Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul: Genius that Pulled a Number on 3 Largest Parties The upcoming race for president can't be counted on as a win for friends of liberty, if you were only counting votes. Ron Paul saw the bigger picture.by Dan Steward
(libertarian)
Friday, September 26, 2008
No other member of congress was able to foresee the impending collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He has a savvy that he wisely chooses not to parade about as a part of him, yet it is no less lacking in it's ability to win over the hearts and minds of those millions who still love freedom and are not willing to ever give it up. This September, Dr. Paul told us a message that slipped under the radar of the guys (and their minions) with "D's" and "R's" in front of their names and I'm glad that it did. The message wasn't for them anyway even if they did have the common sense to appreciate it. The first "number" he pulled, if you dare to see it as such.
His endorsement of Chuck Baldwin left many thinking that Paul was throwing something away when he was actually trying to build a foundation for a movement that would last well beyond November and teach others a lesson that was years overdue. I personally wouldn't vote for Chuck Baldwin because I don't pick and choose which rights people have. It's already been spelled out for us. The US Constitution and the Magna Carta immediately come to mind as trusty enough guides.
Chuck can't play "The Name Game" in polite company and he would not be my choice to lead America even if Ron Paul himself introduced me to him as "one of the five best men in the world". Then why do I think that Ron Paul created a masterpiece of political insight? Looking at this from a standpoint after the 2008 election, then please first understand that the ballot box is only a means of achieving liberty in our time, not an end.
The Libertarian Party is the third of those parties I am referring to. His "number" that Ron did on them, was that Bob Barr should not lead us to the polling places, as he has not earned it from his deeds, only from his popularity or at least the temporary illusion of it. I wavered back and forth as to whether Barr was deserving of my vote. I only recently came to the conclusion that Ron Paul was to show that another minor party candidate, even with all his obvious flaws, was more Libertarian than who the LP faithful was running for president.
He also wanted to show the party what would happen to them if they strayed from their time honored tradition of nomination of the candidate that best represents liberty that we want to show to the world. The nomination convention of the "Party of Principle" openly rejected vastly more qualified candidates for president, choosing instead an only slightly famous congressman who never showed any respect for freedom or The Constitution while serving in office. The LP was begging to be taken out behind the woodshed and shown how it's downward slide split the party faithful into mere splinters. Mr. Paul is bringing them back together without the party's blessings or assistance.
His choice to have the conference and invite minor party candidates on September 10th was sheer brilliance. He wasn't compromising himself to them, he was offering them to join the movement for liberty.
He showed the minor candidates that they too had also been badly stung by big government. Mired in their ignorance of economic reality, the minor parties have drifted too. Ron Paul offered a coalition to them, but one on his terms and that makes all the difference. Congressman Paul has taken it upon himself to educate them about the flip side of the freedom equation and it's vast importance to us all. The bailout, jobs, the economy, new loads of taxes, yeah, timings good too. Ron Paul chugs along whether you give him credit for smarts or not. It's a given that naysayers do not slow him down.
Big brother is losing it's friends, and liberty is scooping them up and pointing them in the direction they have finally realized they wanted to go in. This can build into something incredible. I am so grateful that I 'll be here to witness it when he pulls the next number. He's one of us, pledging his life, fortune and sacred honor, against "them".
With Liberty,
Dan Steward
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 46 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dan Steward only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dan Steward is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The article was okay I suppose & I'm glad you liked it. You, sir are what is "cool". I read your stuff all the time and am very glad that you have put so much effort towards being a "Champion of the Constitution".
I saw a great picture of a girl holding a sign at the bailout protests on Wall Street yesterday. It said, "I have a 4.0 GPA, $90,000 in debt, and no job. Where is MY bail out?"
Nice article. Nice site. The big picture is really what matters in the end. Maybe I'll live to see a revolution. Hell, I've seen more grassroots Ron Paul bumper stickers since the primaries than McCain and Obama stickers combined!
as an orthodox Libertarian i too watched in dismay as the Barr "coalition" hijacked the convention. i still gave him my support, but only for the poll numbers to keep our lower-echelon "real" LP candidates on future ballots. something Barr's wider appeal might help with, but not a substitute for principle.
i've been a pro-choice activist for years so really had to choke Barr down, and don't really want the cooties of a bunch of "Reagan Republicans" catching the scent of social conservativism in the air and taking our party rightward and *downward*.
also wasn't nuts about his response to questions on Prohibition, which, while respecting states' rights, referred to drug use as an "offense" which it is up to the states to decide how best to *punish*, as opposed to decide whether or not to make a so-called "crime" in the first place.
The Libertarian Party is the third of those parties I am referring to. His "number" that Ron did on them, was that Bob Barr should not lead us to the polling places, as he has not earned it from his deeds, only from his popularity or at least the temporary illusion of it.
If indeed Paul was making that point (and not reacting to Barr's boycott of his original press conference), then he's changed position on that as well. Here's what he was saying in the summer:
Asked by CNN's John Roberts, "what do you think of Bob Barr? Does he faithfully represent the values of the Libertarian Party?", Paul responded by defending Barr against some Libertarians' criticism of his voting record in Congress:
"I think so. It doesn't mean that you can look at his voting record like you look at mine and say there was never any infraction. That doesn't mean that he can't represent these values. He's saying the things he should be saying. He's joined the Libertarian Party and he presents these views and he talks our language. So I do really believe that he can have a very positive effect in this campaign and let the people know that limited government is a very, very important message and that people will have a chance [to hear it]. That gives everybody a choice in the matter."
By endorsing Baldwin, Paul already changed his position from two weeks ago. If he did it for the reason you say, then that's a second reversal.
The one character trait that has attracted people to Paul has been is constancy. It is not a good idea for him to shred that image.
I'm a bit confused. If you are not supporting Chuck Baldwin because of his inconsistency on constitutional rights, but you believe Ron Paul thinks Baldwin is more libertarian than Bob Barr, then who are you supporting? The "lesser libertarian" Barr or Baldwin, the man who "picks and chooses" rights?
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-10-01 20:21:18
Mr. Dance,
Respectfully sir you are comparing deeds with words, Dr. Paul said Bob Barrs deeds were not (his past record of transgressions) vs. Bob Barr is now speaking the party platform and could be used for some good later down the line.
I personally think the Dr. Paul was gonna vote for Chuck all along and do it as a private manner.
American proverb: Be careful about asking for approval for you might be disappointed with what you receive.
Dan thanks for the read.
"We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang seperately"- Ben Franklin
I'm not supporting either candidate. They do not deserve my vote. I gave Bob Barr lots of chances to not just mouth the words, but actually PROVE that he is even a small "l" Libertarian.
He has failed miserably and embarrassed the party. Barr's people act like they're scared of donations and literally run from money. He is a former CIA operative complete with his little bag of "dirty tricks". His FUBAR'ed campaign staff has him surrounding himself with incompetents, and worst of all he has refused to hold fast when most needed, against the growing encroachments of the Leviathan State against his fellow human beings.
He even got his jollies rubbing elbows with Al Gore. When has Gore ever even once in his life, taken a stand for Liberty?
Dan, I think I understand, and I agree with your general analysis of Dr. Paul's astuteness.
However, regarding the personal viewpoint you've expressed on Chuck Baldwin, I would appreciate it if you would be explicit as to the point(s) at which you believe he departs from the constitutional? I looked for but did not find among your previous articles any dealing with Mr. Baldwin (at least in the titles.)
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
