[Peace-discuss] Ron Paul's support...

[Laurie at advancenet.net]

Leaving aside the current substantive issues involved, Ron Paul's campaign
reminds me of a third party presidential candidate of not too long ago (Ross
Parot) whose main difference was that his was a third party campaign and not
a campaign within one of the major established parties.  The main point of
this comparison - limited as it is - is that I suspect many of the same
people are backing Paul as backed Parot and for many of the same reasons.  I
would suggest that few of those reasons have anything to do with being
against the war per se.  Most, if they are associated with the war, have to
do with the costs and economics of the war along with the impact which the
terrorist justifications have been used to invade the privacy and civil
liberties of those supporters to the point of inconveniencing them.  If they
were not inconvenienced, they probably would not be giving Paul the same
level of support merely on his anti-war stance or on his civil libertarian
stance.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 12:37 PM
> Cc: Peace Discuss
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Ron Paul's support...
> 
> I'm not sure how thoroughly my goat has been gotten, but the exchange
> has ventilated what I take to be the crucial point: Paul's surprising
> success in garnering money and support comes from his opposition to the
> war and his call for the restoration of civil liberties, not from his
> economic libertarianism.  People are supporting him because he's seen
> as
> not part of the malign Democrat-Republican collusion that has reduced
> Congress' approval rating below that of the president.
> 
> Paul's bill to repeal the Military Commissions Act, restore Habeas
> corpus, prohibit extraordinary rendition, and the use of secret
> evidence
> and evidence obtained by torture (HR 3835) has yet to obtain any
> cosponsors, Republican or Democrat, altho' Kucinich and others have
> cosponsored other bills of Paul's.  --CGE
> 
> 
> Robert Naiman wrote:
> > Well, this is pretty reasonable.
> >
> > I was not really that outraged by Paul's vote. I just wanted to get
> > Carl's goat. It was a base motivation, and I regret it.
> >
> >
> > On Nov 12, 2007 8:24 AM, Michael Shapiro <mshapiro51 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> This is direct from Ron Paul about the impeachment.
> >>
> >> http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=976
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in favor of the motion to table
> House
> >> Resolution 799, Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the
> United
> >> States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and in favor of referring
> that
> >> resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration.
> I voted
> >> to table this resolution not because I do not share the gentleman
> from
> >> Ohio's desire to hold those responsible for the Iraqi debacle
> accountable;
> >> but rather, because I strongly believe that we must follow
> established
> >> protocol in matters of such importance. During my entire time in
> Congress, I
> >> have been outspoken in my opposition to war with Iraq and Iran. I
> have
> >> warned my colleagues and the administration against marching toward
> war in
> >> numerous speeches over the years, and I have voted against every
> >> appropriation to continue the war on Iraq.
> >>
> >> I have always been strongly in favor of vigorous congressional
> oversight of
> >> the executive branch, and I have lamented our abrogation of these
> >> Constitutional obligations in recent times. I do believe, however,
> that this
> >> legislation should proceed through the House of Representatives
> following
> >> regular order, which would require investigation and hearings in the
> House
> >> Judiciary Committee before the resolution proceeds to the floor for
> a vote.
> >> This time-tested manner of moving impeachment legislation may slow
> the
> >> process, but in the long run it preserves liberty by ensuring that
> the House
> >> thoroughly deliberates on such weighty matters. In past impeachments
> of high
> >> officials, including those of Presidents Nixon and Clinton, the
> legislation
> >> had always gone through the proper committee with full investigation
> and
> >> accompanying committee report.
> >>
> >> I noted with some dismay that many of my colleagues who have long
> supported
> >> the war changed their vote to oppose tabling the motion for purely
> political
> >> reasons. That move was a disrespectful to the Constitutional
> function of
> >> this body and I could not support such actions with my vote.
> >>
> >> I was pleased that the House did vote in favor of sending this
> legislation
> >> to the Judiciary Committee, which essentially directs the committee
> to
> >> examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 6, 2007 9:44 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kucinich's impeachment bill against Cheney was voted twice on in
> the
> >>> House today.
> >>>
> >>> The Democratic leadership first tried to kill debate by tabling the
> >>> Kucinich bill. This failed, because a substantial minority of
> >>> Democrats was supported by a majority of Republicans in opposing
> the
> >>> Democratic leadership motion to table. Ron Paul voted with the
> >>> Democratic leadership and against both the Kucinich Democratic bloc
> >>> and the Republican majority to kill debate.
> >>>
> >>> Then the Democratic leadership sent the bill to die - at least so
> they
> >>> hope - at the Judiciary committee. This vote was almost entirely on
> >>> party lines. Overwhelmingly, Democrats voted to send the bill to
> >>> committee. Only 4 Democrats voted with Kucinich not to send the
> bill
> >>> to committee: Filner, Kaptur, Towns and Waters.
> >>>
> >>> Conversely, Republicans voted overwhelmingly against killing the
> bill
> >>> by sending it to committee. Only 4 Republicans voted with the
> >>> Democratic leadership to kill the Cheney impeachment bill.
> >>>
> >>> Who were those four Republicans? Well, one of them was Ron Paul.
> >>>
> >>> Ron Paul - Democratic Party Hack.
> >>>
> >>> 1st vote:
> >>> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1037.xml
> >>>
> >>> 2nd vote:
> >>> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1039.xml
> >>> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss