The Nation Rah-Rahs Ron Paul
Brian Doherty | November 20, 2007, 1:50pm
Perhaps of some relevance to the passionate comment thread here on whether Ron Paul's rise says something about whether Democrat or Republican, right or left, is where libertarians ought to turn for viable political allies, John Nichols of The Nation says this about Paul today:
When is the Washington press corps going to start treating Ron Paul as seriously as it does Fred Thompson?
The likely answer is "not soon." And that's the most frustrating thing about the way in which the GOP race is being covered by major media. After all, Ron Paul has more to say -- and says it better -- than any of the other Republicans. With a fair shake from the media, he'd be rising even faster in New Hampshire and elsewhere.
Of course, one of the reasons Paul's on the rise now is the fact that he is not the kind of contender who tailors his message or his campaign to meet media expectations.
The Nation's Nichols was interviewed by me for this December 2006 essay on whether or not the Dems could be relied on to end the war in Iraq.
Keith Paxson | November 20, 2007, 4:47pm | #
They Said It: Thompson Social Security Plan Applauded as ‘Courageous,’ ‘Honest,’ and ‘Substantive’
Courage & Honesty
Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson’s plan to save Social Security and protect seniors, which he introduced Friday afternoon in a Washington, D.C., hotel, differs starkly from standard election year pablum on the subject in one key way: He’s actually treating voters like adults. (ABC, 11/9)
Thompson...is seeking to show he is willing to take on tough issues if elected in November 2008, telling a news conference in Washington he was the only candidate to offer an extensive Social Security plan. (Reuters, 11/10)
“You certainly have to admire his courage for putting this out,” said Alan Viard with the American Enterprise Institute. (Tennessean, 11/10)
Supporters contend that Thompson’s willingness to take on the so-called third rail of politics will impress voters. (Bloomberg, 11/10)
Conservative economic experts applauded Thompson for offering specifics on an issue considered to be politically dangerous. (Tennessean, 11/10)
“He’s not afraid to be brutally honest with the American people about the challenges that lie ahead,” said Representative Zach Wamp, a Tennessee Republican who is working to recruit supporters for Thompson. “People can tell the difference between a strong leader telling the truth and a weak leader talking politics.” (Bloomberg, 11/10)
Substance
[Thompson is] the first candidate of either party to offer a detailed proposal to fix the nation’s retirement system. (WP, 11/10)
The Republican candidate laid out a detailed, four-page proposal (WSJ, 11/10)
Mr. Thompson’s plan...was more specific than what the Bush White House put on the table when it sought to overhaul the system. It also varied substantially from the traditional conservative approach of focusing primarily on personal investment accounts. (NYT, 11/10)
Economist Jason Furman said Thompson deserves credit for offering a detailed plan to address the projected Social Security shortfall...(Bloomberg, 11/10)
In discussing policy, Thompson was in his element. (Politico, 11/9)
He’d prefer to talk about substance. (Politico, 11/9)
Thompson’s plan draws on ideas favored by conservatives: a reduction in benefits, rather than an increase in payroll taxes; and a shift toward private accounts, rather than government-provided payments. (WP, 11/10)
Rivals
[Thompson] ventured Friday into an area few rivals have tread: advocacy of a fundamental overhaul of Social Security. (WSJ, 11/10)
Although all of the presidential candidates have spoken, when asked, about the need to fix the Social Security system, none has offered such a detailed plan nor talked so eagerly and often about the issue. (WSJ, 11/10)
Among Republicans, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney have talked in general terms ... but none has offered a specific plan. (WP, 11/10)
Mr. Thompson is the only one of the Republicans running for the White House who has made Social Security a central theme of his campaign. (NYT, 11/10)
He is the only presidential candidate so far to make Social Security an anchor of his campaign. (WSJ, 11/10)
But with less than two months before the 2008 voting begins, candidates have generally been reluctant to confront the Social Security issue. (WP, 11/10)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saving and Protecting Social Security
A Plan to Ensure Retirement Security for All Americans
http://www.fred08.com/virtual/socialsecurity.aspx
From the Keystrokes of John Q. Public... | November 21, 2007, 8:56pm | #
American Civil War? I am unware of a war inwhich any political group attempted to overthrow the regime for control of the centralized government. I have heard of a war between the States, to prevent southern independence.
American Revolution was fought on a taxes of 3%.
The Federal Government was receiving most of its income through tariffs. The south was exporting 3/4 of its agriculture. It was protectionist mercantilism, infant industry policies. 3 congressmen and 2 senators from the south voted for the 1824 tariff. Northern states voted overwhelming in favor. Henry Clay led the way to raise it again by 50% in 1828, "The Tariff of Abominations." South Carolina,in a petition stated it was "A system of robbery and plunder. So that corrupt politicians could buy partisans and power." VA,NC, AL joined SC in opposing the tariff. MA, Oh, RH,IN NY issued resolutions in favor of the tariff. Essentially the south was paying more on the tax and it was hurting the economies of their trading partners which in turned hurt their income a second way.Meanwhile the manufacturing economy of the north was profiting.1832 SC issued an Ordinance of Notification. Perfectly legal prior to 1865 I might add. (OH Nullified the Bank of the United States) SC Nullification Ordinance:Authorized seizure of property from tariff collectors to importers, duties repaid w/ interest. Tax collectors were thrown in jail. No jail could be used to inprison anyone for failing to pay the tax. State allocated 200,000.00 for firearms incase they were needed to combat the tax collectors.The tariff was eventually lowered from themid 1830s at its lowest until 1857.
Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis highlighted the Tariff Issue in both their inaugural addresses. By 1860 the voting population of the North was 3 times the size of the voting population of the South. The Republican Party made political gains in 1857-1858 by pushing for protectionist legislation. The Morrill Tariff in the 1859-60 house of representatives.1 southern representative voted for it, out of 105 from TN. Lincoln,a lifelong Mercantilist and Henry Clay Fan,campaigned on Protectionism for the Republican Nomination.("Battle Ground" State of PA,heart of steel industry, campaigned on protectionism.)Giant billboards and campaign posters for Lincoln/Hamlin read "Protection for Home Industry."
Lincoln prior to inaguaration in 1861 stated in Pittsburg Penn that nothing was more important to Congressional Representatives than the Morrill Tariff which hadn't become law yet. Lincoln stated:" Anything that can be grown or Manufactured here in the United States should have zero competition from abroad." Lincoln statements over and over in the inaugural address make it clear he has no qualms with slavery. That to interfere with slavery would be unconstitutional. He supported a constitutional amendment to prohibit the federal government from interfere with slavery by using Seward to get it through the committee of 13 in the senate. He also got through that would have nullified the Northern States Nullification on the slave fugitive law. This was all within the couple weeks of his administration. He was accommodating 100%, even to the constitutional level. However on the Tariff Lincoln said, "In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."(He's talking about the Morrill Tariff which had just passed which doubled the tariff in 1860.)
Why The Southern Confederacy would pay Tariffs to a foreign government is beyond me. Two weeks after Fort Sumter,a blockade was placed on southern ports. He did so, without declaring war. So much for the Federalist Papers #28, "The state governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the liberty by the national authority."
I personally would like to defer to honest Abe on this one. "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is the most valuable, a most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is the right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit." Abraham Lincoln 1848.(aww I like to imagine this is before the insanity set in from the decades of Syphilis effecting his mind.)
What about John Quincey Adams on the 50th Anniversary of the Constitution?
"The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever come, may heaven avert it, when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held by constraint."
Ulysses S Grant, Union General: "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side." He was a slaveholder until after the 13th amendment was ratified.... after the war.
Lincoln was a racist, you can read your speeches for himself. The "Whiteman's Priviso" of the Whig and later Republican Party made it clear why they were against expanding slavery. The man unilaterally suspended habeas corpus. Ordered the military to shut down specific northern newspapers. Arrested thousands of political opponents and declared criticisms of his policies treason. Hired a secret police force, created an incentivized program for informants if convictions were obtained. Had no regard for civilians or pows.Confiscated firearms in the border states. Censored telegraph communications.
All to preserve the union geographically, while violently destroying the union in every philosophical way possible. Like rape, or domestic violence, might clearly equals right. Enter the American Empire.
Gotta Love it! Tariffs, Tyrant, Emancipator! Why choose???
This is America Baybee!!! You can have it all haha.
P.S. I am not white, southern or a racist.
