The rEVOLution Will Not Come from the Grand Old Party

Prior to that line I quoted, Romney actually declared that our government has been liberal since 1980. So he didn't include Jimmy Carter, but he did include Reagan and both Bushes.

Yikes..

The entire Romney speech was just off

This may be way off topic, but don't these guys have hordes of professional speech writers who massage their every word so the politicians don't cock it up completely.

Adam Hobson,

Great article! What I found interesting after listening to Mitt Romney, is when he jokingly said he was hoping it was him delivering the presidential acceptance speech, instead of John McCain. But in essence, I believe this is the way Romney actually felt when delivering and still feels, though he tried to camouflage it in joke and with claims that he wholeheartedly endorses McCain and feels good about the VP choice. Romney lack of enthusiasm, unorganized and poorly delivered speech, is representation of how he truly feels about McCain, being used by McCain and manipulated into believing he was going to be the VP choice and wasn't, and then replaced with an unknown woman named Sarah Palin. I don't believe Romney wanted to deliver a speech, let alone, attend the convention. Perhaps he did attend and say something (though unenthusiastically), because he was looking towards the future, with in mind the support he would need from the republican base to win, should he run for President again in four years.

Wait, wait, wait. Where in the Constitution do non-citizens have the same rights to due process as citizens? Maybe I'm just ignorant?

Where in the constitution does it award rights only to citizens?

More importantly, the Constitution doesn't award rights at all, it recognizes them.

REALITY has a liberal bias!

Wait, wait, wait. Where in the Constitution do non-citizens have the same rights to due process as citizens? Maybe I'm just ignorant?

I have to disagree with the above commenters. Due process is a legal right, not a moral right. As to where it is granted to non-citizens, it's in the 14th amendment.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What it does first is say who is a citizen - anyone born here or naturalized. Next, it says no state shall deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property without due process. The person is very important there. It's important because they did not say citizen. Had they said citizen, then that right would apply only to citizens, but instead they extended it as broadly as possible to persons. It is also clear that this is the right reading because first they say states shall not abridge the privileges of citizens (which includes due process) and next they add on a similar due process protection for any other persons who didn't fit in the citizen category - which can only be non-citizens.

I hope the jingo fascists read your comment Brian.

More importantly, the Constitution doesn't award rights at all, it recognizes them.

Here here! The Constitution deals with negative rights, not positive rights. Somewhere along the way, most politicians have forgotten that.

Fair enough. I was honestly purely curious, and found myself ignorant to the specifics. Some of you people get so hostile, constantly reminding me why American politics is so broken.

I'm not sure if starting a new party would do it - Look who the libertarian party nominated. Liberty, Ron Paul ideas, are so simple and beautiful that the primary task is to educate people about them.

Look how even Glenn Beck showed Completely uncharacteristic respect for the good doctor, when he came on his show. This man... has gone from calling Ron Paul a terrorist, to completely agreeing on his views except saying he disagrees with the "rapidity" of withdrawing from Iraq, though then goes on to say he agrees with the founder's nonintervention.

Clearly the ideas are powerful if you're able to enact a near-total philosophic transformation in someone who used to be 100% D-bag, like Hannity or Limbaugh.

Jivatman,

you need to separate out Economics from Governance. You are mixing them a bit.

Hobson writes two exemplary articles about the Rally for the republic, the first with great analysis of all of the speakers, and expressed clear disdain for both political parties.

Yet all you can do is accuse Adam is completely ignore every single point he's trying to further, accuse him of being a shill for Obama, and try to force him to state a preference for one of the two.

Newsflash: Political Parties are not Sports Teams, as much as you want to devolve this conversation into Ad Hominem attacks onto the candidates, we would rather discuss ideas.

politicalcenter,

Adam - Not seen your response to whether you are voting for Obama. But this article is aimed at convincing people to do so. The entire set of speeches from everyone related to McCain were completely about a revolution and Change. The right type of change. Perhaps Romney (I disagree with your take on Guiliani) is for the conservativism of old. But he was rejected as a running mate. Now you and everyone else know why.

I believe Adam is only trying provide insight without offering any opinions that could be easily misinterpreted as bias ones by readers, and is seeking our viewpoints It is possible he is still an undecided voter or will not vote for either candidate. If he did decide on a candidate, the objective of the article is not to disclose this choice to us either.

Another thing, I realize 'to hate' is strong language, but by far strong enough to express the sentiments I have for Giuliani and some of his entourage.

PC,

Adam supports privatizing everything, abolishing HMOs that hide the true cost from the individual, getting rid of perpetual incorporation, etc.

He is a true libertarian capitalist. If you have a disagreement with him, it is not because he is of the wrong economics, it is because he is of the wrong governance (libertarian). What does that make you then?

Adam supports privatizing everything, abolishing HMOs that hide the true cost from the individual, getting rid of perpetual incorporation, etc.

Everyone hates HMOS, sayings that they are a "Free Market Solution" and need to be abolished. In fact, they were created in the HMO act of 1973. Prior to that, we had our great american tradition of fraternal organizations from which most americans received their health benefits. We had many hospitals that knew that had to provide a certain amount of free healthcare, supported by donations, and/or excess profits.

That was, of course, until the government added HMOS, medicare/medicaid, ect. and clusterf**cked what was once indisputably the best healthcare system in the world.

HMOs were a way to bring profit to medicine. Kind of a backwards way to make money, by denying care to sick people.

Free markets do not have to be mutualy exclusive from single payer healthcare.
I wrote this article talking about just that issue.

Adam - Did you miss McCain's speech?

Behind - HMOs and other mechanisms are not against the free market. They are some of the manifestations of a free market fettered by health care restraints that I began studying in the 1970s for the AHA. There is a lot of mess in markets these days because of federal regulation. But I do not mind health care changes as long as we bite the bullet and just nationalize the mess. One or the other. The fake in betweens destroy efficiencies and result in dislocations in service quality, quantity, and diversity. None work in a real free market, and even more regulation and manipulation will drive prices even higher.

Adam - I said fettered with restraints. No contradiction.

It is not a free market though. You can't have a free market if it is fettered by regulations.

that is like calling China "Democracy fettered by authoritarianism".

I never said it was a free market. You and Adam apparently said I said that, though. In fact, I said

There is a lot of mess in markets these days because of federal regulation.

As you know, federal regulation normally means no free market.

A Viney?

Sorry about that...but I agree.

Whether one agrees with the assertions or not, some of the information here is well written, informative, and found nowhere else .

And he is for Liberty.

Libertarianism is not a dead end, intellectually, and Ayn Rand did not initiate its "first principals"

Libertarianism is not a dead end, intellectually, and Ayn Rand did not initiate its "first principals"

I really dislike Ayn Rand, and I think Lao Tzu was the first Libertarian, and about half of the Tao Te Ching was a Libertarian political treatise. I could show about a dozen quotes on it from topics such as noninterventionalism, but one of my favorites:

When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"

rand was a corporatist in libertarian clothing.

Adam, I can assure you I'm quite aware of both the origins of modern "libertarianism" and the oft-confusing mush it comes packaged in with someone like Ron Paul. Paul's positions on the Fed and the gold standard versus fiat currency don't make any sense at all in today's world since the entire global financial market is based on the fiat currency model and a unilateral US return to the gold standard would hamstring the government's ability to stabilize the financial markets and likely turn what might be called mild recessions into something far more serious. It's also reactionary and somewhat neo-mercantilist as any such move would spark a huge run on bullion. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I will agree with you that the Republican Party talks a good game when it comes to smaller government and holding the line on spending (especially as practiced by Bush and the 109th Congress), but to suggest that the Pauline model holds promise is quite frankly baffling to me intellectually. The truth is people generally like big government, they just don't like the parts that they don't see benefitting them personally and they're not wild about paying for it either.

The truth is people generally like big government, they just don't like the parts that they don't see benefitting them personally and they're not wild about paying for it either.

Quite correct. The vast majority of American's favor big government because they want either to spend other people's money or to run other people's lives. However, the fact that it's a true statement doesn't change the fact that it is also reprehensible. You confuse what's popular or easy with what is right.

However, as we see currently, government is not the solution to a healthy economy, but is instead causing a recession.

I disagree, and I know I'll catch hell for saying this, but I think President Clinton's view prevails. Government is neither the problem nor the solution, it's simply a tool. You get out of it what you put into it.

Recessions are caused by many things that are out of the government's control, but even then, it isn't the fault of government it's the fault of the people running it. Blaming the institution is a very simple way of avoiding responsibility. Politicians blame government like it has a mind of its own, rather than taking responsibility for making the decisions that resulted in the problems. Voters blame government rather than taking the blame for putting incompetent people in charge of it.

"Big government bad" is a shell game.

Recessions are caused by many things that are out of the government's control

True, and exacerbated by the government attempting to control things that it can't, and has no business controlling even if it could.

"Big government bad" isn't an attempt to blame the institution. It is a simple statement of fact that the very same incompetent people you refer to have usurped control of things they don't legitimately have and are causing serious damage.

Politicians blame government like it has a mind of its own, rather than taking responsibility for making the decisions that resulted in the problems.

True, but only a partial truth. Politicians blame many things, often for problems that don't really exist, so that they can continue making those bad decisions. It's all about job security.

The truth is people generally like big government, they just don't like the parts that they don't see benefitting them personally and they're not wild about paying for it either.

I too see this. They like the notion of an almost omnipotent body that is supposed to take responsibility and make things right for them (and take the blame when things go wrong). Americans talk about democracy, but how many of them would hack it in a country like Switzerland where a certain amount of voting happens quarterly? It seems that democracy, capitalism, and any other American virtue is, in the eyes of most Americans, immensely subordinate to convenience and security from perceived threats.

I'm sorry to say this, but it's where I currently am on this thought. If the desire for convenience and security is closer to American hearts than are the principles observed in the Constitution, our belief in self-determination would mandate that they be allowed to have it. If this is the case, I'd at least like them to stop confusing the issue with talk of constitutional principles. Regardless, this thought is what has me researching other countries in which to raise my family.

Regardless, this thought is what has me researching other countries in which to raise my family.

sadly my wife wont even talk to me about it

i really am done with this country, it causes me too much pain(in my heart, for now not physically)

Oprah == Government?

Some would think so...

The public might be able to browbeat Oprah into having Palin on the show, but are they also going to script Oprah's treatment of her? If Oprah doesn't like her, it's simply not going to be an unbiased interview. It's best to just let Oprah do her thing; viewers who don't like Oprah's refusal to interview Palin can refrain from watching Oprah's show.

Yeah, that's definitely true.

I have a couple of friends that are supporters of Ron Paul. I like a lot of his ideas and I think that they make sense.

Andrew,

We want people that will make all the changes with out fighting back and forth about them and make them great enough that they mean something more than rhetoric.

If you are a true pragmatist, then you have to make the choice for one of the major parties based on your priorities.

Adam, do you seriously want to try and make a case that it was wrong to intercede when Dear Leader's diddy tried to turn the southern half of Korea into another worker's "paradise"? Precisely how would such an eventuality have been in the interest of the United States?

Precisely how would such an eventuality have been in the interest of the United States?

While Adam certainly answered your question well, I have to ask, 'Precisely what business is it of the United States?' We clearly have enough issues getting our own house in order. Do we really have ego and gall to pretend we can run someone else's country better than they can, or better than we can our own?

The problem is substance. Yea, both parties have the talk, but both fail in the substance. Like I said before, the Republicans have been great at keeping tax increases away, but they've been an utter failure on managing government spending and keeping government small. Pork spending makes great speeches, but again it's just a minor fraction of total government spending.

True, but think of it like this. Say the Libertarian Party becomes popular and a major party. Politics in the US have shown that there are usually only two major parties at a time. So the GOP will fall, and suddenly you'll have a bunch of Republicans under the Libertarian tent. What then?

Iraq may be ending as we speak, but both parties continue to support the moral abomination that is preemptive wars. Iraq may end, but we'll have another one soon enough, just like we never learned from Vietnam or Korea.

Korea may have been a mistake. I dunno. All I know is that if it didn't happen, I wouldn't be here right now. I'd be slaving away on a Kim commie farm. Koreans are very thankful for America intervening. And that may have been a mistake militarily, but I need to say this: I thank God for the sacrifices of the United States Army and Harry S Truman.

Do we really have ego and gall to pretend we can run someone else's country better than they can, or better than we can our own?

You didn't. You just got the commies out so that we could run it.

Tax reform? The major parties are a joke. McCain and Obama only disagree with a grand total of 4.5% of tax rates. McCain still wants to keep the top tax rate at 35%, keep the middle class rate at 25%. Both candidates still support corporate taxes higher than most of Europe's, taxes that end up getting transferred down to the people.

But remember, McCain and the GOP are two very different things.

That is a good point Andrew. All those fascists will join the Libertarian party and totally corrupt it.

Griff

While Adam certainly answered your question well. . .

Uh, no, he's attempted to answer by citing some statistics masquerading as an argument. In point of historical fact, both Truman and Ike like Bush were advised to cut and run in Korea both by some Democrats and many Ron Paul-style Republicans and refused which resulted in the current state of affairs and also resulted in a free and prosperous S. Korea in a very important area of the globe.

But for the record I believe that it is high time that our entire national security apparatus, built on a no longer operative Cold War model, be reexamined and restructured. There is no earthly reason that the United States should be providing regional security for nations like S. Korea and the increasingly spineless EU that are quite capable of providing for it themselves. That said, Ron Paul's essential position of "sitting in the parlor, shades drawn, with a shotgun in your lap" might have made sense in the early 19th century but it sure does not in the early years of the 21st.

How does any of that change the fact that he did, quite clearly, explain how avoiding Korea would have been in our best interest? And nice dodge of my questions, by the way.

Bill, as griff pointed out, you explained why it was in S. Koreas best interests. Adam explained why it is was OUR best interests to stay out.

I agree that the cold war model of warfare is hindering us. We need a much higher focus on spec-ops where we drop guys in to take out a target and get out.

Look its hard for you gusy to accept but the electoral match is simple. Vote for Ron and your are helping ensure a McCain Victory. The GOP all but paid Nader to run last time, and his Pearl -Jam inspired votes would have given Kerry a clear victory. It would be great to have a legit Indie. We don't and you are in a masturbation fantasy if you don't see that.

I think you're confusing your third parties. The greens are to blame for all GOP victories. We're only accountable for all Dem victories...

See above.

Or consider this: could it be that candidates lose elections based on their positions (or lack thereof)? Would people be voting for Nader or Paul or whomever in such numbers if the two "real" parties were actually representing us?

Electo-Rama, you seem to be confused. Paul is no longer running for President.

Griff,

the only way to make a workable multi party system is to have proportional representation. Then people can vote their conscience and know that it will be heard in congress and the senate.

BMS, there are many systems that would work better than what we have now. Proportional representation is certainly one of them.

I agree Adam. Though a full repeal will not fix it since most states have added what amounts to the 17th amendment to their constitutions. Also, rather than the governor picking the senators, I think the State house should elect them and the state senate should affirm them. It gives more voice to the people but avoids the mob mentality and stupid political ad manipulation.

I would also be in support of the new proportional house electing the president. It is more parliamentary, but I think there are some good aspects about parliamentary type governance that we could use, like, getting congress to take its oversight seriously.

Is it just me or is a popular vote the only way to elect Senators that represent "the State"? I have yet to see any explanation that shows how a smaller group of people choosing the Senators will result in Senators that better represent the people of that state. Having the state legislature choose the Senators just further increases the power of gerrymandering, thus circumventing the actual will of the people.

The "state" is the people. Since both the state legislature and the governor are elected by the people, whoever chooses the US Senators will ultimately be representing people. The only difference is which people they represent, and whether they're representing all people in that state or just some of them.

You seem to think that the state governments want the federal government to do nothing. That's simply not true. They want the federal government to give them money, and so they will choose Senators who do just that. Exactly like the people as a whole. They might complain when that money comes with strings attached, but they'll take it just the same.

None of that is fixed by putting the choice of Senators in the hands of other politicians. The only thing that really changes is that the state legislature has the power to change the districts around to favor one party over another (like they've done in Texas), which in your system will also give them the same power to control who goes to the US Senate. It puts more power in the hands of political parties.

Also, thanks for writing and posting this. Great job!

I like Ron Paul also, but because he means what he says he will never get elected.

Are you saying that people don't like his particular message, or that a straight shooter in general has no place in the White House? Either way, your point is sad but true.

i posit that no one will ever become president again in this country(if it ever happened in the past, who knows) by telling the truth, EVER

we cannot as a country handle real honest to god truth, and ridicule it as soon as it pops it ugly head up(eg: dennis kucinich)

As an Independent voter with a libertarian philosophy, I supported Ron Paul because he tells the truth.

Self-centered people who believe others should starve in our streets.

The old false dichotomy of either embracing a massive government or else you hate people and want them to die. I believe in helping people. I believe the federal government has no role to play there. The two are not contradictory because there is more to life than government. Charity is the proper forum for charitable giving, not government.

I believe Otto went, and he supports McCain.

The old false dichotomy of either embracing a massive government or else you hate people and want them to die.

I never said this at all.

Perhaps you can explain:

But based on those I know who support him, he and they have no soul or beliefs. They are merely for the I and not for the we. In almost everything. Self-centered people who believe others should starve in our streets.

My contacts with Ron Paul people have taught me the following.

They believe in no social welfare at all.

They believe that you get what you kill.

They believe, not unlike the underground militia in many states including the one whose member bombed the building in Oklahoma City, that the federal government is inherently bad.

They believe in no government controls, apart from some criminal enforcement when deemed appropriate. They are therefore handmaidens for the anti-drug law crowd, saying it is up to the individual.

Their course in many things is tempting. But it is without heart.

We need some social welfare. Those I have met do not believe in this and have said that people on the streets should die.

I am not saying that this is Adam or any particular Ron Paul supporter. Perhaps even the majority do not believe these things.

Unlike Obama supporters, whose views I have studied and responded to since October, I have rarely been engaged by or studied Ron Paul. I did visit his website in the first quarter of this year when deciding who to vote for in this election if Obama won the nomination.

They believe in no social welfare at all. False. We believe in no government welfare. There are many forms of welfare which actually work, and don't involve extortion which are just fine.

They believe that you get what you kill. I have no idea what this means.

They believe, not unlike the underground militia in many states including the one whose member bombed the building in Oklahoma City, that the federal government is inherently bad. False. We believe that the federal government has legitimate functions, which are clearly defined in the Constitution, and it should keep to those legitimate functions.

They believe in no government controls, apart from some criminal enforcement when deemed appropriate. They are therefore handmaidens for the anti-drug law crowd, saying it is up to the individual. Controls on what? Everything in general? Then, yes, you are correct. See the previous point. Our government has limited, legitimate, defined functions. Controlling everything is not one of them.

Griff,

Anarchists do not believe any government (outside the group) is nessisary.

There are also other theories of governance for Anarchy, some are more interesting than others, but there are a lot fo Anarcho-Capitalists (and Anarcho-Socialists) who support Ron Paul.

And you believe they represent a large enough portion of Paul supporters that blanket statements such as #23.5 are valid?

We need some social welfare. Those I have met do not believe in this and have said that people on the streets should die.

Like I said, your position is "The old false dichotomy of either embracing a massive government or else you hate people and want them to die.". I can believe in charitable giving to help the poor, while not believing the government should do it.

It's odd for a supposed McCain supporter to complain about people who don't like social programs. You know McCain is a Republican, right? And you know that Republicans are generally opposed to government social programs like state health care, right?

According to Otto you're not a real Republican.

It seems that since the 80's "Real Republican" has come to mean "party first, principles and country last"

Ron Paul's ideas are the modern essence of the First American Revolution's Constitutional intent. It is not a liberal or conservative thing, it is a Freedom thing, and it begins at home. How can we "make the world safe for democracy" without being free ourselves? How can we inspire people living in foreign lands to adopt democratic ideals, other than at gunpoint? By being free, allying with none and trading with all. Lest these seem "fringe" ideas - just ask George - Washington, that is, not Bush. With time, what is politically "fringe" becomes policy - just look at unions, women's sufferage and civil rights.

You said it all, Chris.

This is why Ron Paul has inspired and captured the imagination of a lot of people.