Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

The United States is the dominant power in our current unipolar world. Rep. Paul believes that our heavy hand in the world over-extends us and engenders dislike and animosity by much of the world.

If the US is to withdraw (broadly speaking) its influence in the world, some other power (or powers) will replace us. We will no longer have a unipolar world but a bi- or multi-polar world with various nations dominating their regions.

Question then for Congress Paul and his supporters: If the US is not the dominant power in the world, which country do you see replacing us? Because history shows that some country (or countries) will do so.

Who should replace us? And how will they exercise their power?

When it comes to Paul’s longing for smaller, fiscally-responsible government, I can’t get past the fact that just this year he brought home 400 million dollars worth of pork. His actions don’t match his talk and they make him, quite literally, a hypocrite.

That and I will never, ever vote for someone for President who believes that we are primarily to blame for the violence of the Islamists. One that point he is wrong in nearly every detail and, worse, his opinions, if adopted as official US policy, will be disastrous.

Ronulans give me the screaming willies. When you post the words “Ron Paul” they will instantly swarm your blog. They scan Technorati 24/7 looking for places to spam. They are like Moonies.

When you point out how crazy the average Ronulan is, they will make an attempt to sound sane and force the issue back on you. Like, “Why do you think I am crazy because like Ron Paul I believe that George Bush blew up the WTC along with the Zionist Jews? Fiat currency! Gold standard! New World Order!”

I’ll wager that 80%+ of his most feverish supporters aren’t even registered Republicans. Therefore, they cannot vote. They are simply mentally ill people who have never had a candidate of their own, and suddenly this year they have TWO crazy candidates, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

There are two types of candidates in this election when it comes to the “cut and run” option. There are those who will immediately pull our troops out now, and save their lives, and those who will continue to use them poorly as Bush has. The candidate that you want, someone who will use them well, and leave with honor isn’t running in 2008. There are those who say they are that candidate, but none of them will have the courage to take the kid gloves off our troops in the field. There is also a distinct possibility that we are now at a point where we cannot win because we have allowed too many negative influences like Muqtaba Al-Sadr to gain a foothold in the government and society. There is also the increasing tension in the North between the Kurdish region and Turkey. Which candidate do you trust if that ends up as a shooting war between the Turks and the Peshmerga?

I happen to know a number of decent, religious Americans who like Ron Paul’s message. They are also willing to forgive his quirks because they believe he’s a principled man.

Anyone who believes Ron Paul is principled is either ignorant of his votes as well as his associations or is deliberately ignoring them.  A man who believes that the way the US military should defend this country is by deploying along our borders is a man who not only profoundly misunderstands the world we live in but also has no understanding of posse comitatus.

For a man who claims to be a constitutionalist, that is a glaring flaw.

It took you half and hour to get here, Paulbot.  You guys are slowing down.

Paul’s campaign has attracted “an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.”

Maybe, but it hasn’t attracted Michael Medved, either, so it all evens out.

Also, what’s with John Hawkins complaining about how Paul represents conservatives? Libertarianism is not a subset of conservatism. Paul doesn’t represent socialists or the Amish. Should they complain, too?

FRED THOMPSON is the best person to lead this country. He is a true conservative and has been his entire life. All one has to do is check his record to see this.

During my time in the Army as am Intelligence Analyst, I served under both Presidents Carter and Reagan (as my commanders in chief). Without argument, President Reagan was the best commander-in-chief a military person could ever have served under. Fred Thompson possesses the same qualities and vision as President Reagan in that he is strong on national defense and sees a dire need to secure our borders and control immigration.

I can think of no better person to lead this country and fix the problems we have. He is the only candidate from either party who has specific and detailed plans on border security and immigration reform; revitalization of America’s armed forces; saving and protecting Social Security; and tax relief and economic growth. These are detailed on his Web site at http://www.fred08.com. I challenge you to find any other candidate who has laid out specific plans to fix anything.

Fred Thompson has published his first principles, some of which are mentioned above. In addition to those, he strongly believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, federalism, traditional American values, the rule of law and is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment—all concepts established during the birth of our country and documented in our Constitution.
Again, try to find any candidate who has laid out their plans to “fix” this country. You will find they all speak in vague and abstract terms on their plans.

For those who have heard Fred Thompson speak, you will usually hear him say that the Fred Thompson you see today is the same Fred Thompson you saw yesterday and is the same Fred Thompson you will see tomorrow. He stands by his principles and values and doesn’t shift his positions based on polls or public opinion; in other words, he doesn’t say what the voters want to hear just to get elected, but remains steadfast on his views and convictions.
During his time in the Senate he focused on three areas: to lower taxes, strengthen national security and expose waste in the federal government. Fred Thompson has foreign policy experience, having served as member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Intelligence committees.

As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he opened the investigation in 1997 on the Chinese government’s attempt to influence American policies and elections, and this investigation identified connections with the Clinton administration (documented in the committee’s report).

As a member of the Finance Committee, he worked tirelessly to enact three major tax-cut bills. Fred Thompson remains steadfast and even though a person may not agree with all his views and he understands some may disagree with him, you can count on him to be consistent and unwavering.
Don’t be fooled by his laid back approach and what critics call his “laziness.” As a former assistant U.S. attorney, he earned a reputation as a tough prosecutor and he possesses the toughness this country needs in order to tackle today’s and tomorrow’s issues.

I ask that you take a hard look at what this country needs, then take a hard look at all the other candidates’ views, policies, their records and their track record on consistency. Fred Thompson possesses integrity, loyalty, commitment, energy and decisiveness, all traits of an effective leader, and will emerge as the best person to take this country boldly forward.

Some of Paul’s supporters are often rude and aggressive, it’s true.  As a Ron Paul supporter, I apologize for the poor behavior of some of my compatriots

However, I should also point out that it’s difficult to remain calm when you begin your piece by suggesting that Paul’s supporters consist of…

“an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists

When you begin by calling Paul’s supporters paranoid Neo-Nazis is it surprising that many of them take offense? 

Here’s Paul’s stance on racism:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Here’s Paul on whether he would appoint minorities in his administration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3FzFUPMHRA

His spending record is impressive, though Paul has recently embraced pork-barrel projects in direct contradiction to his vociferous opposition to unconstitutional appropriations by the federal government.

You fail to mention that Paul votes against the appropriations bills that contain the earmarks he inserted.  His position is that he’s against spending and votes against it, but that if spending is going to happen anyway, then his constituents should get some their money back.

He’s a crank on economic issues and saying so brings out the worst in his supporters, as David Frum found out.

The link to David Frum doesn’t appear to go anywhere. Can you point to some of your arguments against Paul’s economic stances? 

In Paul’s case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side.

The Bush administration and Republican Congress “<a href=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750">presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson.<?a> Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years.”

They also weakened habeus corpus protections, authorized the use of torture against prisoners, and engaged in warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens. 

If that’s what it means to be a conservative these days, I’m glad Paul scored so low.

I would note that Paul’s record on taxes, regulation, abortion, and guns, are solidly within the conservative tradition:

* An “A” voting record according to the NRA.
* Never voted for a tax increase.
* Is staunchly pro-life.
* Opposes the NEA and the rest of the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies.

Compulsively throwing away the good in the name of the perfect is not a policy, but a utopian affliction.

I get the malignant narcissism driving people like Huckabee, Carter, Clinton and Gore. But Paul’s incessant dissembling? Why does someone run for the presidency when their platform is essentially to take responsibility for nothing… proposing sweeping action built upon little more than a dogma of “I am not going to be bad like them.” We best not confuse the occasional idea we like with the leadership skills to carry it through. There’s more to running the nation than getting elected in Ronnie Earl’s home town. I’d vote for Paul if he was running for the nation’s conscience. He’s not. And he has nothing to show that he’s remotely ready to run the presidency. The only thing Paul knows how to run is his mouth, and he’s stumbling at that.

I am a successful small business owner in the South, in an old-fashioned conservative industry. I am also an immigrant and I’ve lived in Asia and all over the US prior to moving to TX. I live a responsible lifestyle, have never done drugs and will vote for a Democrat/ Leftie/ Green over my dead body. I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004. My favorite president is Calvin Coolidge, followed by Ronald Reagan.

And guess what? There are many, many ‘normal’ people like me that support Dr. Ron Paul.

As a freedom loving red-blooded American that was born abroad, let me assure you that ‘blowback’ exists, and has harmed America beyond belief. In India we never understood why the CIA funded the ISI and by extension fundamental Islam in the 80s and early 90s. Today, many Americans are questioning why the US bankrolls Pakistan and its big terror machine. It is folly to believe the US does not prop up the governments of Saudi Arabia (a country named after a family!!!), Qatar, UAE/Dubai, Jordan, Kuwait etc. and now Iraq. Do you think that helps or hurts America’s image of fairness and freedom? Does it inspire fear or admiration?

Nevertheless, I supported Bush because his policy of aggressive engagement with Islamists was better than the Democrat policy of ‘surrender and patronize’.

But Ron Paul is different - he understands blowback and the wisdom of a non-interventionist Jeffersonian foreign policy. I supported Bush because I didn’t know RP existed, but now there is no excuse to support trillions of dollars in nation building (ironically the platform Bush ran on in 2000 was to oppose nation building).

The second major issue is that RP really seems to ‘get’ monetary policy. I am lucky to have access to some of the wealthiest people in the South (my clients), and let me tell you that the smartest/richest ones understand why sound money matters. There is not a single Presidential candidate who even remotely comes close to Ron Paul’s understanding of the economy and the dollar.

There’s no contest. Don’t get carried away by the media and read some of the Doctors words for yourself.

As a person who draws a large salary from the taxpayers and is a professor of law it doesn’t surprise me that you are against the good Doctor.  Romney, Guiliani, Thompson, Clinton, Obama, Edwards lawyers all of them, just what we need more of.

A tale of two pardons. 

Okay, I am going off topic.  But I mean seriously, 90% of us are never going to accept Ron Paul (even if I agree with many of his libertarian principals) so lets move on. . .

Huckabee handed out pardons like they were chips at a party.  Some because the criminals in question apparently converted to Christianity (ignoring other objective reasons not to grant pardons). Not surprisingly tragedy strikes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbZI8WXVdUs This alone disqualifies Huckabee for being President. 

And if this story ends up being true, and Huckabee did abuse power as governor and intervene on behalf of his son, Huckabee would not be qualified to be dog catcher.  Literally.  http://www.newsweek.com/id/78241

Then you have Governor Mitt Romney denying everyone pardons. Everyone. Including an Iraq War veteran who won a bronze star and needed a pardon to become a police officer (he had a conviction for shooting a friend with a BB gun when he was 13--it did not break the skin-- and a conviction like this, even as a juvenile, bars you from having 2nd Amendment rights and makes you disqualified to serve as a police officer).  The veteran’s only chance was a pardon from Romney. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNVKDioCHRw

But Mitt was for Scooter Libby getting a pardon, because there were special circumstances. Now I agree about Scooter getting a pardon, but what about that Bronze Star veteran? 

Huckabee is by far worse. But Mitt’s blanket decision about denying pardons (except for Libby) was definitely not good.

Anyone see Rep. Paul’s foreign policy answers in the CNN/YouTube debate?

First, nobody should try to pass themselves off as a clear-eyed Iraq War expert when they don’t seem to know that “the people in the north” are called KURDS.  Seriously, that was just embarrassing.

But even if you want to write that off as a brain-freeze (OK, it happens), his point about Vietnam was cringe-inducing.  “They’re our friends now!” Criminy. 

Of course, this analysis ignores the decades of bloodletting and re-education camps, but leave that aside for the moment.  Paul seems to think this just “happened” somehow as a result of US withdrawal.  It was magic.  The Fairy $#&@ing Godmother did it.  It certainly had NOTHING TO DO with the collapse of the Soviet Union or the end of the Cold War, brought about by a lot of that “interventionism” that Paul disapproves of.

In the end, that’s what makes me crazy about leftists and Paulists on foreign policy.  They love to talk about “blowback”, while completely ignoring the historical realities of the Cold War world.  As if everything would be sunshine and kittens if we’d just let the Soviets do whatever they wanted on the world stage.  Think Vietnam would be “friends” with us if, say, the Warsaw Pact were still a going concern?

It appears you base your dislike of Dr. Paul on your dislike for some of his supporters. At least, that’s your main point from the placement of the comment in your post. That seems a bit harsh and unreasonable.

"They are also willing to forgive his quirks because they believe he’s a principled man.”

Kinda like Jimmy Carter....

Paul’s isolationist platform disqualifies him for any serious consideration. We simply cannot retreat behind static defenses [you can’t be strong in all places at once, an attack will get through] and wait our turn to be consumed by our enemies. As an earlier poster mentioned, if America abdicates its leadership role and limits its sphere of influence, another nation or ideology will step in to fill the resulting power vacuum.

Pick and choose who’s values shape the world for our future generations:

A) America [without Ron Paul]

B) Radical Islam

C) China

But hey, if all you want is to cloister yourself away from the world so you can enjoy your decaf latees, MTV and cheap oil economy… while Western Civ and the values of the Enlightenment crumble around you, then Ron Paul is the man for you.

This guy would let Israel get wiped off the map, and would let any other genocides occur if they didn’t directly involve the US. Some would say Israel can take care of business themselves. I would say that they shouldn’t have to.

It’s hard to imagine any kind of foreign policy situation that doesn’t involve “blowback.” Avoidance of blowback is not a very solid principle of foreign affairs.

Politics is about the give-and-take, finding balance, cutting deals. I don’t see the wisdom of following a cult of principled opposition to just about everything.

But hey, if all you want is to cloister yourself away from the world so you can enjoy your decaf latees, MTV and cheap oil economy… while Western Civ and the values of the Enlightenment crumble around you, then Ron Paul is the man for you.

Bovine excrement…

Some of those “Enlightenment values” are the reason that we are being threatened in the first place. Before the Enlightenment it would have rightly been considered suicide to allow Muslim immigrants into the West in the first place. Oh, but we are so much more enlightened now, and don’t judge groups based on what many of their members tend to do or support. That would be “ignorant.”

Paul’s policy of cutting back on immigration and securing the border would do far more to take care of us than anything the other candidates propose. Most of them stick to that laughably absurd proposition that we can use our military as a magnet by sending it oversees to “fight them over there.” As if there weren’t many terrorist groups among the Islamists, allowing them, as a movement, to multitask in how they attack Americans (not to mention the fact that most Islamic terrorists prefer civilian targets over military targets).

They keep finding more and more people of Middle Eastern origin coming across the southern border. Therefore Ron Paul’s position that border security needs to be a key priority is an entirely rational way of handling the domestic terror threat.

As to the issue of leadership, you are off base there as well.

1) With the dollar losing strength due to the terrible fiscal policies in place, the U.S. economy won’t command economic power over others within a decade or two. Ron Paul wants to correct this by fixing our terribly broken monetary system. The other candidates just want to tweak it at best.

2) America won’t be able to fund its military strength if the national debt isn’t brought under control because payments on the interest of the debt will consume too much of the federal budget.

3) There are no other countries in a position to take on the United States. China has serious demographics issues that will make it hard to become a bellicose world power.

4) Who, precisely, do we care about that is threatened by the Islamic countries? Israel? We are one of Israel’s worst enemies! Our foreign policy toward them is entirely of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. On the one hand, we toss them some money for the IDF and nominally support them at the UN, and on the other hand, we demand that they hear out people who are ideologically dedicated to the utter destruction of their country.

5) No small part of the reason why America is resented around the world is because of the “leadership” that we are supposed to assume. The world does not need a leader, and America doesn’t need to waste its resources and lives on such a pointless errand.

This guy would let Israel get wiped off the map, and would let any other genocides occur if they didn’t directly involve the US. Some would say Israel can take care of business themselves. I would say that they shouldn’t have to.

No, this guy would get the State Department off Israel’s ass, and would stop asking them to do self-destructive things like “land for peace.” Israel is a regional superpower. It doesn’t need us to protect it. All it needs is for us to stop bossing it around and let it deal with the Palestinians properly.

As to the greater issue of genocide, there have been few, if any, systematic attempts to exterminate an entire group since the Holocaust. “Genocide” is a badly abused word. What Paul wouldn’t do is commit our troops to stopping armed conflicts between different ethnic groups that involve mass killings of civilians. However, if there were another bonafide genocide, that might be a different story.

This whole post is about other people’s opinions of Ron Paul’s stances.  What’s _your_ educated opinion, Professor?  Have you examined what criteria were used to determine that Ron Paul does not have a conservative policy?  Have you read any of the House floor speeches given by Congressman Paul?  Have you read any of the bills he’s submitted?  Not just one, but read several on different issues to get a whole picture.  Do not internalize these biased writers’ opinions on the matter and feel you’ve done your own critical thinking, read and listen to the congressman himself.  I’m sure you’re bright enough to make your own decisions.

Cognitive Dissonance: When a conservative and professor of law is against the one candidate who actually wants the federal government to obey the Constitution.

Man, the Ronulans are out in force today.

Colorado, like many states--even yours I would bet, is quite dependent on the Federal largess: several cities depend on military bases (especially Colorado Springs), bureaucratic kingdoms like the EPA, DEA, HHS, or DOI (Denver area) for jobs, and land/water issues in the agriculture sector all revolve around the Feds keeping their ‘fingers in the pie.’

With this comes the economic question: who will vote against their best interests? Not many I would suppose. As the Federal govt is the country’s largest employer and land owner, too many people fear upsetting the status quo, even to save the country (just look at the NEA for an idea of organizational reaction to changes suggested in their ‘special interest’ policy). These citizens might actually have to do something of consequence if things change at the Federal level.....

My impression from comments of many of the anti-Paulians is fear--fear of losing control over people or populations they don’t trust; fear over change from the known straight-jackets to the abstract opportunities (as freedom and liberty cannot be touched or heard, just internalized); fear of lost ‘honor’ or complaints of insensitivity from foreign govts.

Just as individuals make decisions that place them in a position to succeed or fail, nations do the same thing on a larger scale. Unfortunately, as has happened in the USA, the decisions made by our Federal overseers has focused on the well-being of a few insiders instead of infrastructure, borders, and fiscal strength. Comparable to a decision to treat my taste buds to chocolate regularly and to the detriment of my ‘spare tire.’

Then there’s the issue of the stability of the US economy: housing, inflation, M2 and M3 supply, manufacturing losses, and the list goes on. China and Japan hold the notes on our debt; who’s really in control? Superpower or superdebtor, which are we, again? That choice has been made and a large number of Americans aren’t happy with the decisions made for the ‘good of all.’

I think Americans, who have discovered the broad-themed message of Dr. Paul and how ideas and actions have consequences--some even unanticipated, recognize the current disconnect from the govt created by our Founders and the beast that has replaced their vision over the last 100 years.

We want change, and the longer it takes to return to the future opportunities of the USA, the harsher the correction when it comes.

Stephen,

I guarantee you that if Paul becomes President, you will see a federal budget that is actually dollar-value smaller than the year before. I further guarantee that if any other candidate is elected, this will not happen.

To me, that’s inspiring enough to travel to New Hampshire, slog through some snow, and knock on some doors for him.

Jim Geraghty had a good post on this:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjgxM2E0ZWEyNjRjNWE1Njg4Mjk1NWEyNDRiNjY5NjI=

There you (republican establishment types) go again. Instead of actually interacting with Ron Paul’s views and arguments, you basically say he’s crazy and people who agree with him are crazy. And racists.

Despite the varied reasons for saying Paul is nuts without, of course, actually giving evidence, we all know the real reason Republican elites and Bush kool-aid drinkers despise Paul--because he opposes the Iraq war and our entire military industrial imperialistic complex. I think a moderate Republican once warned us about that; he must have been crazy too.

Classic case of attacking the messenger rather than the message. I mean, because John Hawkins (who?) says Paul has the least conservative voting record of the Republican presidential candidates, that makes it so? Where’s his or your evidence? You simply provide a link to someone who declares something with no concrete evidence either in your article or his.

I remember when I first took interest in politics, in the mid-90’s and Newt and the Republican Revolution was saying exactly what Ron Paul says now. They opposed Clinton constantly whenever he tried to send our troops overseas to police the world; now they cheer Bush as he seeks to wage eternal warfare on the entire Middle East. Seriously, almost everything Paul says mirrors what Republicans said 10 years ago.

Now, we have the Republican elite buying into Bush cliches--"they hate us because we’re free” and “we have to fight them over there so they won’t come over here"--and expecting the American people to just swallow that childish nonsense and continue to support the unconstitutional war that kills our soldiers and many Iraqis every day. There’s a reason why none of the Republican candidates, including Rudy and Romney, really align themselves with Bush--he’s unpopular primarily because of this war, which the American people don’t support.

Finally, it starts to get desperate and dishonest when Republican elites and their mouthpieces continue to dismiss Paul’s support as just a bunch of crazies. He set a single day fund raising record this late in the race--the other guys can only look on with envy.

Dean Esmay sez

Man, the Ronulans are out in force today.

You got that right, amigo.

Ronulista Christopher Rasch, for example, demonstrates terrible reading skills when he implied that Professor Bainbridge said Paul supporters were “paranoid Neo-Nazis.” The Professor said Paul’s campaign had attracted them.

Rasch is right about one thing; Bush’s administration has a terrible record on spending, although he’s doing better now that he has Democrats to veto. On the other hand -as Dean has pointed out regularly elsewhere- Bush isn’t really a conservative. That’s why Cheney was put on the ticket, in order to appease the “real” conservatives.

I think the Professor got it right when he underlined the fact that Paul’s idealism, which makes him attractive to the disaffected, is the very same thing which prevents him from being effective. He’s too wrapped up winning the ideological fight to compromise for a half-loaf, unlike Reagan.

Why didn’t you just call your piece, “‘Goldwatering’ Ron Paul”?

Paul in fact did vote not to condemn the new UN Human Rights Council for spending almost all of its time on Israel.  If his goal really were to support it rather than to abandon it, he wouldn’t have cast such a vote.

Dennis Kucinich was the only other Congressman to vote this way.

And as for the professor’s comments about Paul’s rather unpleasant bedfellows, all Paul needs to do is give one speech disowning them, continue to return their money, and in general act like he doesn’t want them around.  It’s no more than Reagan did.

Since he has no chance to get the nomination, and no chance to get elected, this would come at no actual cost to his ambitions.  And it would show that his ideological purity can run in directions that would at least seem to counter his own personal interest.

Mike: Bovine excrement…

Why are you reacting emotionally?

Oh, but we are so much more enlightened now, and don’t judge groups based on what many of their members tend to do or support. That would be “ignorant”.

I think I’ve confused you. I was referring to the Age of Enlightenment: “greater rights for the common people, and a decline in the influence of authoritarian institutions such as the nobility and Church… The movement helped create the intellectual framework for the American and French Revolutions, Poland’s Constitution of May 3, 1791, Russia’s 1825 Decembrist Revolt, the Latin American independence movement, the Greek national independence movement and the later Balkan independence movements against the Ottoman Empire, and led to the rise of classical liberalism, democracy, and capitalism.” [via Wiki]

“laughably absurd proposition that we can use our military as a magnet by sending it oversees to “fight them over there.” As if there weren’t many terrorist groups among the Islamists, allowing them, as a movement, to multitask in how they attack Americans (not to mention the fact that most Islamic terrorists prefer civilian targets over military targets).

What a huge blind spot you have. The Islamists were multitasking in Iraq, have been defeated, and have earned the contempt of potential arab allies in the region. So, going on Offense has worked. Better to force green terrorists to fight against US Marines in their own back yard than let them gain experience stalking our wives and daughters at the local shopping mall.

I agree with most of Paul’s domestic policy and libertarian values. I even left the GOP last year and refuse to return until they complete the border fence I was promised. But this isolationist bug is a disqualifier. Iraq was the right war to fight, and I imagine that if the French had stopped Hitler from taking the Rhineland, we would have heard the same complaints as we do today: “illegal war, rush to war, warmongerers, etc”. I know that Paul would not have tried to stop such a monster. And he would never have “wasted” American blood and money liberating Europe. He wouldn’t take action until German panzers were on the Rio Grande, and by then it would have been too late.

Perhaps libertarians should play more Chess. If you go defensive, if you give up momentum to me, I will gain control of every row and file, pushing you back into a corner to be gradually weakened and degraded. Because of that, by the time you see the threat, your available options will be severely limited.

4) Who, precisely, do we care about that is threatened by the Islamic countries?

Europe. And the Paki nukes.

No small part of the reason why America is resented around the world is because of the “leadership” that we are supposed to assume. The world does not need a leader, and America doesn’t need to waste its resources and lives on such a pointless errand.

Don’t confront a meager platoon attacking the Rhineland today when you can defend against a German juggernaught tomorrow. Thats your foreign policy? 

Again, libertarians need to revisit their isolationism if they intend to be taken seriously by disaffected conservatives like myself.

"Compulsively throwing away the good in the name of the perfect is not a policy, but a utopian affliction.”

It’s also the mantra of Libertarianism. And let’s not fake the funk; that’s what Ron Paul is. The problem that a lot of people like me have with Libertarians is that we really like Libertarian ideas… until we meet a couple of actual living breathing Libs. Then, if you have a lick of sense you see just how poorly these people interact with the world. Forget the racists, nuts, and general cranks, most big L libs are hard to converse with for more than 5 minutes without developing an overwhelming urge to smack them with a shovel. The fact that so many smart people can provide the sheer tonnage of vapid thought they do, and manage to pass it off as a political philosophy has always amazed me. My favorite one is the Lib motto “the lesser of two evils is still evil” repeated often as some profound statement of principle. Which completely ignores the basic fact that in a non-binary world there are degrees of evil, and the lesser of two evils is less evil than it’s alternative; it says so, right there in the phrase. While I don’t, for instance, want my fingers chopped off, I’ll gladly choose that over say, getting my head chopped off. That’s self evident, common freaking sense to most people, but not to Libs. Do that in real life, and say, vote for a guy not perfect on the RKBA, but better than his opponent, and you didn’t make the best of a bad deal, you aided “EVIL”, with no consideration of the consequences of NOT aiding that particular evil, or any constructive options. And again, this is how the “normal” ones think.

Now Ron Paul’s going to ride in on his white charger and roll back decades of bad law and return us to the Constitution and revamp the government… how exactly? With no governmental constituency, and half the country fundamentally disagreeing with his worldview, he’s going to push through some of the most sweeping reforms in the history of goverment without getting idealogically sullied by compromise? Being correct is nice, but actually being able to functionally govern is another, and principled or not, Paul’s Libertarian inflexibility and dogmatism makes me think that even if he was full of the former, he’s still incapable of the latter.

sphere of influence? ideology to fill “power vacuum”?
I find it hillarious that people keep thinking about realpolitik in this terms, especially when mentioning the Soviet example…

Does anyone remember that the soviets only lost because their economy collapsed? 
Do you remember why?  Wars in Afganistan, erosion of liberties and free market entrerprise, meddling into other countries affairs in the middle east and as far as Cuba?

Think a little further back.... prior to World war I,the US… staying out of other countries’ way, not getting sucked into wars and alliances...and quietly building its manufacturing base while the UK Empire, Germany, France, Russia and Japan blew up each other.

Today, we have another country....quietly building their free market system, staying out of regional alliances and insane engagements (north korea? Iran? ha!), and the ever increasing liberty of their citizens while not fanning the flames of war. 
Its no coincidence that this country is projected to be the biggest economy in the world by 2030.

By then they will be able to afford all the B-52 and F-20’s they want.

You can only influence people for as long as they think they can benefit from something you have (money).
If you spend all your money maintaining a non-revenue-generating empire spanning the globe.... and in bureaucrats that do not contribute to productivity....we wont have money in our coffers.
IF WE DONT HAVE MONEY IN our COFFERS, no one will seek the US opinion/approval for ANYTHING!

ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID!

there is no excuse to support trillions of dollars in nation building (ironically the platform Bush ran on in 2000 was to oppose nation building).

Not ironic. Bush opposed nation building that wasn’t tied to our own interests. The triangle of 1) Iraq as a rogue nation 2) with WMD programs and 3) a history of supporting terrorist proxy attacks is what led to this war.

As for nation-building, a free and prosperous Iraq is the ONLY long-term solution to marginalizing radical Islam in the region [consider the effect West Berlin had on the Warsaw Pact nations]. If you’ve got a better strategy, I’d like to hear it. How does Ron Paul intend to defeat radical Islam? By withdrawing behind Fortress America?

Does anyone remember that the soviets only lost because their economy collapsed? 
Do you remember why?

Yes, and not for the reasons you give.

The Soviet Empire collapsed because we engaged them around the globe and stretched both economies to the breaking point. Ours was more resiliant. They threw in the towel when they realized they couldn’t keep up. If we had instead followed Paul’s policy, we’d be buying our oil from the Comecon - the Middle East would consist of nothing but Soviet puppet states. [BTW, oil just rose to $200 a barrel because President Kerry had the audacity to condemn the recent Soviet “liberation” of Canada...]

Wars in Afganistan, erosion of liberties and free market entrerprise, meddling into other countries affairs in the middle east and as far as Cuba?

For those interventionists that have the “but what about Hitler” mania.

Let’s give you a history lesson here:

Why did WWII start?
-Because Germany elected Hitler, who was bent on conquest

Why did Germany elect Hitler?
-Because he solved the economic crisis and promised change from the status quo.

Why were they bankrupt?
-Because germans were riddled with out-of control inflation a bankrupt economy borne out of expenses and reparations related to WWI

Why did WWI start?
-Because of an assasination that triggered interventionist alliances and protection pacts between countries and nobles.

Why were these treaties in place?
Lenin: Economic imperialism -banking interests of various capitalist-imperialist powers orchestrated the war
Roosevelt’s secretary of state: -Trade barriers
Woodrow Wilson : militarism

The consensus is that aristocrats and military élites had too much power in countries such as Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary. War was thus a consequence of their desire for military power and disdain for democracy. Does it sound like a country you know??

It’s typical for hawks to push for intervention. They live for it.  They draw salaries of it, and they would be redundant in a truly non-interventionist state.
It is critical to note that no-one would attack a non-interventioning superpower.

Even if resentment lingers for some time if we pull out of Iraq (and rest assured,it will be permanent disdain if we dont pull out) we can still afford to kick anyone’s @ss if they dare to mess with us now.  At our current spending rate, i could not say that after the next 30-50 years

Right now, staying in Iraq is only perpetuating the vicious cycle of more intervention down the road. A road that is expensive, both in terms of lives and dollars.

....."The Soviet Empire collapsed because we engaged them around the globe and stretched both economies to the breaking point. Ours was more resiliant.”

*YES, but only because up to that point we had more or less respected the ideal of Real Republicanism.

..."They threw in the towel when they realized they couldn’t keep up. If we had instead followed Paul’s policy, we’d be buying our oil from the Comecon - the Middle East would consist of nothing but Soviet puppet states.”

That’s laughable and disprovable by past and current fact.
If the Russians could not deal with even Afghanistan, and we could not cope with Vietnam, and still cannot with Iraq, what makes you think they could have possibly dominated the entire Middle east?

Do you think those countries would have rolled a red carpet for these foreign intruders?????
If anything they would have had to bribe them. And i am thinking enormous amounts.

But then, i ask you, with what money?? I mean, its not like the SOVIETS could have outbid us… after all, you just agreed that our economy was more “resilient” ?

Seems like a rather long list of nit-picking concerns to have against the good Doc.

In this age of explosive positive rights and our collective obsession with “...if only there were a law...”, I can’t help but cheer the one man on, who’s problem is apparently not supporting some bill for being only 95% unconstitutional/wrong.

The man is principled. That’s really all there is to it.

Very Weak. 

Incidentally, I don’t like this new blog format.

I submitted the post but was told that I hadn’t provided my e-mail.  I was asked if I would like to go back, which I did, and the post was gone.

bleh

at least you got rid of those dreadful “smap shots”.

Dr. Bainbridge:

I write as a supporter of Ron Paul’s who knows his candidacy is doomed. 

Like (I imagine) most of the people who are supporting Paul, I think some of the ideas behind his positions are silly.  For instance, the Second Amendment was ratified in a world completely different than the one we live in now.  And I understand anti-abortion people’s wish implement their policies in a post-Roe world, but I think it is stupid since I am able to make a qualitative distinction between a newly fertilyzed egg and a fetus at term. 

However, I recognize that within the broad outlines of the situation, there are things that are very wrong and completely unsustainable.  I am unwilling right now to support a “lesser evil” since the system is too sick to benefit from someone who doesn’t believe the system is sick.  Would I rather Mitt Romney’s universal health care plan or Hillary Clinton’s?  Would I like to give Rudy the opportunity to put crooks in cabinet jobs or Edwards?  Such choices really aren’t a choice, since the final policies that result are unlikely to be different in a predictable, material way. 

Many of your criticisms of Paul boil down to a doubtfulness that pie-in-the-sky theory can be translated into policy.  I would respond in two ways:

(1) We live in a two-party system that demands compromise, and I have yet to see a politician, no matter how “outsider” he or she is, who can’t deal with that reality.  I have yet to see evidence that a President Paul could not.  Until I am shown evidence of his incompetence, I’ll give him the same benefit of the doubt I would give to any other politician. 

(2) The need to compromise on principle, either to benefit constituents or to reach a conclusion to issues that demand one (appropriations), leaves an individual congressman virtually powerless to change the general course of events.  A single executive, who is as necessary to enact legislation as the Congress, has far more leverage to implement policy.  Furthermore, the sincerity with which the executive believes in his policies will determine whether he exercises that leverage to reach a better solution.

When you put aside utopian dreams of tearing down all the machinery of an overbearing state, Paul seems to be proposing that the executive not exercise power Congress and the courts are happy to give him and that systematic problems in government have to be met with systemic solutions. 

Respectfully, Letti

In the end, that’s what makes me crazy about leftists and Paulists on foreign policy.  They love to talk about “blowback”, while completely ignoring the historical realities of the Cold War world.  As if everything would be sunshine and kittens if we’d just let the Soviets do whatever they wanted on the world stage.  Think Vietnam would be “friends” with us if, say, the Warsaw Pact were still a going concern?

ME: Ofc. Krupke, your points w/r/t blowback during the Cold War are well put. The Soviets had to be rolled back in Afghanistan. Still, don’t strategic re-evaluations need to be made now that the Cold War is over. The South Koreans, Japanese, and Europeans are perfectly capable of defending themselves. They have enough wealth compared to their neighbors. They have enough population. Why are we still paying the freight?

SteveMG.  It doesn’t matter which country or countries take our place as world policeman and nation builder.  They can have the job.  They can over strain their middle class and destroy their economies to do it.  I don’t know where anyone gets the idea that having “influence” all over the world makes us a stronger nation.  All it does is run up our debts.  That in turn makes us much weaker against real threats, like the Chinese.

BTW, the “pork barrel” statement has been debunked by several sources.  It’s his job to pass the demands of his constituents to the appropriations committee.  It’s what he gets paid to do.  Then he votes against the whole spending bill once it put together.  His constituents love them for it. If they send 45% of their paychecks to Washington, they’d like to have it back if the bill is going to pass anyway.

So basically a couple of weirdos attached themselves to Ron Paul (though not the campaign itself), the campaign distances itself from said weirdos, but those same weirdos are enough to indict Paul’s effort. 

Also you haven’t given much evidence that the situation would be much worse after a US withdrawal from Iraq.  Take the case of Basra, the British left and violence dropped 90%. The nationalist/Islamic insurgency is driven by distaste and even hatred of foreign occupation.  Remove the foreign occupiers and the driving force for much of the insurgency will also be removed.  We’ve already got American-killing terrorists in charge of Iraq (I guess they are reformed American-killing terrorists-DAWA, SCIRI) so the fantasy of al Qaeda taking over Iraq if US troops leave, is just that, a fantasy.

Then you quote the partisan agenda-driven Club for Growth (which doesn’t always pick the most conservative candidates) as the definitive arbiter of what a conservative should do in Congress.  There is a difference between lazziez faire economics (simply cutting or eliminating tariffs) and the managed trade of NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, etc. 

Finally as for Paul’s conspiracy theories, there is a concern among many on the Right that US sovereignty is being diluted through various international agreements.  The EU began as a simple trading agreement between France, West Germany, and the Benelux countries to trade coal and steel, and now has grown into the statist behemoth we have today.  Likewise in Africa, there are formal attempts to further integrate the various states there. Perhaps the CFR isn’t behind a concentrated effort to dilute American sovereignty, or NAFTA by itself does not do any permanent damage to the US, per se, but the fear is very real that the US as we now know it will change. 

The standard argument that conservatives have given about government in the past, is that it tilts Left, no matter how conservative your policies are that you want to implement, the government bureaucracy will tilt Left.  Fundamentally this is also the problem with supra-national organizations (UN, NAFTA, even NATO), that the more the US gets involved with them, the more left-wing they become, and the less influence the US will have in deciding political-military-economic concerns.

Its fine that you want to belittle Paul and his supporters for this belief, but just be prepared to explain to the more reasonable/rational among those that have that concern, other than to merely say “Well it’s just crazy and it would never happen” why and how NAFTA/CAFTA/FTAA and further economic integration will not subsequently lead to political/military integration with other states, as neo-functionalism argues.

--"Anyone who believes Ron Paul is principled is either ignorant of his votes as well as his associations or is deliberately ignoring them.  A man who believes that the way the US military should defend this country is by deploying along our borders is a man who not only profoundly misunderstands the world we live in but also has no understanding of posse comitatus."--

Is that a joke?  Ron has stated time and again that the immigration problem has less to do with a wall, and more to do with incentives.  If we remove the incentives we give illegals, they leave.

By the way, he was right, it is effective: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1218borderexit.html

To the best of my knowledge he refers to “defending our borders” in a military since, only when he his speaking about a real threat our national security, an invasion.

It drives me crazy when I read posts that try to compare the current “war” against terror, or radical Islam, or whatever it is we’re fighting and the cold war.  The two have nothing whatsoever in common. the Soviet Union was a genuine superpower with the ability to blow us up in a heartbeat as well as a worldwide strategy aimed (not always effectively) at global domination.  Who or what do we have on the other side now that’s even remotely comparable?  Al-Qaeda is (at best) a loose conspiracy of a few thousand radicals.  Iran is a third world country that cannot project power outside of its region. We have created a twelve foot tall bogeyman out of these loose threads.  Why have we done this?  There are two reasons: 

a) U.S. oil companies want the preferential access to oil that they have in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and that they don’t have in Iran and didn’t have in Hussein’s Iraq, and

b) the U.S. military/industrial complex wants an excuse to draw hundreds of billions of dollars a year out of the U.S. Treasury. 

That’s it. That’s the whole basis of our War on Terror.  What about 9/11, you ask?  9/11 was the most effective paramilitary operation in the history of the world because it aimed at bringing the United States into a military confrontation with the Arab/Islamic world and succeeded brilliantly in that aim.  If we had just treated it as the criminal act it was (including enforcing U.S. arrest warrants in Afghanistan), the operation would have failed.  But our own stupidity brought us to our current parlous state. 

Of all the candidates running for both parties’ nominations, only the fringe wackos—Paul and Kucinich—understand this.  Since I’m a conservative (a real conservative, not a Bushite), I’m voting for Paul.

A succession of “empty suit” pseudo-"conservative" arguments, topped off by a vicious, “guilt by association” fascist-style smear.  The silver lining is that no one with a modicum of political good faith will listen to a neo-con apparatchik like you again.

If I were running for President and slime like David Duke were enthusiastic about me, I wouldn’t hide behind the “guilt by association” dodge or toss around phrases likek “fascist-style smear.” I’d take a good long look in the mirror.  Then I’d go out of my way to make sure that I didn’t want the votes of David Duke or any of the rest of those idiots.  But that’s because I have actual principles.

I found that many Ron Paul “supporters” have not done any research on their candidate and get drawn in by vague one liners about the constitution. I’ve never seen one off the internet (which probably explains his polling numbers) but when someone dares to ask a Paultard a legitimate question about an issue, they are usually met with personal attacks and links to 9/11 truther websites. Apparently in the Cult of Paul there is no questioning the wisdom of their dear leader.

Chris:  Funny, I’ve found just the opposite. Most of Paul’s supporters have researched him, and the other Republicans very throughly.  More importantly, they’ve researched the issues, their causes, their effects and their historical precedence.  Those who argue against his ideas the most, are those who’s sole form of political education is the news networks.  When you read books on economics, foreign policy and history, you can see that Paul’s ideas are not new or fringe or even crazy.  If it wasn’t for the ideals of libertarianism, the U.S. of A. would never have existed.  Now the news, and people who consume it without ever thinking, speak of libertarianism like it’s a bad word. 

Christopher Johnson:  If you would like to volunteer for the Paul campaign, and sort through hundreds of thousands of donations, and do background checks on the donators, I think Dr. Paul would be very pleased with that.  He’s already made it very clear that he does not want any of David Duke’s money or any money from people of their ilk.  However, he’s also said he’s not going to pay a staffer to double check his donators.

Ron Paul is the only candidate running for office that understands the role of PRESIDENT. He is not running for King of the USA, as most hopefuls are these days. He may be a little over the top in his desire to reduce government, but when it comes down to it, recent presidents have been so bold in the other direction that some balance is needed. The beauty of America is the fundamental understanding that it is not the government’s role to tell the citizenry how to live. This fundamental aspect of the USA is slowly disintegrating.

As far as economy is concerned, the Federal Reserve is slowly debasing the dollar. We subsidize China and our debt to them grows substantially each month. Paul has a firm grasp on economics, just not the Keynesian flavor that says the Fed controls everything. The dollar has no inherent value, and there is nothing preventing it from becoming the Peso when the fed creates money out of thin air and lends it to the government. Our economy is so artificially inflated that a crash is inevitable, the only question is how that crash will happen.

Finally, in regards to the Amero/International highway “conspiracies.” There have been several measures put before legislature to stop such a thing from happening. Texas and Oklahoma have documented votes about money appropriations and such. You can continue to write this off based on media reports that it is crazy conspiracy talk, or you can look into it for yourself.

Personally, I like the fact that we would have a president, not a King.

(and you don’t raise $6 million in one day by over 50,000 donors if you are only supported by neo-nazis, 9/11 truthers and all those ridiculous groups.)

Steve:

Considering the melange of segregationists (Strom Thurmond), anti-semites (Pat Buchanon), xenophobes (everyone!), and homophobes (again, everyone!) the GOP has courted over the past thirty years, how dare you try to say unsolicited contributions constitute guilt by association? 

I note that Michael Medved was Mel Gibson’s Jew-love beard even after “‘Ole Sugart!ts” made him a sap. Medved’s judgement is tainted by his pathetic pandering to his audience.

Chris: See James’ post at 4:14 pm. For additional reference I’ll point you to the information that I used to determine the quality of Dr. Paul’s conservative credentials: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/

I realize that regardless of my assertions, fact-checking, and extensive review of both what it means to be “conservative” and the policy positions of Dr. Paul, there will still be those who believe he’s a racist nut job. I can remember those epitaphs being thrown at Ronnie Reagan, so I have to believe that those throwing the slurs and outrageous lies are the same type of people: small-minded, narrowly-focused Democrats or RINOs.

Note my post today at 11:51 am; I still posit that fear drives the bulk of the anti-Paul movement. And it is a movement, a social network working in the area of politics. Without its common focus (anti-Paulism), most members would dissipate and look for other targets of opportunity.

The strategic vision outlined by Dr. Paul deals with the economic, security, and infrastructure needs of America.

- By reducing our “world policeman” role from world-wide to merely hemispheric, we’ll reduce our borrowing from China and Japan in defense of Germany, France, Korea, and Japan (among the 130 countries where we station our military).

- By securing our southern and northern borders and reducing corporate incentives, the pressures on the healthcare, social services, and education systems.

- By opening up the educational opportunities for all Americans through homeschooling, private education, and reducing Federal dictation of a local issue, Americans can once again return to learning without the social instruction of the NEA.

- By shifting just 25% of the savings from our current overseas military expenses to the domestic infrastructure, we can rebuild our collapsing bridges, electrical grids, and water delivery systems (all of which are currently 20-75 years behind the times). On a side note, were you aware that our entire electrical grid is built upon 75 year old copper technology? Or that the destruction of only 3 key facilities within the grid will effectively shut down the United States? (http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html)

Hopefully, you also realize that a President can only suggest legislation and use the bully pulpit to encourage citizens and legislatures to move in any direction he advocates. This isn’t a dictatorship yet. How much of Paul’s vision do you think Democrats will be willing to adopt? Or Republicans for that matter? And a deadlocked Washington is much better than when they’re ‘here to help us.’

P.S. The “Truthers” are full of bovine leftovers; Popular Mechanics addressed every one of their claims and proved them to be nothing more than bad science combined with conspiracy fears. And, no, Dr. Paul doesn’t buy into their nonsense. When Hillary stops taking money from the NEA and rejecting vouchers (which do work), then we’ll talk about rejecting those who support Dr. Paul and their bad science.

I’m a Paul supporter. But I’ve got one more for ‘ya: Paul doesn’t really seem to WANT it. His decision to run was basically in response to a lot of encouragement from supporters who thought his candidacy would be a good thing. And if you look at some of his interviews, he looks really really tired. Especially the one with FOX News this morning where he made the “fascist” comment; at the opening of the interview, Paul seemed to have to be jolted awake and strangely made the point (already made by the interviewer) that he was in Iowa.

Paul is 72. Though he’s in great shape, he doesn’t seem to have the vigor that many people wish he would have. But that’s the reality and we supporters need to accept it.

And this is not a bad thing. That’s because the enthusiasm among the Paulites is not so much for the candidate, but for Libertarianism. Many, if not most, of us will be continue with the enthusiasm and the creativity after the race is over. Some will consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Movement. Some will start reading Reason and paying more attention to Cato. Some will run for office themselves at more local levels.

This all ties in closely with Atheism. Many folks, and again I am one, have been philosophically refreshed by the books of Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens. Much of the excitement about the “New Atheists” was generated by the internet, borne of pent-up frustration with the existing dominance of religion in public life. In the same way, the “New Libertarianism” has tapped the pent-up frustration with the past decades limited political choice of Big-Government Christianist or Big-Government Liberal.

All the outsiders and the misfits are staking their claim and insisting that they be considered part of the political community. That applies to the Atheists and the Libertarians in the same way. And just like the New Atheist enthusiasm is bigger than any of Dawkins or Harris or Hitch and will go on after their books fade from the spotlight, the New Libertarian enthusiasm will likely go on without Paul.

What convinces me that Mr. Paul must not be president is the execrable Sullivan’s (add to 1. above demented gay privileges fanatics).  Case closed! 

Further, I am agog that 50,000 Paul supporters’ absent-minded mothers keep $120 loose in their pocketbooks and leave said pocketbooks laying around to be rifled.

"at the opening of the interview, Paul seemed to have to be jolted awake and strangely made the point (already made by the interviewer) that he was in Iowa.”

I watched that video and noticed the strange point to, but it’s not because he was jolted awake.  The reporter interviewing him said “[unintelligible] are you?” Dr. Paul obviously thought he said “Where are you?” when the reporter was trying to say “How are you?” or something similar.  So Paul answered “I’m in De Moines, Iowa.”, and the reporter didn’t bother to correct himself.

Wow- I made the mistake of clicking “notify me of follow-up comments.” ... I suppose I’m a Paulite… or whatever.... but really, is it so wrong to be fed up with where both parties have converged?

Paul’s supporters, in a very broad stroke of your brush, may be crazy enthusiasts… but is that any crazy than incrementally selling yourself out for some watered-down Republicrat?

In a contest with so much blandness to go around, is the preferred outcome really to have just another old white guy spouting his condescending plans for our money?

Jeez.... on both sides.... give it a rest.

The problem I have with Libertarianism in general is that not everyone is willing to take responsibilty for their actions.

As for Paul, I think he’s nuts. Specifically his idea that that second attack in 2001 was America’s fault because America didn’t play nice enough after the first attack in 1993. 

That said, after the second attack in 2001 and given the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act only an idiot would have been dumb enough to leave Saddam in power.

Mann: You do have Medved pegged.  Frankly, the fact that most so-called conservative media outlets--including you, Steve--dislike him is actually a bit encouraging. 

Should I take NRO seriously when they come up with Mitt “Pro-Life on Thursdays” Romney as their endorsed candidate?  The Republicans basically have two candidates who are willing to stand at least for a few principles (McCain is the other) and the conservative media seems to absolutely hate them! 

I mean, all you need to do is mouth the party line about gays, abortion, and war and they’ll forgive you anything.  The budget, unlimited executive power, lying the country into wars--no problem.  Supporting torture gets you brownie points! 

The day I start citing episodes of 24 to prove that torture is good is the day I ask you to shoot me in the head.

I don’t support Raul Paul, but it’s not because I’m not some “Tru-Believer”. I just don’t like what he says or the fact that he and that Alex Jones fellow get along so well. Bainbridge is right, you are judged by the people you associate with. Never mind Dr. Paul isn’t a racist neo-nazi, some of the people who support him certainly are. Ron Paul needs to make a definitive statment and chase those idiots off or he’ll look like he’s actually courting them.

Ron Paul isn’t my cup of tea, but neither are the other Republican candidates. As a voting adult, I’ve found that “perfect” is the enemy of “acceptable”. Ron Paul is not perfect, but his foreign policy is not “acceptable” to me. We’re not alone in the world and we can’t pretend that we don’t matter.

I’m not a “Rethuglicrat” or a “Brain-washed Ne-Con” or whatever the most rabid of the Ron Paul supporters call people who don’t buy his message. My gut says he’s not the man for the job. That’s the gist of it.

Your opinion may differ with mine, but we’re different people with different life experience. My experience says Ron Paul woudn’t be disasterous, but he would weaken our position in the world. When you’re on top of the pile, any weakness is seen as impending collapse. Ron Paul advocates appearing weak, of course not using those exact words, and I think that’s a mistake.

Have a nice evening!

Professor Bainbridge, I hope you will be open to some constructive criticism.  I appreciate much of your analysis usually and recognize how personal a decision like this often is.  But since you posted your reasons, I thought I’d share some things for your consideration.

#1 is entirely unfair.  It is not guilt-by-association but worse than that. It’s guilt-by-refusal-to-disassociate.  It’s like me barging into your office at UCLA and reading off a litanny of things your colleagues support and demanding that you distance yourself from them.  Is that really realistic?

It’s also I think unfair given the realities of the political landscape.  If you fairly expect these people to share the same desire as the rest of us—namely to support some presidential candidate who’s got a shot at winning—who do you think they are going to support?  They are most likely to support a candidate who truly believes in shrinking government.  Is there another one?

I get the complaints about the behavior of Ron Paul supporters.  Believe me, I wish some would behave better.  But I think that doesn’t alleviate me of responsibility for my reaction to their bad behavior.  In other words, yes, the emotionalism they bring to things is wrong at times.  But if my response is to react with emotionalism and dismiss the person they are advocating, is that my fault or their fault?  I think we all need to recognize that this happens, but it’s hardly a laudable thing, on either side.  When we dismiss ideas because of the messenger usually all that happens is that we shortchange ourselves of possibilities.

#2.  Let’s all be honest here and admit that we are guessing.  We don’t have evidence to predict what would be better.  I’m tired of hearing absolutist predictions of horror on the idea of a withdrawal.  As things stands, there seems like there is a credible way to conduct a withdrawal that shows no clear indications that it would increase our risk dramatically.  And for those who argue for interventionism, I’d just like to once here voiced where’s the limit.  for a party that once advocated no-nation-building, it would be nice to hear some articulation of where any withdrawals can happen.

#3.  I’m amazed by the dismissals of this a conspiracy fancy, especially post the formation of the EU.  Look, there’s plenty there in the Congressional Record and documented sources to demonstrate that there is a desire on the part of some for a regional economic union for all the same reasons that the EU was formed.  Do some take it to conspiratorial levels, wrongly so? Yes.  But to deny that there are efforts on this is to just refuse to pay attention.

#4