like the cutback on student visas from "terrorist nations." I don't know the the current list of state sponsors of terrorism is what Paul has in mind.

It is interesting, however, that Paul took such a long time to come to an anti-immigration position. I thought those Mises Institute people had turned anti-immigrant almost from the start of the paleo-libertarian turn.

joe | December 31, 2007, 6:30pm | #

Oh, crimethink.

Dr Paul supports the states' freedom to choose their own abortion laws (or lack thereof). So, he is pro-choice in the true sense of the word, if not the jingoized one hijacked by pro-abortion types

"Choice" now refers to states and not individuals, when the issue is abortion?

How about "right" in the Second Amendment - can we apply that to states and not individuals, too?

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 6:30pm | #

Ron Paul's position is not an "anti-immigrant" position. This is as much a misrepresentation as calling his foreign policy "isolationist".

His position is anti-uncontrolled-immigration, and yes, I understand that is still contrary to the prevailing LP position on the issue.

sas | December 31, 2007, 6:31pm | #

I can handle some level of pandering, but there's a fucking *apostrophe* in VISAs... that is too much to bear.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2007, 6:31pm | #

"...after much consideration, I've decided to no longer support Dr. Paul."

Oh no! Lone Wolf pulled his support!

Now what's Ron Paul going to do?!

SIV | December 31, 2007, 6:34pm | #

These Ron Paul threads are hilarious.
People were upset with his evolution answer and now his immigration position. Ron Paul ain't the candidate for Atheism, Amnesty, and Anti-War under all circumstances.

The no student visas for terrorist nations is a brilliant bit of demagoguery on Paul's weakest position with potential Republican voters--the War on Terror.Essentially meaningless, as what is a Terrorist Nation? Does anyone here support visas for terrorist foreign students?

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 6:35pm | #

How about "right" in the Second Amendment - can we apply that to states and not individuals, too?

Which amendment was that abortion rights amendment? I've forgotten.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 6:37pm | #

joe,

Whatever. I'm really not concerned whether he's "pro-choice" on abortion any more than I expect him to be "pro-choice" on counterfeiting.

SIV | December 31, 2007, 6:37pm | #

How about "right" in the Second Amendment - can we apply that to states and not individuals, too?

joe,


You have to share your "Constitution" with us sometime. Is the Right to Abortion located near that "inalienable Right to Vote" ?

Lost_In_Translation | December 31, 2007, 6:37pm | #

sas,

there's an apostrophe when refering to VISA's yes, but not visas. Its not a proper noun and doesn't end in "s"

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 6:37pm | #

Ron Paul ain't the candidate for Atheism...

Oh yes he is!

No less than the King of Atheists has endorsed him. Well, at least if he was going to vote, Smith would vote for RP. :-)

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 6:38pm | #

::passes the abortion thread baton to TWC::

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2007, 6:39pm | #

Before the latest fiddling (or obliteration) of the LP platform, the abortion plank recognized that there were good libertarian arguments for both sides of the equation--now the platform reads to me like Pro-life libertarians can choose not to have an abortion if they don't want to.

I've seen a number of regulars around here, some vocal champions of Ron Paul, suggest that being Pro-Life was somehow inconsistent with the rest of Paul's libertarian values. Me? I don't read it that way. Still, even if you're a card carrying member of Planned Parenthood...

Any of you who thought Ron Paul was perfect should be entirely disillusioned by his Pro-Life and anti-illegal immigration stances, the rest of us should consider throwing our weight behind him anyway. ...even if he is only 87% right about everything.

SIV | December 31, 2007, 6:40pm | #

This is as good a time as any to remind you folks that "libertarianism" is a "far right" ideology.

Hell, even joe knows that.

joe | December 31, 2007, 6:41pm | #

Banning student visas is not "anti-uncontrolled-immigration," crimethink. By definition, people who are here on visas are legal and subject to control.

SIV,

Does anyone here support visas for terrorist foreign students? I think most people here support making the decision about whether someone is a terrorist on an individual basis, not what country they come from. Paul's language smacks of the anti-Japanese immigration laws in the 1800s.

TWC, SIV,

You could, you know, stretch yourself and try to figure out what my point was.

joe | December 31, 2007, 6:43pm | #

Is Ireland a terrorist nation?

How about Iraq, in 2007?

imp | December 31, 2007, 6:43pm | #

He'll stop the Iraq War, keep us from bombing Iran, decriminalize drug use, restore habeas corpus, ban torture, cut taxes, balance the budget, and stop the Fed from wrecking the economy.

But student visas -- OMG! I can't support him now!

joshua corning | December 31, 2007, 6:44pm | #

Which, once again, has nothing whatsoever to do with Iranian 18-year-olds paying full tuition at GWU to get a business degree.

Full tuition my ass. Iranian or Nebraskan, everyone who pays taxes is paying for these kids higher education

Brandybuck | December 31, 2007, 6:45pm | #

Can someone help me out here? Does the constitution say that only U.S. citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights?
Some parts of the Bill of Rights refers to "persons", and others to "the people". I had always assumed that "the people" referred to citizens of the several states, while "persons" referred to anyone. Thus, the Federal government could deny non-citizens the right to own firefarms, but not the right to due process.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 6:49pm | #

All I can say is that "Firefarm" would be one hell of a good name for a death metal band.

NoStar | December 31, 2007, 7:27pm | #

Great Ad! It might even win back for Ron Paul the Eric Dondero vote after that stalwart of libertarian priciples, Rudy the G, drops out of the race for "health reasons."

Douglas Gray | December 31, 2007, 7:27pm | #

The media seems to be glossing over the fact that Huckabee made the biggest gaff of all; he said that next to Mexico, Pakistan has the most illegal immigrants. Plus, he didn't actually retract it...talk about trying to pander and blowing it........poor guy

Graphite | December 31, 2007, 7:28pm | #

sas, you might enjoy Bob the Angry Flower's apostrophe rants:

http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
http://www.angryflower.com/destro.html

Edward | December 31, 2007, 7:40pm | #

Uh, even if Ron Paul has an anti-immigrant, racist message, lies about the constitution, opposes gay rights, and appeals broadly to Nazis, he is the best candidate libertarians have. SEND MORE MONEY!

Tom Walls | December 31, 2007, 7:45pm | #

I know. No one proofed the damned thing.



> I can handle some level of pandering, but there's a fucking *apostrophe* in VISAs... that is too much to bear.

Kolohe | December 31, 2007, 7:46pm | #

I thought the SC veteran's mailing was a bit misleading, but overall OK; so I defended it.

I thought the evolution/I.D views were incorrect, but otherwise immaterial.

And I generally disagreed with his aversion to the fiat money, federal reserve, and the structure of the modern financial system, as well as the magnitude of his isolationism, but agreed that we probably need a change of direction in key areas on these issues.

This ad, however, represents something beyond the pale. It is the antithesis of what America stands for. A person who is drawing from the tradition of 19th century liberalism should repudiate this sort of thinking, not embrace it.

I am disappointed I donated money to his campaign. I was going to give some extra after the new year, but not anymore.

It appears Edward and Guy Montag were right. What a waste of almost 30 million dollars.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2007, 7:55pm | #

Did he say anything about driver's licenses or whether prison inmates should be allowed to work out?

...'cause the last guy I voted for was against both.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 7:56pm | #

Here is what I said when it was brought up on another thread:

"No more student visas from terrorist nations" stands against his rhetoric of "lets talk to people, trade with them, etc" as opposed to "bomb them and interfere with them". But I think he's trying to appeal to a certain segment of the republican base. I do not like it though. Otherwise it is a good ad that has a "Tancredo" feel to it (despite the fact that I despise Tancredo).

While Paul is certainly trying to pull in some of the repub voters (which is okay for me), he may be accused of being self-contradictory. I agree with Raimondo in his disgust by the segment. But, hey, this is politics, baby! Play it, and play it dirty.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 7:57pm | #

"This is as good a time as any to remind you folks that "libertarianism" is a "far right" ideology."

Nuts, nuts, again nuts. Only in SIV's imaginary world. Note the sharing of the root in the two words liberal and libertarian. Conservatives, from Burke to Kirk stress authority.

I don't deny that the libertarian movement and the conservative movement, as far as the think tanks and such that are supposed to lead such movements, are close. Of course that is more due to the same vested interests funding the two groups (conservatism is about protecting authority and vested interests, and in the U.S., unlike many other nations, that has been the wealthy, and libertarian principles have often been used to protect the wealthy [we can debate how correct that usage was]).

A few weeks ago the Washington Post had an article about the "Bacchus" type parties Reason throws. Imagine Richard Neuhaus, Orrin Hatch or Pat Robertson at such a party. That's conservatism for ya. Yuck.

Eric Dondero | December 31, 2007, 7:58pm | #

Why are any of you all surprised at this?

Ron Paul has been doing this for 10 years here in Texas Congressional District 14. Only he does it on the Military front.

He talks non-intervention to a national audience, and back home here in Angleton, and Lake Jackson, and super conservative Victoria it's all Support the Troops, Fight Terrorism, Get more Money for Veteran's Programs.

I've been screaming this at the top of my lungs to you all for months now. And every God-damned one of you has badmouthed me, cussed me, and called me every name in the book.

Now, you see I've been right all along.

You can offer your apologies here at H&R or email them to me personally at ericdondero@yahoo.com

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 7:58pm | #

A person who is drawing from the tradition of 19th century liberalism should repudiate this sort of thinking, not embrace it.

Transcript of the ad:
For generations, Lady Liberty welcomed immigrants who came here legally, followed the rules, and led productive lives. Today, illegal immigrants violate our borders, overwhelm our hospitals, schools, and social services. Ron Paul wants border security now. Physically secure the border, no amnesty, no welfare to illegal aliens, end birthright citizenship, no more student VISA's from terrorist nations. Standing up for the rule of law, Ron Paul for President.
So, what part of this is in conflict with classical liberalism?

Eric Dondero | December 31, 2007, 8:00pm | #

BTW, if you all haven't heard yet, hours ago, the Huck Monster just imploded. He had a major Howard Dean moment. It's laughable. Even funnier than Dean screaming at the top of his lungs in 2004.

I won't spoil it for you. YouTube it.

His campaign has just ended. Thankfully!

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:02pm | #

Dondero,

There's no conflict between a non-interventionist foreign policy and having a strong military, let alone supporting our troops and taking care of veterans.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 8:02pm | #

Who do you think is having more of a good time at a Reason party, leftie D'inesh D'souza or leftie Christopher Hitchens?

Are their conservatives in the US not dominated by either orthodox religion or militarism? And could you imagine any two things MORE antithetical to libertarianism?

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:03pm | #

His campaign has just ended. Thankfully!

I agree with you on this one. ;-)

Eric Dondero | December 31, 2007, 8:04pm | #

BTW, Paul has done the same thing with George Bush.

In 1996, 97, 98, when Bush was useful to Paul he was singing his praises. Hanging his photo in the entrance to the Congressional office. Attending his fundraisers and introducing him as "the next President of the United States."

Then, when he's got a secure House seat, and he finds he can raise more money and get more media attention by bashing Bush, well, what's he do?

Becomes a Bush basher of course.

Remember Paul Tsongas and that stuffy animal he used to hold up? That's Ron Paul.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 8:05pm | #

"He talks non-intervention to a national audience, and back home here in Angleton, and Lake Jackson, and super conservative Victoria it's all Support the Troops, Fight Terrorism, Get more Money for Veteran's Programs."

Uhh, I'm not sure that any of these is contradictory with non-intervention...You can fight terrorism without intervention in other nations (in fact many of us think you fight it better that way), and any state, even one of non-intervention would have a military which we would want to support and take care of after their service...

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 8:07pm | #

I prefer Huck and his religious foolishness to Romney's fakery (and equal though insincere religious foolishness). He's like a slim verion of William Jennings Bryant...

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:08pm | #

Dondero,

You think that had something to do with Bush talking about a humble foreign policy and no nation building in 2000...and then turning into King Intervention once he got elected?

No, you're right. Ron Paul is a cold, calculating politician, always doing whatever it takes to raise money and get votes.

Justin Raimondo | December 31, 2007, 8:09pm | #

Since David cited my blog post, I should probably make clear that my critique of the ad is limited to the very last segment, which specifically mentions the student visa issue in the context of the "terrorist nations" concept.

There are two problems with it: first, it imposes collective punishment on an entire class of individuals on account of their nationality. This is not subjecting Saudis to special security checks, or even limiting the numbers of applicants -- it is a blanket ban. Aside from being grossly unlibertarian, it's just plain mean.

Secondly, and most surprisingly, Paul is allowing the US Department of State -- or whomever in the government gets to decide these things at any given moment -- to define "terrorist state." If he abides by this decision in the realm of domestic policy, then he effectively concedes it to the government in the conduct of our foreign policy. So, why not invade Iran? After all, they're a "terrorist state," aren't they?

As for the entirely separate question of illegal immigration, as opposed to students who apply for visas so they can legally travel to the United States, I'm with Ron 100 percent. Secure the borders. Stop illegal immigration. No amnesty.

Those who argue that this is a good sort of opportunism are plain wrong. This "terrorist nation" business -- which hits the viewer over the head at the end -- alienates those brought in by his antiwar message. It probably loses more votes than it gains

Wazoo | December 31, 2007, 8:09pm | #

"Terrorist nations". That's a dumb phrase, and Paul surely knows it. It's almost as if the annoying capitals and the wayward apostrophe are a dog-whistle assurance to the rest of us: "Y'know, you got to do what you got to do"

Elemenope | December 31, 2007, 8:10pm | #

While I haven't exactly fallen off the RP wagon, I have to say this irritated me more than anything else thus far. Made me think twice.

James Anderson Merritt | December 31, 2007, 8:12pm | #

The Constitution speaks on some occasions of "the right of the people," and on others of the rights of citizens. These phrases are generally taken to refer to individuals from the category of "'we the people, of the United States."

On still other occasions, the Constitution forbids the government to do something, e.g., "Congress shall make no law...," "warrants shall not issue...," etc.

Finally, the Constitution sometimes speaks of persons, perhaps of a specific type, e.g., "the accused," etc.

Only in the cases when "citizens" or "the people" are mentioned, can one argue credibly that the Constitution recognizes a right for citizens but not necessarily for everyone.

Interestingly, the right to keep and bear arms seems to be one of those cases. Foreigners leave your firearms at the coin-operated lockers we have provided at the legal points/ports of entry!! :-)

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:13pm | #

Secondly, and most surprisingly, Paul is allowing the US Department of State -- or whomever in the government gets to decide these things at any given moment -- to define "terrorist state." If he abides by this decision in the realm of domestic policy, then he effectively concedes it to the government in the conduct of our foreign policy. So, why not invade Iran? After all, they're a "terrorist state," aren't they?
This doesn't make any sense, even as slippery-slope arguments go. Even if a given nation really is a "terrorist state", I doubt Dr Paul would support invading them unless they attack us. There's a big difference between denying visas to a country's citizens and invading them!

Justin Raimondo | December 31, 2007, 8:14pm | #

Oh yes, and Weigel's throwing in the abortion issue is just a left-libertarian hobbyhorse. Pro-life libertarians are a part of the broader movement, and the attempt to tie this in with the student visa issue makes no sense, except as cultural marker. Paul is pushing a lifestyle, he's pushing an ideology: contra Reason, there is a big difference.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:14pm | #

OK, I changed my mind.

As someone with my kind of name, initially on a student visa, I declare: While I do not like the bit about student visas in the ad, hey I am OK with it. He did not define which nation he considers terrorist. He may not even consider Iran (or any other country) a terrorist nation. So while he may claim that is his policy, he may not declare any nation terrorist (which, according to him, that is not even within the authority of the president-- remember "sanctions is a form of a declaration of war"?), then no student visas will ever be denied. Simple. Playing with words and logic? At least he does it cleanly unlike other politicians. Not self-contradictory a bit. I have no problem with it. Good ad. Go Ron Paul!

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:16pm | #

I prefer Huck and his religious foolishness to Romney's fakery (and equal though insincere religious foolishness).

I disagree. Given that both of them are advocating awful policies, I'd choose the one who isn't really sincere over the one who is.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 8:17pm | #

Most frequent visitors to this site know that while I respect Paul for his infusion of ideological variation into the campaign and his courage in many moments, I would never vote for the guy in 2008.

Having said that, c'mon guys, you knew Paul varied from pure libertarianism on immigration, and you know this is an area that finds him in agreement with a large amount of GOP voters (whom he does have to woo, you know?), so you really have to forgive this bit of hyperbole here. The man is running a campaign not a debating society or philosophical society.

No diss to Justin, whose articles in American Conservative I greatly enjoyed when I was a subscriber.

Lost_In_Translation | December 31, 2007, 8:18pm | #

I'm glad Dondero worked up the nerve to come back here. I missed his babbling inanity, its a nice white noise.

Oh, and Justin R, you might be right about it losing more votes than it gained...if Paul's supporters had somewhere else to go. So far, if you like low taxes and a humble foreign policy, it's Paul's way or the highway for this race.

David E. Gallaher | December 31, 2007, 8:18pm | #

The perfect is the enemy of the pretty good.

The welfare state is the enemy of immigration.

As an absolutist only satisfied by the perfect, let immigration, illegal and otherwise, continue until we have abolished the welfare state.

Ron Paul be damned!
Politics are no purer than the adventures of the Spears sisters.
(Not that I'm seeking purity.)

Ruthless

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:18pm | #

Paul is pushing a lifestyle, he's pushing an ideology: contra Reason, there is a big difference.

I'm pretty sure there's supposed to be a "not" in there someplace, but I'm not sure where...

Justin Raimondo | December 31, 2007, 8:19pm | #

I don't think anyone should think twice about supporting Ron Paul for President. Clearly, this is a relatively minor glitch: the machine is still humming, however, and it's the only transportation in sight. Get on board, but not unthinkingly: I had to go public because I personally know students from "terrorist countries" who wouldn't harm a fly, despise Osama, and love America.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 8:19pm | #

crimethink-I'd give the Huckster points for consistency over Flipper Romney. I think sincerity means something, even if it is sincerity for a wrong cause...

Plus, I think Romney will every bit be bound by his crazy insincere promises as Huckie...

Col DuBois | December 31, 2007, 8:21pm | #

Ruthless:

Purity is only valuable to the one who corrupts it. Why else would we make such a big deal with white dresses before wedding nights?

Justin Rainondo | December 31, 2007, 8:22pm | #

Right: that should be "Paul is NOT pushing a lifestyle, he's pushing an ideology."

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:24pm | #

"Justin" (I am still not sure if it is really you, though you certainly sound like Justin :-) ):

I had to go public because I personally know students from "terrorist countries" who wouldn't harm a fly, despise Osama, and love America.

You have one right here! E-mail me and I can send you proof as to how much I adore this country and how I have helped Paul directly (it may be closer to your headquarters than you realize ;-) )

David E. Gallaher | December 31, 2007, 8:24pm | #

" I'm with Ron 100 percent. Secure the borders. Stop illegal immigration. No amnesty. "

Justin said the above.

Today is a day of shocking declarations.

Ruthless

P.S. Borders are unlibertarian.

cirmethink | December 31, 2007, 8:25pm | #

MNG,

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Despite my slight age, I've become jaded enough to see that there are worse things than hypocrisy and corruption.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:26pm | #

MNG- Have you heard Huck in an NPR interview on Fresh Air from back in the summer? Compare that to when he talks to social cons in a private setting. 180 degrees out of sync. The gy is the most dishonest of politicians, that is especially true because he shamelessly uses the pulpit to reach his goals. Not honest!

crw | December 31, 2007, 8:28pm | #

Yeah, that's a great idea. Lets prevent young people in nations hostile to America from gaining first hand experience of America. We would be way better off if their only knowledge of America came from anti-Western government and religious propaganda.

Nice to see all apologists coming out of the woodwork yet again. C'mon guys. You can admit it. Your candidate is not the second coming of Libertarian Jesus. He's a politician. Yes, he's principled, but his principles mainly seem to be fringe right anti-elitism. Between his stance on evolution and now this...well, lets just say as an educated up and coming member of the elite, I am off put.

But, outside of economics, Pauls arguments aren't exactly libertarian. They are conservative arguments, based on strict reading of the Constitution and reverence for the founding fathers. Paul is only libertarian because he's so far right on his reading of the Constitution to converge with libertarians on most issues. But I've seen little to suggest he supports bedrock libertarian philosophy outside of economics.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 8:30pm | #

Sorry, have not read a single post. But I must ask, how is this "pandering" since it has been his firm position all of the time? Remember the jokes about "mutant sharks with freaking lasers on their heads" at the border jokes rooted in his border policy?

Why the big editorial fit about something he has been saying all along that has finally made it into a commercial? Even though I am not a supporter of Dr. Paul I can say that he is a straight-up honest guy about his beliefs and has not been shading them in the slightest, that I can see.

Is the issue that he finally put something in an ad that the reason staff (other than Nick, who mentioned this deal months ago) really can not accept and now must act like they never heard of it?

Johncjackson the 3rd | December 31, 2007, 8:30pm | #

Have you ever thought that maybe Ron Paul really believes the social-con stuff and he is actually pandering to US ( libertarians)?

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:32pm | #

To the male members of the forum: Remember, if you turn your back on Ron Paul, you turn your back on Donna D'Errico.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 8:37pm | #

Dave,

“I think that’s part of the freedom message,” Paul told me. “You always want to broaden the base, and in this area, in this state, you want to appeal to social conservatives without sacrificing any principles.”

Wink, wink.
Are the winks at the people who stupidly think that Dr. Paul is "pro-life" or are the stupid ones the "pro-murder" crowd who think he is just pandering?

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:38pm | #

crimethnk- Geee... is that a cross behind Donna D'Errico? Brings back memories of Huck's Christmas ad! More subliminal messages ;-)

Daniel Reeves | December 31, 2007, 8:39pm | #

Surely this is not your first election, folks! American politics is never about, "who is best." It's about, "who isn't worst." And Ron Paul sure isn't worst. He's still the least worst. So keep your hopes up as must as American pessimistic politics will allow you to!

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:40pm | #

What just happened, the Paul o meter just rised by $250k!

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:40pm | #

Have you ever thought that maybe Ron Paul really believes the social-con stuff and he is actually pandering to US ( libertarians)?

Considering the relative numbers of socio-cons and libertarians in the GOP, he would be a complete idiot to pander to the latter. There's just nothing to gain.

SIV | December 31, 2007, 8:42pm | #


Those who argue that this is a good sort of opportunism are plain wrong. This "terrorist nation" business -- which hits the viewer over the head at the end -- alienates those brought in by his antiwar message. It probably loses more votes than it gains


I disagree.My initial hesitancy to support Ron Paul was based solely on his foreign policy/military positions.I agree with him on nearly every other issue.Ron Paul needs more tough talk on terror.Americans and the world need to know that, though he is opposed to interventionism, we will swiftly destroy anyone who fucks with us. Ron Paul's earlier statement at the Taft (?) dinner in Washington that we don't want war but if necessary, declare it, get in and then get out as soon as possible is the classic tradition of both the "Old Right" and Jacksonian Democrats in America and was quite reassuring.

The deliberate vagueness of "No terrorist student visas" helps dispel the "pacifist" image while addressing immigration.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:43pm | #

Considering the relative numbers of socio-cons and libertarians in the GOP, he would be a complete idiot to pander to the latter. There's just nothing to gain.

Well, duuuh! Plus, there's the voting record!

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:43pm | #

Ali,

Holy cow, you're right! Two crosses, in fact!

For some reason, the first time I watched it, I wasn't looking at the background. I was looking at her...necklace. Yes, her necklace!

David E. Gallaher | December 31, 2007, 8:44pm | #

crimethink,
Thanks for your link reminding me where I should be instead of here.
Happy New Year ever body!

Justin,
Borders are unlibertarian.

Ruthless

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:44pm | #

SIV- Agreed!

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:48pm | #

Ruthless,

Without borders, we wouldn't have maps. Without maps, we wouldn't have geography. Without geography, we wouldn't have studies showing that Americans are terrible at it. Without studies showing Americans are geographically illiterate, we wouldn't have this.

alan | December 31, 2007, 8:50pm | #

P.S. Borders are unlibertarian.

Borders are a defining difference between Minarchist and Anarco-Capitalist.

Still, I didn't care for that ad in the least. The image of 'wetbacks' crossing, and as Justin pointed out, the appeal to collectivist guilt were not things that make me shout, 'Go, Ron Paul, go.'

However, I am not an Idealist, and recognize it for what is is, politics. I can't say that if I was in Paul's shoes, I would run things in a cleaner fashion, and it would take a hell of a lot more than this to deter me from forgetting the love of the welfare/warfare state so central to the other bulls on parade.

Like any other political season I recommend sitting back with a bottle of Southern Comfort until the damn thing is over.

SIV | December 31, 2007, 8:54pm | #

Have you ever thought that maybe Ron Paul really believes the social-con stuff YES and he is actually pandering to US ( libertarians)?NO

There are many Americans who are "both" and significant numbers of "either" who are passionate about our liberty.

Franklin Harris | December 31, 2007, 8:57pm | #

I thought those Mises Institute people had turned anti-immigrant almost from the start of the paleo-libertarian turn.
Most high-profile anti-immigration libertarians are probably affiliated with the Mises Institute, but not all libertarians affiliated with LvMI are anti-immigration. Walter Block, for example, took up the pro-immigration side in a special immigration issue of the "Journal of Libertarian Studies."

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:01pm | #

Lemme get this 'straight', if that term is acceptable here before Dr. Paul uses it in an ad.

All of the Paulaholics who were ranting for months that he is the "real deal" and no BS, the REAL DEAL are now saying 'well, ya know, it is an election and you have to say stuff to get elected and you have to say other stuff to get past the Republican primary . . .

Let's just fast rewind to James Earl Carter, Jr. swearing that he would continue developing the B1 bomber and then cutting it as soon as he got into office? Is this the same thing? An 'honest' bullshitter?

John C. Randolph | December 31, 2007, 9:01pm | #

"Now, you see I've been right all along."

I see quite the opposite, dunderhead.

There is no inconsistency between being a non-interventionist, and also demanding that veterans be given the benefits they've been promised. Want to try again? It's so much fun watching you blither.

-jcr

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:08pm | #

I forgot, this is the Carter presidency all over again played out in a campaign. Carter expelled all Iranian student visa holders just because some of them were protesting in front of the White House during the hostage situation. Around the time he invaded Iran without a "declairation of war" (as if that were needed).

He also banned dissent against him in front of the White House.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 9:10pm | #

Wait a minute. "Eric Dondero" and "Donna D'Errico" only differ by 1.5 letters.

Now that's creepy.

jimmy smith | December 31, 2007, 9:10pm | #

Love the ad. At least my kids won't have to compete against those students from terrorist nations to get into college,if Ron is elected. Oh, I forgot, now they'll have to do it on their own. Shit !!

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 9:13pm | #

Guy, our favorite tool.

Did your mom blow Carter or something? You really hate that guy...I can't imagine someone 30 years later saying "damn candidate x, he cut funding for defense project x that he promised to support on the campaign!" Did you work on the B-1 assembly line (under project Bootstrap perhaps?).

Paul can be the most visible reliably libertarian candidate in decades (maybe ever) and still hold a couple of views that deviate from the libertarian line. If he then touts such deviations, ones that will help him (I suspect always have helped him) get elected it hardly makes him a "honest hullshitter."

joe | December 31, 2007, 9:15pm | #

I've seen Eric Dondero throw a lot of guff at Ron Paul, but I don't recall him ever having anything to say about Paul scapegoating people from Middle Eastern nations or applying the "terrorist" label with too broad a brush. His complaints have been quite the opposite, actually.

Justin Raimondo is kicking ass and taking names, as usual.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 9:16pm | #

"Carter expelled all Iranian student visa holders just because some of them were protesting in front of the White House during the hostage situation. Around the time he invaded Iran without a "declairation of war" (as if that were needed)."

It occurs to me that he expelled them as a "weapon" against the nation that was fucking with us at the time.

Silly to think before you, know, INVADE another country you should get a declaration of war...

David E. Gallaher | December 31, 2007, 9:16pm | #

Borders are the enemy of the "good."

Okay, I'm really gone this time. See youse in 2008.

Ruthless

SIV | December 31, 2007, 9:19pm | #


All of the Paulaholics who were ranting for months that he is the "real deal" and no BS, the REAL DEAL are now saying 'well, ya know, it is an election and you have to say stuff to get elected and you have to say other stuff to get past the Republican primary . . .


Paul is the REAL DEAL. There are a lot of his supporters who just aren't comfortable with the fact that libertarianism IS a far right ideology.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:19pm | #

MNG,

All of your attempts at flattery aside, where was I inaccurate?

Try reading what I wrote and responding to that without a little girlie fit, k?

B1 point, sorry if I am not bright enough to simplify this for you, is that Governor Carter swore that he would continue it. Had something to do with countering a Soviet threat. Sorry to offend your Socialist sensibilities that they are constructed by non-state-owned firms. Anyway, as soon as he got in office he reniged on that and did his damdest to surrender us to the Soviets.

On Dr. Paul's views, again, try reading what I wrote rather than having some Pavlocian reaction to who made the post.

This is my last bother with you.

alan | December 31, 2007, 9:21pm | #

All of the Paulaholics who were ranting for months that he is the "real deal" and no BS, the REAL DEAL are now saying 'well, ya know, it is an election and you have to say stuff to get elected and you have to say other stuff to get past the Republican primary . . .


When other candidates actually have standards that you can hold them to maybe then you will have a point.

Graphite | December 31, 2007, 9:24pm | #

I thought we were supposed to thank Gerald Ford for Project: Bootstrap.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:25pm | #

When other candidates actually have standards that you can hold them to maybe then you will have a point.

You seem to have missed the point that Dr. Paul was about this all along and his unsolicited droids are all shocked about it.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:25pm | #

Wait a minute. "Eric Dondero" and "Donna D'Errico" only differ by 1.5 letters.

Now that's creepy.


I have never heard of her before your post, but at first I thought you were poking fun at Eric by varying his name!

joe | December 31, 2007, 9:25pm | #

Carter was right about the B-1. We'd have been better off going right from the B-52 to the B-2. Big, clumsy, balky things. Think they'll still be flying fifty years after they were built, Guy?

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 9:26pm | #

Guy
I did respond to what you "said" (in a Turrets fit I guess).

Only a loon would rave against a candidate 30 years later for promising to continue funding of a specific defense project and then not following up. That was kinda my point...


As you offered no counter to my comments on Paul, I'll repeat them on the premise that with enough practice even you can read the comments and make sense of them...

"Paul can be the most visible reliably libertarian candidate in decades (maybe ever) and still hold a couple of views that deviate from the libertarian line. If he then touts such deviations, ones that will help him (I suspect always have helped him) get elected it hardly makes him a "honest hullshitter.""

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:27pm | #

Love the ad. At least my kids won't have to compete against those students from terrorist nations to get into college,if Ron is elected. Oh, I forgot, now they'll have to do it on their own. Shit !!

Most of these students usually come at their own costs. Rarely do they benefit from any scholarships, etc. At the grad level, it is different, but is simply supply and demand for the best who could do the job. America wins. Plus, some Americans aren't willing to do the difficult stuff that usually does not pay as much as they get paid without a PhD.

bandero | December 31, 2007, 9:28pm | #

I must say I'm quite disappointed. It would have been better to lose with honor, rather than lose on a note of desperation.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:28pm | #

oh, jimmy, those who actually take American students' opportunities are actually sons and daughters of illegal immigrants who end up benefit from state funds, not legals on students visas.

alan | December 31, 2007, 9:28pm | #

Hey Guy,

I'm a wee mad at you for bringing up Carter. I spent a fair amount of money on substances to help me forget the man ever existed(and, hell, on the honky side of my family, he is a distant relative).

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 9:29pm | #

I don't support Dr Paul because he shoots straight, I support him because of the policies he advocates...and I think that's true of the vast, vast majority of Paul supporters. I mean, I think John McCain is usually sincere in what he says, but since his policies are absolutely awful, I don't support him.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:31pm | #

Is Dr. Paul going to rid us of federal student loans and grants with the stroke of his magic Skillcraft (and the Skillcraft factories too)? Just like he will abolish the IRS, Department of Education and the NEA?

Well, riding us of terrorist immigrants is a start and I hope that is real, rather than the Paualholic musings here.

SIV | December 31, 2007, 9:31pm | #

MNG,

Jimmy Carter lied about marijuana decrim and GAVE AWAY OUR FUCKING CANAL !!!!!!!!

He makes Bill Clinton and Warren J Harding look good by comparison

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:35pm | #

Well, riding us of terrorist immigrants is a start and I hope that is real, rather than the Paualholic musings here.

"Terrorist immigrants"? Plus it is "ridding" and not "riding". Do you "ride" immigrants?

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 9:35pm | #

Plus, some Americans aren't willing to do the difficult stuff that usually does not pay as much as they get paid without a PhD.

Are you saying that there are JobsAmericansWon'tDo at both ends of the skill spectrum? ;-)

Anyhow, a graduate admissions officer at Purdue pissed me off a few weeks ago by commenting that my Math GRE scores were "very good", pausing, and adding, "for an American, at least." Maybe I should oppose student visas out of self-interest!

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 9:37pm | #

He had the balls to say the right thing about marijuana decrim and then backed down realizing it was politically untenable thanks to social conservatives...Yeah, he's evil.

OUR CANAL happens to be in, well, Panama...

I'll paraphrase a quote about Carter: whenever a President leaves office having not f*cked up the Constitution and not involving us in any major war, I think he's been a success.

Harding, Jesus Christ...

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:38pm | #

crimethink,Wouldn't that be "rent seeking"?

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:39pm | #

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:41pm | #

Are you saying that there are JobsAmericansWon'tDo at both ends of the skill spectrum? ;-)


OH YES!

Based on the remainder of your post, I guess you know exactly what I am talking about. (note: I spent some time down the highway West of Purdue, and got my PhD from NNE of Purdue... both cases not in IN ;-) ... any guesses?)

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:42pm | #

SIV,

At least Carter was unpopular enough with his own overwhelming majority in both houses to not get the windfall profits tax passed. Um, wait, did he get that through too? That horror of our history is still a blur.

He did force businesses to reset thermostats to 68 in the winter and 72 in the summer (in real degrees, not KKKanidan degrees).

alan | December 31, 2007, 9:42pm | #

what the hell is wrong with Warren J Harding? At the near top of my list of greats, along with Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge.

Oh, Tea Pot Dome, whatever.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:42pm | #

Remember that it is the school that requests visas for students. The Fed Gov intervenes only if there are concerns. It is a merit based system.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 9:47pm | #

Ali,

I'm guessing Michigan State, another place I'm applying to.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 9:48pm | #

Yeah Alan, putting his buddies in positions to rob the government of money that taxpayers paid (or were robbed of according to some here) was a great record of Harding's!

SIV | December 31, 2007, 9:48pm | #

OUR CANAL happens to be in, well, Panama...

Well, now it is.

From 1903 to 1979 the territory was controlled by the United States of America, which had built and financed the canal's construction.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:48pm | #

Is Dr. Paul going to get rid of Selective Service along with the IRS and ILLIGAL immigrants?

IIRC, Selective Servise is something that Carter was able to bring back with his same-party Congress, or was that something Regan brough back through a hostile Congress?

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:50pm | #

SIV,

Are you truncating that history post-Columbia thingie?

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 9:52pm | #

::passes the abortion thread baton to TWC::

The DRINKING WINE thread you mean. LOL.

We're doing a prime rib and drinking a an '03 Dry Creek Meritage, damn.

That's well worth not being aborted.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:52pm | #

crimethink- MSU is great, but they are the enemy ;-)!

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:54pm | #

crimethink- MSU is great, but they are the enemy ;-)!

... like every other Big 10 school except my alma mater.

alan | December 31, 2007, 9:55pm | #

Remember that it is the school that requests visas for students. The Fed Gov intervenes only if there are concerns. It is a merit based system.

I respect what you have accomplished within the system, but there are many more factors that go on behind the curtains than just creating a fair, merit based system.

Often, the American, entrepreneurial pursuit of happiness comes in conflict with corporate goals of obtaining middle managers who display
no discontent and wont buck the system in their pursuit of consolidation.

Kolohe | December 31, 2007, 9:55pm | #