Saturday, June 14, 2008

Ron Paul for President, RIP: The Death of the Right-Wing Left

Today is a truly momentous day for those 8-12 leftists who continue to live the illusion that Ron Paul would not prefer to see every last labor union organizer in this country grinded through a tree shredder. Congressman Paul ended his campaign for the presidency as a complete failure, running in a party populated by conservatives who see nothing wrong with torturing and killing Muslims. Oh, well, nobody is perfect.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul ending campaign, will help elect others

HOUSTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Thursday night he is ending his campaign but will keep spreading his message by working to help elect libertarian-leaning Republicans to public office around the country.
 
"The campaign is going to shift gears. It's going to accelerate. It's going to get much bigger," Paul told The Associated Press in an interview before a rally where he was making the announcement. "To me, it's a technical change."

Paul formally announced the move — his new "Campaign for Liberty" — in a speech to supporters attending the Texas Republican Party state convention. He said he expected many at his Thursday night rally and other supporters from around the nation to attend an alternative mini-convention he will host Sept. 2 in Minnesota to coincide with the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.
"Freedom is very popular. Not only is freedom popular, freedom works," Paul told supporters.

Hundreds of people rushed into a Houston hotel ballroom to hear Paul speak. They listened to a guitar player perform peace and freedom songs and gave loud cheers when Paul said the U.S. needs to bring home the troops from the Middle East. They also broke into applause when he spoke out for following the law and the Constitution.

He repeated his stances on other major issues, speaking against the United Nations and the income tax.

"Get more people," he urged. "They're paying attention, and it's across the political spectrum."

In the AP interview, Paul said his political message would not change and that he'll continue to speak out, just as he has since he first ran for Congress from Texas.

"It's just now that there's so much more enthusiasm, and so many more people involved," he said. "This last year has been astounding. ... We have to keep it going."

The announcement is a formality. The 72-year-old congressman won few delegates during the Republican primaries, but he raised large amounts of money online and developed a huge grass-roots following.

Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, said Paul is beginning a "Campaign for Liberty."

The presidential campaign still has about $4.7 million in the bank, which can now be used for the new effort, Benton said, describing it as a "permanent campaign."

"We're going to work with the grass roots," Benton said. "People are really eager to continue and grow these efforts."

Paul opposes the war in Iraq and is a champion of small government. His campaign also drew support from independents and Democrats opposed to the war. His supporters have been pushing for him to have a speaking role at the GOP national convention.

But Paul has refused to endorse likely Republican presidential nominee John McCain, and he told the AP that was unlikely to change.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-12-ron-paul_N.htm?csp=34
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now that Paul is out, the right-wing leftists, as I like to call them (since their only objects of hatred are the people they claim to think like), will have to find a new conservative Republican to convince themselves is really like them. If you bother to notice, most of the right-wing leftists, like their neoconservative cousins, are almost always white, male, and not infrequently the kind of person who at one time actually believed in verboten ideologies like socialism. But like their ex-leftist friends who became neoconservatives over the years, they turned. Either because of the failures of the New Left or post-60s nihilism, the objects of their hatred increasingly became the people and movements whose beliefs they were supposed to be adherents to--starting out with charges of philistinism and later beginning to mimic the language of the forces of unregulated capital, the right-wing leftist diffused into the two most notable conservative strains of post-World War Two thought--libertarianism and/or neoconservatism. 

After awhile, the right-wing leftist becomes virtually indistinguishable from the average conservative, depending on the strain they adopted, which has culminated in one of the most laughable ventures of all--trying to form a political coalition with people who think the Confederacy was right after all.  Hence, the Ron Paul phenomenon, for the real right and their supporters on the faux left.

Well, with Paul gone, they are going to need a new Republican “reformer” to extol to the skies. McCain is not an entirely bad candidate, even though he is the most unabashedly pro-war presidential candidate in recent memory. After all, before becoming a suck-up to the religious right, he actually called them ‘agents of intolerance.’ And hey, he authored the campaign finance reform bill.  

No doubt, he is a real working person.

And there is always Bob Barr, the pro-life abortionist and Christian philanderer. He hates Mexicans and black people, but over time came to oppose the Iraq War, and plus he is now a libertarian (that bastion of class consciousness), so he is a certain possibility.

Of course, notice, one group of candidates none of the right-wing leftists will be talking about or supporting are actual progressives. And there many out there. Even if Obama is not to their liking (and I am one of those holding out because of his lack of campaigning on the Iraq War issue [which was supposed to be his strongest position]), there are many other genuine progressives who do not want to banish unions, people of color, and immigrants. For example, ex-Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party Presidential candidate. Then there is the Socialist Party, who is going to nominate Brian Moore as its party's standard bearer--a candidate who is not only a genuine progressive, but an actual worker and labor activist.

So, say goodbye to Ron. Then again, considering his views of Mexican immigrants, I guess an adios is more appropriate. Le conociamos apenas.

3 comments:

Pera-Pera said...

I just wanna let you know that Ron Paul started something very big.

There is nothing leftist about believing the government has virtually no role in the lives of the citizens or the lives of citizens of other countries.

I know I am rehashing a very old post and you will not read this, but I just wanna let you know from a little bit younger generational standpoint that there is literally armies of us now that are organized to push for more freedom in the markets, more freedom in our lives and more freedom over seas.

And here's the scary part, were growing up, were entering influential industries, we are infiltrating the republican party, we are reading about Senator Robert Taft, we are reading Hayek, we are educated, we are engaged, we are serious, we are motivated, and we are all about action.

We will enter the political parties of this country and we will steer them in the directions of freedom that we believe in like our Founding Fathers before us.

And many of us... (cough)... are already working in administrations right now behind the scenes influencing policy ever so slightly.

We don't want to banish people of color, we don't want to spread unionism we want to contain it because we have seen what it has done to our countries, many of the businesses our parents have worked out and many of the great companies that made America strong.

Ron Paul's strongest position is not his lack of support for the war in Iraq. Anyone who can read should be able to determine that is was a bad idea. His strongest position is adherence to the document that created our nation, the U.S. Constitution, and this is all coming from the son of a Teamster who realized how the union's in the modern era have aided in the destruction of America.

You should try working in the private sector, you know those people that pay your salary, they ain't doing so good.

Wake Up.

TA said...

Part I.

The movement for the upper 1% income tax bracket, which you shimmy for, to dodge paying the bills for the society to which they reside in and despise long predates Mr. Paul, whose own hypocrisy on these issues reek with the stench of a man who lives off my tax dollars to subsidize his Congressional salary and Social Security payments (payments that he takes beyond his own contributions, while asserting it should not be allowed for anyone else). And as much as I hate to say this to you, since you appear to be under 30 and actually believe in something (even if you are wrong), you are losers for a reason (and that includes Mr. Taft and the entire nativist right that was left to the dustbin of history after Pearl Harbor). Even your own movement and preferred party rejects you. The average Republican voter in this country supported spending over a trillion dollars of our money (without anything resembling a respect for reducing deficits) to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, to which the entire Congressional Republican leadership continues to support (a party Mr. Paul maintains his membership of), and sees nothing wrong with eliminating the Fourth Amendment by fiat and normalizing practices like torturing and assassinating American citizens and permanently suspending habeas corpus rights. That is the party of Ron Paul and the electorate he tries to appeal to (and only engenders any recent attraction because that duplicitous base [who gave us the Patriot Act] has finally rediscovered their hatred of the federal government after losing control of that government to someone who doesn’t look like them).

There was nary a teabagger in sight when Bush signed the Medicare Modernization Act, putting over $400 billion of pure deficit spending in Medicare (no riotous demonstrations, racial harangues of members of Congress, no shooting out office windows, not even a whimper). I found none of those armies you speak of when Mr. Paul’s party singed a bill that allows federal law enforcement to catalog all of our phone calls, monitor all of our emails, internet activity, and chats, without so much as a warrant. I found not even a solitary bag of tea when the No Child Left Behind Act was signed (not a single demonstration, except by teachers’ unions), which put over $50 billion of pure deficit spending in our public schools and imposed federal standardized tests on those same local schools. I heard not a single peep when Mr. Paul’s party singed the Wall Street bailout bill, infusing over $700 billion of our money (again, pure deficit spending) on those beloved corporations of yours, to keep solvent the unconvicted felons in the private sector who helped wrecked our economy and way of life. That is the party your wiltered idol whose candidacy you support, whether you like to admit it or not. Paul certainly does and has by inference supported it by staying in it.

.........

TA said...

Part II.....

All of the aforementioned notwithstanding, if you read the post, even the title, I am not addressing right-wingers, but the few lone leftists who lived the Sisyphean illusion that they could go in league with folks who think the Confederacy was right, that child labor laws and civil rights should be left to a market that for centuries supported such practices (and still would, if permitted), the culmination of which was the failure of Paul's campaign to gain any traction or support outside of the 10% of his party's base who cares more about masturbating to their stock returns within the confines of their gated community than reading the Bible (like the rest of the party).

And least you cite the founding fathers in your ideological stultification, none of them would have ever supported allowing the federal courts to tell state and local governments what kind of gun laws they could have. That's because the framers never supported the incorporation of the Bill of Rights on states (read the first words of the First Amendment), which is why it took the liberal activist courts of the 20th century to finally begin incorporating the Bill of Rights on states. In fact, if you look at the shootout at the OK Corral, Wyatt Earp would be in violation of the Heller decision--that is, if the courts in those days believed in the concept of applying an amendment only meant for the federal government (as the framers intended). Yes, that's right, our beloved founding fathers were quite supportive of statist policing powers, and our first President of the US was so vociferous in his belief in abiding by federal taxes that were imposed without expressed consultation of the Constitution that he (and our first Secretary of Treasury) temporarily activated himself to militarily crush the whiskey rebellion. And I need not remind you of slavery, which was in actuality perfectly in keeping with market libertarian principles, since it was an institution that was predicated on individual private ownership (and why the descendants of those owners and the people who fought for their interests in the 19th century are such supporters of your most cherished freedom-loving causes today). I give credit to Ron Paul for at least publicly supporting these people. He is more honest than the average politician and at least more blunt in stating it than his uncertified son.

And lastly, getting back to the private sector, you need to send notice to your comrades in the banking, oil, and real estate industry, the ones still in business, of what a fine, efficient, market-enhancing job they have done these last few years. Because of them, you get to delude yourself into thinking that paying a 10% tax to give yourself skin cancer is the new Maoism.