Bil Browning

Ron Paul Is Running for Prez

Filed By Bil Browning | May 13, 2011 11:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: presidential campaign, presidential election 2012, Ron Paul

Since Ron Paul is older than Newt Gingrich, when the civil libertarian announced his candidacy for President of the United States this morning he didn't do it on that new-fangled Twitter box, dr_paul_highresolution_small.jpghe did it like a real Amurcan: He went on Good Morning America. Great. Does this mean we're going to be bombarded with comments from his disciples again like we were last election cycle?

The 75-year-old Paul, whose libertarian views and outspoken criticism of American foreign and monetary policy has often put him at odds with the GOP, made his announcement on ABC's "Good Morning America." Paul is expected to repeat his announcement of candidacy later Friday at a campaign event in Exeter, New Hampshire, where he's also expected to receive several endorsements.

This is Paul's third bid for the White House. He ran as a libertarian in 1988 and for the Republican nomination four years ago. His campaign in the last presidential election raised eyebrows, thanks to the energy and enthusiasm of his legions of supporters, and thanks to his online fundraising prowess.

I'm not sure which part of the CNN clip that's after the jump I love more. Paul's stumped look when the ABC host asks him why he's running or that CNN's anchor says he announced "the old fashioned way" by going on national television. Because that's what Lincoln did, you know.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Brad Bailey | May 13, 2011 1:50 PM

Ok, Bil. This is your website. If you don't want to hear from any Paul supporters, I'll abide by your wishes.

Ron will say and do anything to get votes thats his way of doing things.If he is also running for reelection to Congress look for his "White House" run to be just another extended version of that like last time.

Politics is a contact sport wit no rules!

Brad Bailey | May 13, 2011 6:37 PM

Whatever you say, Cathy.

Rick Sutton | May 13, 2011 9:31 PM

There are sane Ron Paul supporters? Really?

This kind of candidacy really bordfer son insane. But let him run. He. Trump, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman...let 'em all have at it.

Give 'em all the rope they need to hang themselves. Which is a lock-sure bet. Every damned time they open their mouths.

Brad Bailey | May 14, 2011 12:42 AM

You're right, Rick. All of us Ron Paul supporters are insane. Next?

After getting thrown under the bus by a lot of people on the organized left for the past decade or so, the idea of being able to buy estrogen off the shelf at Wal-Mart becomes sorta appealing to some trans folk. Not saying I support the congressman, but I believe his public stance on queer issues a lot more than Rep. Frank.

By the way, Bil ... "libertarian" is anyone who supports individual liberties; a "Libertarian" is someone who aligns himself with the Libertarian Party. Thus inside your quote box, second paragraph should read, "He ran as a Libertarian in 1988 ..." ... notice the upper-case "L". I can't tell whether this quote was lifted as text, or transcribed from an audio source, but someone got sloppy.

There are many big differences between a capital-L Libertarian and a small-L libertarian --- not the least one being that the former might be willing to do whatever it takes to get elected, the latter almost never so.

P.S. LGBT people could do worse than to have libertarian-minded leaders in their govt. Libertarians don't care about what you do in bed (within reason), many of them think the govt should not be in the "marriage" business at all, and generally they don't care how many wives, husbands, boyfriends, and/or girlfriends you have. Generally, they don't even care if you love being banged by your Great Dane -- as long as the dog likes it, too.

But don't expect the Libertarians to pass ENDA, hate crimes legislation, universal health care, or to pay for your sex reassignment surgery or for your HIV meds. And too many of them think that a capitalist economy can do no wrong even when it is totally unregulated.

So, as I've said before, Libertarians are a mixed bag to us -- a very mixed bag.

So, instead of hating us and fucking over the social programs many of us rely upon they're a group that is indifferent to us and fucks over the social programs many of us rely upon. Not much of an improvement.

Not that this matters because Paul isn't getting the GOP's nomination.

You are partly right, Vene -- but Libertarians are not indifferent to us (most of them) in any general sense, they just believe that individuals, gay and straight alike, should be totally self-sufficient.

And let's face it: even most liberals agree that it is better to be able to support yourself in every way needed than to need to rely on the government for this or that. That is not to say the social programs should not be there, that is to say that in the best society few people would need those social programs.

I mean, Vene ... if you had a magic genie, would you rather wish to receive all the govt benefits you need, or would you rather wish to be unbelievably rich?

Final note: By the way, although Libertarians believe your sex life is your business, there are some Christian Libertarians who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. When questioned, I have usually found that this is simply a religious prejudice that they find difficult to let go of -- and I have even debated a few into admitting this. Even so, Libertarians believe that ppl have their right to their prejudices, so I really accomplished nothing.

Not self-sufficient, interdependent, that's how society works. You are not self-sufficient. You rely upon others to make sure the air you breathe and the food you eat aren't toxic. You relied upon others to educate you. You rely upon others to keep crime down as low as possible. You may rely or have relied upon people to protect you and/or your assets in case of a fire. You may rely or have relied upon emergency medical help. Every single one of these are the antithesis to libertarianism (capital or lowercase). It's not just things like ENDA or food stamps.

You go out in the woods and be self-sufficient, I'll live in a society where I can specialize and do one job while other people do other jobs. And I am just fine with money I pay in taxes going to people who haven't had opportunities get a chance (things like students loans and pell grants) or to help people who are down on their luck (unemployment benefits, TANF, and food stamps), or even to just not be a heartless bastard and help people in need (SSDI).

"Every single one of these are the antithesis to libertarianism (capital or lowercase)."

No, you apparently still don't get the difference between "capital and lowercase" -- Libertarians may have extreme views regarding minimum govt, but they do at least believe that security (i.e., the military and local law enforcement) is a proper function of government.

Furthermore, libertarians (lower-case) do believe that the protection of individual rights are a proper function of government. The cornerstone for the American version of libertarianism (lower-case) is the Bill of Rights, followed closely by the rest of the US Constitution.

You appear to be over-demonizing libertarianism, both upper-case and lower -- we have the libertarians, small-L, among our forefathers to thank for the fact that we can speak and post on a blog such as Bilerico today.

BTW, I'm not a Libertarian, capital L, I'm just trying to explain what they are about. But I am a libertarian, small-L. By educating you, Vene, I aspire to wipe the rabid foam off your mouth -- but as the Libertarians would say, you had a right to be rapid if you insist on it as your alternative to understanding.

Sorry -- last sentence, meant to type "rabid" not "rapid".

@Vene; I agree entirely with your sentiments. And they are hardly rabid or lacking in understanding. Lower or uppercase, libertarianism is merely a euphemism for the, "I'm all right, Jack." attitude of selfishness and blind self-interest until they perceive themselves deserving -- without or without justifiable need.

Brad Bailey | May 15, 2011 1:58 PM

Vene, if you pay federal taxex, your money has also paid for the killing of over 900,000 innocent people in the Middle East. Twenty percent of federal taxes (over 600 billion last year alone) goes to funding the military industrial complex. The government uses your tax dollars for much more than just domestic policy.

@AJ You've set up a false dichotomy -- to be in need everything or to be obscenely rich. Neither is right nor desirable -- no one should need for everything, nor should anyone have excess when such need exists.

Obviously, Ann and Vene, I am wasting my time on this thread.

Brad Bailey | May 14, 2011 2:35 AM

Well-said, AJ. I couldn't agree with you more. Libertarians really are a mixed bag.

And you're right, too, Vene. Ron Paul would definitely try to rein in spending on social programs. That's why I'm not a Libertarian with a capital L.

By the way, our economy is fixing to collapse. Our debt ceiling will be reached at 14 trillion next Monday. And the rapid devaluation of the dollar will have world-wide consequences.

Just thought you'd like to know.

10% unemployment is worse, get people employed and there will be a lot more capital. Not to mention our rampant income inequality which looks more like a banana republic than a first world, industrialized nation.

Brad Bailey | May 14, 2011 8:35 PM

An article on Huffpost about a recent study on the effects of defaulting on our debt predicted a loss of over 640,000 jobs.

I'd call that worse than the present recession.

I at least appreciate that Paul brings the ideas of legalizing drugs and wants the government out of marriage into the Republican realm with wild applause - it must drive the Republican establishment crazy.