Change Yes, Ron Paul No

[statusquobuster]

Change Yes, Ron Paul No

Joel S. Hirschhorn

Americans want a real political leader, a real change agent. Ron Paul has never been a change agent. He is a change-talker. His claim to fame is voting against legislation, not writing bold legislation to produce change that actually became law.

Ron Paul’s obnoxious supporters like more traditional political activists can spin and delude themselves about election results. But the Iowa caucus results could not be clearer: The vast national desire for political change is manifesting itself through support for both Democratic and Republican change-candidates. Despite Paul being flush with money and having a large number of workers in Iowa, he was solidly rejected as the leading change agent.

Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses. They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.

On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.

On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place. That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points). Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.

In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000. So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa. Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent

Edwards was absolutely correct when he summed things up this way: “The one thing that is clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won.”

With all the hoopla from Paul supporters about younger people being for Paul, that’s not what the Iowa results showed. Younger people seeking change and inspiration flocked to Obama, in particular. There was no demographic in Iowa that overwhelmingly went for Paul. Sure, Paul beat Giuliani, but Paul’s effort in Iowa was much bigger than Giuliani’s.

None of these results will impact Paul’s supporters nationwide. Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote a great article on Alternet.org: “Ron Paul is Scary, But Those Who Cheer Him Are Even Scarier.” He was right when he said: “The scariest thing about GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd-ball racial views. It is that people take him seriously.” But now Iowa has thankfully shown that the vast majority of Americans, especially those seeking political change, reject Paul.

After losing badly in Iowa Paul said: “The other candidates talk about tinkering with the status quo. We don’t want to tinker; we want to change the status quo.” He said that his campaign is on the upswing and gaining support among independents, frustrated Republicans and unhappy Democrats. Just one very big problem: The Iowa results show that all these people are much more likely to vote for other Democratic and Republican change-candidates.

Paul’s supporters claim that he will do much better in New Hampshire where Libertarian Party members hold a number of offices. I don’t think so. Several polls taken before the Iowa results found Paul at just 5 to 9 percent. Will Paul get a big boost from Iowa? I don’t think so. Paul had predicted he could finish in third place in Iowa, and many of his supporters think he will do that in New Hampshire. I don’t think so. Paul will likely finish fifth in New Hampshire, in large part because more independents will go to Obama and McCain.

When Paul first ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, he won just 0.54 percent of the vote. Iowa shows that his second presidential bid will not produce much better results. Paul is definitely not tapping in a major way into the national populist movement, major desire for political change, anti-status quo sentiment, or even the anti-Iraq war issue. Clearly, other Democratic and Republican change-candidates are doing much better. This reality will not affect Paul’s passionate, cult-like followers that are solidified like cement in their belief that Paul can and should be our next president, something that Paul himself probably never really believed.

Most Americans can appreciate what Paul’s supporters cannot see: Paul is a change talker who has never shown any capabilities to be a real leader and a real change agent. His supporters are too clouded by self-delusion to honestly question and understand why the vast majority of Americans seeking political change reject Paul. They want a revolution and so do I. Whether any of the current crop of presidential candidates can produce a much needed Second American Revolution is doubtful. Still, we must keep seeking it.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through _www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]

 

[sHiZo963]

Are you serious? Obama and Huckabee are REAL 'change candidates'?

 

[Laura]

Are you serious? Obama and Huckabee are REAL 'change candidates'?

Good question. Thing is, Fundie Ron Paul is a worse possibility out of a field of no-goodniks.

 

[Bernhard]

The sad thing is that here in the US most people think that just the fact that Bush has to leave means that things will get "better".

Everyone wants change but no one is looking deep enough or "behind the curtain", so they project their ideals and hopes(based on whishful thinking) on the various candidates promising that "change". It's like a never ending cylce of projection.
On another note, how can you make a right "choice" if you don't even know yourself?

 

[mifune]

It's disappointing that there is no good solution in politics... even someone like Ron Paul, who seems to be on the right track, in the end doesn't pan out.

On the other hand, this Joel S. Hirschhorn guy seems to be a member of the Leftwing Gatekeeper crowd. COINTELPRO and the 12th Protocol (Control of the Media) run rampant.

About the author:
Joel S. Hirschhorn has been widely published; his previous book is Sprawl Kills - How Blandburbs Steal Your Time, Health and Money. He has published many articles and oped pieces in major newspapers (Washington Post, New York Times, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune) and on progressive web sites such as CommonDreams, The Progress Report, SmirkingChimp and Opednews; Google Joel S. Hirschhorn to see his writings and achievements and see link below. Before becoming a writer and consultant, he was a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress (Office of Technology Assessment), Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources at the National Governors Association, a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and head of an environmental consulting company.

http(colon)(slash)(slash)www(dot)delusionaldemocracy.com/

 

[sHiZo963]

Thing is, Fundie Ron Paul is a worse possibility out of a field of no-goodniks.

"Fundie" as in religious fundamentalist or strict constitutionalist (both are in essence 'fundamentalist')?

If the former, he's made it clear he wouldn't impose his views at the federal level. Plus, he's no Evangelical crusader like Huckabee; Ron Paul's Statement of Faith is, I think, as far as he's ever went in terms of publicly stating his religious views. The anti-abortion stance stems largely from his OB/GYN practice and even in this case he's against federal regulation either way.

If the latter, adherence to the Constitution would go far to 'change' things for the better in both the short (get US troops out of Iraq and elsewhere, stop US aid to Israel, etc) and long (dismantling of the Federal Reserve system) terms, OSIT.

May I ask what you mean by "worse possibility"? As far as I know, Ron Paul is the most (only?) anti-establishment/NWO presidential candidate. He's an Outsider in Washington, as Henry See's article elucidates.

I'm not discounting the possibility that this is all part of the circus show that in the end follows a strict PTB agenda.

Also, it IS true that there are many people who put in way too much hope into Ron Paul's candidacy, thinking he'll "save" America and thus themselves; even Ron Paul says that "freedom means responsibility" though I see many of his supporters tend to ignore this part. As such, I truly don't think mainstream America is ready for the kind of libertarian change that Ron Paul represents. However, given the big picture, I do not see how he would be a "worse possibility" than what the other candidates represent, which is a fast road to all-out fascism, genocide, and global enslavement.

Edited to add replies to mifume and Bernhard:

It's disappointing that there is no good solution in politics... even someone like Ron Paul, who seems to be on the right track, in the end doesn't pan out.

Any system, whether political, social, or [edit 2: educational] that is devised by people who are 'asleep' will never be a "good solution." Add in the influence of the pathocrats, and what you get are systems that are doomed to fail...

On another note, how can you make a right "choice" if you don't even know yourself?

Exactly!

 

[Joe]

Thing is, Fundie Ron Paul is a worse possibility out of a field of no-goodniks.

"Fundie" as in religious fundamentalist or strict constitutionalist (both are in essence 'fundamentalist')?

If the former, he's made it clear he wouldn't impose his views at the federal level. Plus, he's no Evangelical crusader like Huckabee; Ron Paul's Statement of Faith is, I think, as far as he's ever went in terms of publicly stating his religious views. The anti-abortion stance stems largely from his OB/GYN practice and even in this case he's against federal regulation either way.

He went a little further back in December 2003. At least then he seemed to be seriously deluded about Christianity and the way the Bush government uses it to garner supporters among the population:

http://www.thepoliticsreport.com/2007/12/the-war-on-religion-by-ron-paul

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs.

Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. [...]

Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.

This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state.

Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

Joe

 

[Hildegarda]

Good question. Thing is, Fundie Ron Paul is a worse possibility out of a field of no-goodniks.

I too am surprised at how many people think that Ron Paul is the best thing since sliced bread. He does vocally oppose the war in Iraq, but I don't think it is enough to make him a good president.

First, some of his references to the Constitution are debatable, as is his statement that the Founding Fathers were religious people. I don't believe they were -- their world view was that of liberal protestantism in the tradition of Enlightment, they certainly weren't "fundies" in the modern sense, although there is quite a lot of revisionist attempts from the religious conservatives to blur the distinction. And second, the Constitution itself isn't necessarily the gold standard in morality and ethics. It's just a very pragmatic backbone of a legalistic, capitalist society (which explains the need for amendments and such, that would be more concerned about PEOPLE as opposed to property and wealth). However, Ron Paul sticks it as if it were a dogma, and I think that this attitude is too primitive and rigid.

Lastly, there is IMO something in general very wrong in the modern conservative and libertarian position. To put it simply, it is stuck in a past of about 20-50 years ago, and doesn't correspond to the modern realities. Their main boogey man is "socialism" -- the scary government that will control everybody's private life Soviet-style via totalitarian ideology and planned economy. In realty, there was never a chance for such a "socialism" in America; the word "socialist" here is applied to any initiative, however small, that aims to redistribute wealth -- and frankly, it was a mighty mind job to convince the majority of people here that they, no matter how uninsured and debt-ridden, are among the RICH and will not benefit from it.

In any case, it has passed unnoticed by the conservative and libertarians that the model for the NWO has been upgraded more than 20 years ago from the centralized Orwellian (Soviet-type) into, one may say, Dickian -- unstable, ideologically disjointed but interconnected virtually, united by entertainment, consumerism and corporate control. They are still afraid of the big Soviet-style government that will take away their money and (gasp!) put their children into a free preschool, whereas they should be afraid of the government that gives them nothing, no services or any social support, but instead protects the interests and the privacy (i.e., the profits) of the big corporations that are out to fleece and enslave everybody.

OSIT,

 

[Hildegarda]

Sure, Paul beat Giuliani, but Paul’s effort in Iowa was much bigger than Giuliani’s.

oh yes: Giuliani, apparently, did zero campaigning in Iowa. His campaign "follows an unusual strategy" of targeting only the bigger states that make their decision later in the game. He is planning to go for the coasts, which means that (sadly) he isn't necessarily out of the game yet.

 

[PopHistorian]

Paul says churches teach "morality and civility" -- that's a stretch -- maybe within each's exclusive clique. It seems improbable that even if he was somehow raised to apply those things to all equally, that he would be so clueless about the actual messages of churches. A big blind spot for sure. Given the bit Joe quoted, he appears fundie in both a Christian and constitutional way. I've noted that he seems careful to delineate his beliefs and his policies, such as being against abortion but also against legislating it -- though I haven't heard him speak all that much. My understanding is that Paul voted to allow prayer in schools and "under God" in the US allegiance pledge. The operative word is "allow," which is in keeping with tolerance and freedom, but then so would be *allowing* torture. I'd be interested in what he has voted to disallow.

In an STS hierarchy, the top spot hardly seems designed for an allower or "non-decider." Paul is for drastically diminishing the federal hierarchy and returning control locally, but it seems to me that would be trading one hierarchy for a lot of little ones, each with its own petty tyrants. Psychos and authoritarians are everywhere. Makes one marvel at how 3D Earth is designed to teach us required, archtypal lessons no matter how we attempt to change it.

The negative possibilities of a Paul presidency are as endless as for anyone's. If we accept that presidents stay in the dark with regard to elite plans, a Paul presidency could bring on chaos and/or WWIII even faster in lots of ways. Imagine a post-inaugural, phony terror attack in the US and a president that won't heed the bloodlustful cries of his people to bomb someone for it, or who simply insists on the formality of Congress declaring war.

It all points out how our hierarchical social systems are designed to advantage STS and how Earth must be here, with it permanent fixtures of psychopaths and authoritarian personalities, for the purpose of learning lessons, personally and collectively -- not to try to fix. It seems to be what 3D living is all about. It also reminds me of what Ra said about service -- that there are many ways to serve as there are people, whether you become a teacher, a healer, a worker -- seeming to express that spiritual work is far more about one on one giving than it is about being a big shot trying to save the world. Did I get off track :)

 

[Mr. Premise]

While I agree with what people are saying, I would say that I think Paul's stance on the war is much better than just "being opposed" to it. He actually calls for the complete dismantling of the American Empire. Bringing all military forces back within the borders. If he actually had more than a snowball's chance in Hell of actually doing that, I could support him and ignore all the rest, but there is no way "they" would let anyone do that. Presidents have a VERY narrow range of foreign policy choices available to them, stray and you're dead.

Good question. Thing is, Fundie Ron Paul is a worse possibility out of a field of no-goodniks.

I too am surprised at how many people think that Ron Paul is the best thing since sliced bread. He does vocally oppose the war in Iraq, but I don't think it is enough to make him a good president.


OSIT,

 

[PopHistorian]

I think to get the American people to dismantle the empire, he'd have to go on a program of heavy-duty education/propaganda/opinion-swaying (whatever you want to call it), lecturing on TV daily, surrounding himself with "experts" that back up his view, and insisting on a vote when the time was right. But, how could anyone get away with doing that? I don't see it.

Paul talked ethics again at the ABC debate last night (to be re-broadcast on CNN tonight), invoking the "Golden Rule," at which the other candidates just chuckled and shook their heads like a baby was talking. It did make the others lie very openly, though, stating unequivocally (particularly Giuliani) that US foreign policy had nothing at all to do with hostility against the US from Islamists. Very polarizing.

I also happened to note, on the Dem side, that H. Clinton articulated perfectly her support of the Bush Doctrine: kill if you're afraid. She outlined, very plainly, that she would associated stateless terrorism with the state out of which they operate and hold that state accountable. Horrific. What if the state is unaware? What if there are ten states? What about US harboring terrorists (which it allegedly does, against Cuba, for example)? This opinion went unchallenged.

 

[CarpeDiem]

i was reading a heck lot of blogs recently, and more i read, lesser and lesser grasp how anyone even having the best prof team to cover one's back dreams to elicit any societal change at all without thorough understanding of full range spectrum of human psychology, primarily impact of deviant minority on where humanity finds itself now. Did Ron Paul read Hare, Stout and Lobazcewski? Who is in his endorsing team, people who stand behind him - who are they? And those who stand behind those who stand behind him - who are they?
and how can one change anything outside without cleaning inside first? But then, can a flying hawk be a president of a pank of blind sleepers in a muddy soil?

 

[Mr. Premise]

Last fall Clinton actually attacked Obama for not saying he would use tactical nuclear weapons against terrorist enclaves. And no one has called her either completely insane or evil for proposing this.

Paul talked ethics again at the ABC debate last night (to be re-broadcast on CNN tonight), invoking the "Golden Rule," at which the other candidates just chuckled and shook their heads like a baby was talking. It did make the others lie very openly, though, stating unequivocally (particularly Giuliani) that US foreign policy had nothing at all to do with hostility against the US from Islamists. Very polarizing.

I also happened to note, on the Dem side, that H. Clinton articulated perfectly her support of the Bush Doctrine: kill if you're afraid. She outlined, very plainly, that she would associated stateless terrorism with the state out of which they operate and hold that state accountable. Horrific. What if the state is unaware? What if there are ten states? What about US harboring terrorists (which it allegedly does, against Cuba, for example)? This opinion went unchallenged.

 

[PopHistorian]

Oops, it looks like Ron Paul's cover has been blown -- I read it on the innernets. This page here says he's a "White Knight," which is Alien Agenda code for someone working for hostile alien Faction 3, led by Hatonn. His mission is "to eliminate our government in the current form and bring in NESARA," the political agenda of The Beast!

Sherry Shriner writes:

I knew when I heard Ron Paul was pro-gay marriage I smelled a rat. (they're all pro-homosexual in the Alien Agenda as they portray themselves as pretty boys from the Galactic Federation and Ashtar Command as Ascended Masters). Ron Paul is listed as one of their own...a "White Knight"

_http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/ron.htm

If that ain't proof enough, there's a whole radio-show episode dedicated to the topic! _http://www.sherrytalkradio.com/archives/9-03-07.mp3 8|

If this doesn't convince you, go to YouTube and search on KoranPaul, which offers proof that he's a fascist defeatist in league with the terrorists. :o