Ron Paul Picks Up Two Key Endorsements

« Sunday Night Journal — 11/25/2007

The Politics of Fear or the Politics of Hope? »

Ron Paul Picks Up Two Key Endorsements

November 27, 2007 by Daniel Nichols

A Catholic, and a brothel owner.

At long last, I’ve found my bumper sticker:

PAPISTS AND WHOREMONGERS FOR PAUL.

(Seriously, the article linked to the word "Catholic" above is worth reading.)

–Maclin Horton

About these ads

Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments

13 Responses

on November 28, 2007 at 2:52 pm | Reply random dude

That ought to make old Governor Winthrop sit up in his grave.
on November 29, 2007 at 9:33 am | Reply Jeremiah

Kucinich recently told a small crowd that if he is nominated he wil consider Paul as his VP. Read about it here:

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/11/if_kucinich_wins_nomination_ro.html

I wonder if Paul would accept and how Paul advocates would take this. Well, let me ask, what do you all think?

Some friends of mine have been discussing it here:

http://atomsandideas.thefriars.net/?p=271
on November 29, 2007 at 10:54 am | Reply Daniel Nichols

I think Mr Kucinich has it backwards; Dr Paul’s campaign has generated a lot more enthusiasm and interest across the board than his, which appeals to a pretty small coterie of leftists. Kucinich is speaking truths that no other Democrat is speaking, but his chance of winning the nomination is nil.
He should be coming to Dr Paul, hat in hand, begging for a place on the ticket.
And while I hope Dr Paul chooses someone who will appeal to left libertarians and populists for veep, I don’t think Kucinich is the man; he seems more of a big government type of liberal.
on November 29, 2007 at 11:19 am | Reply Thomas Storck

While I am supporting Ron Paul (I just switched my registration from non-partisan so I could vote for him in the Republican primary), I cannot entirely agree with Tom Woods. Woods is a fanatic supporter of the free market, and, at least in the past, expressed his opinion that the popes have no business meddling in economics, especially as their statements are at variance with the opinions of Thomas Woods and other libertarians. Unfortunately we lack a strong set of intermediate institutions, such as the medieval guilds were, to regulate the economy, and until we have such, a strong government role in the economy is often necessary to prevent injustices. I agree that this often violates subsidiarity, but we have a choice of two evils here: A free market which preys on ordinary people, or government regulation which often violates the principle of subsidiarity in its regulatory activity.
on November 29, 2007 at 11:46 am | Reply Daniel Nichols

I tend to agree, Tom. In Dr Paul’s defense, while he too is a free market ideologue he does not define this by supporting the corporate state, the increasing alliance of big business and big government. He opposes government subsidies and tax breaks for corportions, and is himself less indebted to corporate money than anyone running. He refuses, for example, to accept corporate campaign contributions. His sympathies are clearly with small business and decentralization in general. So what at first appears troubling, when examined, actually looks better than the alternatives.
It is similar with environmntal issues. Dr Paul gets low ratings by environmental groups, but when examined it becomes clear that this is because he always votes against granting greater federal power and is skeptical that bureaucratic structures are effective.
On his website he addresses “the environment” in terms of property rights, not at first glance a promising approach. But what he says is that while one may have the right to build a factory on one’s own property, if that means polluting the air your neighbor breathes or the water he drinks it is criminal, a concept that if taken to its logical conclusion could have pretty radically green implications.
A lot of people are supporting Dr Paul for a lot of conflicting reasons. I am supporting the same candidate as the ideologue Thomas, the Nevada brothel owner, the pro-pot lobby, the antitax crowd and a host of others.
But I have long held that any movement to take back America would have to be very broadly based. I never thought I would see a candidate that had the potential to appeal to a wide enough range of Americans, but now I have.
on November 29, 2007 at 3:46 pm | Reply Daniel Nichols

And hooray; I just learned that an independent can vote in the primary, so long as he has not voted in a Democratic primary in the last 3 years.
on November 29, 2007 at 5:44 pm | Reply Maclin Horton

Cut it out, Daniel–you’re causing me to experience sensations of optimism. Can’t have that.
on November 29, 2007 at 6:35 pm | Reply Daniel Nichols

Dig in, Maclin, but there is reason for hope.
on November 29, 2007 at 11:05 pm | Reply Christopher Zehnder

Maclin,

I think we pessimists can at least act like optimists, this time at least. And, who knows? Virtue comes by acting for the good against our inclinations. At least we won’t be disappointed if and when our doubts are proven right. We’ll just fall again into the old, comfortable, pessimist groove. And if Herr Dr. Paul wins, we will still find enough reasons to exercise our pessimism. So, it’s a win-win situation for us, no?
on November 30, 2007 at 12:38 pm | Reply Maclin Horton

But wait–I don’t like the sound of “win-win.” Wouldn’t win-win be bad for a pessimist? Would a Ron Paul victory be a defeat for pessimism, and therefore a victory for it?
on November 30, 2007 at 1:00 pm | Reply Christopher Zehnder

… And if a victory, then a defeat? I suppose the optimistic pessimist would hope it ended in defeat; the pessimistic pessimist, in a victory.
on November 30, 2007 at 6:16 pm | Reply Daniel Nichols

Are you becoming pessimistic about the future of your pessimism?
on November 30, 2007 at 7:49 pm | Reply Christopher Zehnder

I don’t know about Maclin, but I hope so.