See other Ron Paul Articles
Title: Ron Paul Should Be Proud to Be ‘Outside the Mainstream’
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/ ... hould-be-proud-to-be-outside-t
Published: Jan 6, 2012
Author: Jacob Sullum
Post Date: 2012-01-06 06:42:34 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 69
Comments: 4
The Texas congressman is the only Republican presidential candidate who breaks decisively with the status quo. "I don't think Ron Paul represents the mainstream," says Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich, another of the Texas congressman's opponents in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination, uses stronger terms, declaring, "Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American." As last night's results in Iowa suggest, the "mainstream" to which Romney and Gingrich refer is not defined by voters; it is the range of opinion deemed acceptable by leaders of the two major political parties. The mainstream has brought us a national debt the size of the national economy, a bloated yet overextended military that has strayed far from its mission of defending the country, and a lawless executive branch that usurps legislative powers and violates civil liberties. If that is what the mainstream represents, it is no place for decent Americans who support smaller government. Romney and Gingrich may think they are discrediting Paul, but they are actually recommending him as the only candidate who breaks decisively with the status quo. Although all of the Republican candidates pay lip service to fiscal restraint, Paul is the only one to propose actual spending cuts, as opposed to smaller increases. His plan would balance the federal budget by 2015. By contrast, Romney aims to "put us on a path to a balanced budget," while Gingrich vaguely promises to "balance the budget by growing the economy, controlling spending, implementing money saving reforms, and replacing destructive policies and regulatory agencies with new approaches." The fiscal incontinence of the Republicans not named Paul is vividly illustrated by their attitude toward defense spending: More is always better, and any cuts, even if they are only reductions in projected increases, recklessly endanger national security. Romney assails "the Obama administration's irresponsible defense cuts," which would leave the Pentagon's budget bigger in a decade than it is today. The idea of going any further—say, reducing military spending to the amount appropriated in 2007, when the country was hardly helpless against its adversaries—is anathema to Romney and Gingrich. In this atmosphere, Paul's insistence that "there's a difference between military spending and defense spending" is a breath of fresh air, and so are his warnings about the consequences of failing to make that distinction. Although his opponents try to isolate him by calling him an "isolationist," his views are more in tune with public opinion than theirs. Paul supported military action against Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies following the 9/11 attacks, but he opposed the occupation of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, and the air war against Libya, saying these operations were not grounded in national defense. Recent polls indicate that two-thirds of Americans agree with his judgment about Afghanistan and Iraq, while up to three-fifths questioned the intervention in Libya. Are all of these people "outside the mainstream" as well? In addition to its role in military adventures, an elastic definition of national security is the main justification for the steady expansion of presidential power, which has accelerated in response to Islamic terrorism. The New York Times recently asked the presidential candidates, "Which executive powers, if any, claimed and exercised by the Bush and/or Obama administrations were unconstitutional?" Paul cited unauthorized wars, warrantless wiretaps, torture, indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, and the assassination of people the president unilaterally identifies as enemies. He said the excesses of George W. Bush's counterterrorism policies were "among the worst abuses of executive authority in the nation's history," adding that Bush's successor has been worse in some respects. None of the other candidates could think of a single instance in which Bush or Obama exceeded his authority in the name of fighting terrorism or protecting national security. Romney's chief example of unconstitutional executive action was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is actually an example of unconstitutional legislative action. Gingrich said the problem is too little executive power, thanks to interference by the Supreme Court. If this is the mainstream, I want out. Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist. Follow him on Twitter. © Copyright 2012 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
I had a discussion with a liberal professor that I know about this asinine mantra by the MSM that Paul is "fringe" or "not mainstream". I asked Him is they ever say this about Huntsman or the other bottom rung candidates and he acknowledged that the media doesn't. Then I said: "Tom, if you are in the lead in Iowa, this means a lot of people support you, right?" (you have to talk to a liberal like a child most of the time) then I said: "this support is based on his stated views, right". I went on to say that "if he gets the most support for his views, then it is false to say his views are fringe"... He still could not see it and continues to defend the obvious bias in the media, it's mind boggling how someone functions at a level high enough to be a college professor yet is so incredible stupid or conditioned they say two plus two is five. It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
What the puppets mean is that they think the Constitution is "fringe" and "not mainstream". ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Conditioned. What you are running into is the phenomena associated with a person operating on an irrational computation defined with false data. A person operating on false data will very logically draw completely erroneous, even outright screwy, conclusions. There is likely a hidden standard here or this Professor gets all of his information on current affairs and world events from one or more of the controlled major media organs - most likely tee bee. The first step in breaking someone free, who is stuck on media disinformation, is to first lead them, preferably through basically a Socratic Dialogue of question and answer to bring the student up the line as in this case to recognize that the media lies. That is step zero. There is no set patter but there are two cautions: 1. Never invalidate the other person as a being. Attacking a screwy conclusion by naming it a screwy conclusion is the quickest way to make yourself right and in so doing invalidate the other person thus losing your audience. 2. Be patient. If I were doing it I might start out with: Q. Do you believe the media is always accurate. A. No. Acknowledge the answer and then ask the next question. Q. Do you believe the media always tells the truth? And proceed from there. Here you have to have some references handy, preferably ones that are clear cut and undeniable examples. Again they have to be presented carefully such as, "Well here is an interesting case study ... and then proceed to give an illustrative example of the media lying (one that they can verify for themselves). Then back off and let them chew on it unless they seem very receptive to more. That is why this takes a little patience. None of us who have broken free of the media matrix did it overnight - even if it was done in one bright dawning moment there was a lot that built up to that. For whatever reason some people just seem to be blind to all of the contradictions which to me just jump out of media control, but then at one time I too thought they were truthful but misguided and not willfully dishonest as is the true case. As long as they hold the false datum that the media is truthful then you'll keep running through a loop dictated by the false assumption that what they receive from the media is valid. 
#2. To: Ada (#0)
(Edited)
#3. To: intotheabyss (#2)
this asinine mantra by the MSM that Paul is "fringe" or "not mainstream".
#4. To: intotheabyss (#2)
He still could not see it and continues to defend the obvious bias in the media, it's mind boggling how someone functions at a level high enough to be a college professor yet is so incredible stupid or conditioned they say two plus two is five.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest