Good evening again, Doug!
I've tried to stay out of this discussion, largely because I
differ a great deal with both your sentiments, and the statements
already made by Mr. Pahl. I do, however, share with you that the
chances of Ron Paul getting much attention in the 2008 GOP
primary largely reflects your reflection that you would probably
do about as well. Enough said on that.
Douglas Friedman wrote to Travis Pahl...
Travis Pahl wrote
True, but I'm not sure that applies to me. There are so many issues on
which I disagree with Ron Paul that I could not vote for him in good
conscience. For starters, it is clear that he is not merely anti-foreign
aid (a viewpoint I share to a degree) but anti-Israel, which in and of
itself would make it hard for me to back him. I also believe he is an
anti-Semite, so I wouldn't vote for him on that basis. I'm pro-choice on
abortion and he's pro-life, but that isn't that big an issue for me.
You have just stated the chief reasons WHY I did not get into
this discussion earlier, since I largely support (with very few
exceptions) an end to meddling and supplying foreign aid unless
it can be clearly demonstrated that US interest in doing so is
vital to US interests. I also happen to believe that the tragedy
of the US Trade Center attacks in New York bears out my fears of
needlessly involving US foreign policy, aid and support in
matters that clearly DO NOT involve critical US interests.
If Ron Paul, by the way, is anti-Israel, please share with me and
others here why you believe that to be the case... I'm just
curious how you came to that conclusion. And, anti-Semite too...
I haven't been aware that he is, or has given anyone the reason
to believe that he is... again, another reason why I didn't want
to jump into this sordid discussion.
I happen to be a pro life Libertarian, so I don't in that
instance have any particular issue with Ron Paul in that regard.
This isn't particularly a major issue on whether or not I would
support Ron Paul either, so at least in that sense, I don't
believe we have any major disagreement.
I think Paul is totally clueless when it comes to foreign matters, the
most clueless person to seek the White House since Jimmy Carter, who was
either the worst or 2nd worst president we ever had (depending on how
much you blame the Civil War on James Buchanan's incompetence), and
also, not coincidentally, an anti-Semite as well.
I would only suggest here that our own foreign policy is largely
either clueless, or doesn't give a damn (whichever the case may
be), pertaining to vital US interests in terms of security,
economics, or our late imperialistic tenancies. In these
matters, strictly upon the merits of the argument itself, I
believe Ron Paul does have a standard to judge such matters,
probably a hundred times better than the present administration
does, with the possible exception of the former Secretary of
State Colin Powell, and the present Secretary of State, Condi
Rice (the later of which will probably suffer from the fallout of
a failed foreign policy since she has been and is so loyal to the
current administration and its plethora of tremendous foreign
policy blunders).
While there are some issues on which Ron Paul and I would agree, there
have been many others over the years where I have disagreed with him. I
do not think he is intellectually up to the job either. Not only do I
think he has no chance of winning the job, I don't think he deserves it.
My question here is, intellectually, who could be worse than the
present status quo occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, or Ron
Paul? You've given reason to question whether the GOP can really
come up with any warm body to contend with Hillary Clinton in
2008 -- by the way, she's conning America with her recent and
historical hawkish support of the war on terror.
Up until very recently, I've been hoping that the move to draft
Condi Rice at the 2008 GOP Convention might be something that
might gain greater wide support, particularly if Hillary Clinton
continues to command the leading role of Democrat contenders; but
with the roasting Condi endured yesterday in legislative session
largely controlled by the Democrat majority, but also abetted by
GOP reservationalists, Condi's chances of being seriously
considered for the top job is becoming something to be
questioned. I wish this were NOT the case! Reality suggests
however that this play out, as it were, probably will be... she
will go down with the sinking ship. That will be a tragedy,
since she is largely the brains behind the present
administrations foreign policy.
Having said that, I doubt if she would privately go along with a
lot of the foreign policy blunders that have marked the present
Administration in power. She goes along mainly as an apologist
for the Administration in which she has admittedly played a
significant role, but she is duty bound to support this
Administration in power, whether she might disagree with ultimate
choices this President has decided to pursue, even if she might
intuitively and privately oppose such choices.
I know that I've drifted away here, some of that by design, to
shift this discussion hopefully into something significantly
more. I doubt personally if Ron Paul is anti-Semite, or
anti-Israel. Maybe I just haven't read enough into the man to
make such a judgement. At the same time, reality seems to
dictate and suggest that changing the course of US foreign,
social and economic policy in a significant and positive way will
require finding someone who has a grasp upon principle.
Ronald Reagan at least campaigned upon principle and won
eventually! So, principle doesn't always do damage over against
expediency insofar as winning political office, even the highest
office of the land.
Unless shown otherwise, I would certainly support Ron Paul's
efforts, evening admitting this is a very long, long shot at
achieving the goal of getting the man elected!
This country is faced with a lot of tragedy at this very moment
in time. I'm not talking about terrorist threats as such,
either. The real tragedy here is that principle is no longer the
guiding role in which our present society has an ability to
grasp. We talk about such things as liberty and freedom. We are
the most enslaved society presently in western civilization. We
seem to have no coherent notion about how to define the very
words that we use, such as liberty and freedom. We are a
civilization in slavery to fear, regulation, and total government
control even other or thoughts and means of expressing such thoughts.
This, my friends ought to be what we are really talking about
tonight.
Warmest regards,
Frank
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
