The Presidential Election, the role of Objectivists?

[galtgulch]

Aside from the few comments made on occasional posts, there do not appear to be any activists here on this entire website, except for a handful of individuals who express their believe that Ron Paul deserves their involvement and have indicated the role they have played being active in their communities to enlighten others of this, to them, golden opportunity to elect a man of principle who cherishes the Constitution.

The others appear to condescend from their lofty, intellectual heights, to comment or pass judgment on the futility of any involvement in this contest for the supreme power of the executive branch of our government. It is easy to find fault with Ron Paul despite the fact he has never voted for any substantial government program which is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution, which is to say is not mentioned in Article 1 Section 8.

After all Ayn Rand herself said that to take a "pro-life" position would be enough to disqualify one for serious consideration as a candidate for president, presumably even if the person were correct on every other issue! I do not mean to suggest that Ron Paul is correct on everything else but he is very close regarding crucial issues.

It is curious that McCain has taken a consistent pro-life position for a couple of decades but that has not come out so far and supposedly he will lose many prochoice voters once they come to realize that.

Ron Paul announced today that he is holding his own convention across the river on September 2 at a hall which can hold 11,000. Ron Paul supporters have already wondered how over one million of his supporters will fit in it. One bit of progress is that you might have seen Ron Paul on Cris Matthews Hardball this evening when Matthews made the announcement. (Seen by millions of viewers!) Matthews mentioned that Ron Paul has not endorsed McCain and is still in the race!

It is curious that one can be aware of something, like Objectivism or Ron Paul's candidacy, for a long time and discover how few other people are aware of it as well.

I posted this because it appears to be the case that this country has been on the wrong course or path for so long that things are so bad and probably will continue to get worse. Do I really need to spell it out how the government has gotten huge and involved in so many areas in which it has no business? Nevertheless you people are aware of it and choose to virtually ignore it, do not become active, can find nothing worth doing to help the cause and go on about your lives as if all is well.

I have done my little bit here and will move on to other pastures for this evening.

I will be back soon you can be sure.

Wm aka galt

[BaalChatzaf]

I posted this because it appears to be the case that this country has been on the wrong course or path for so long that things are so bad and probably will continue to get worse. Do I really need to spell it out how the government has gotten huge and involved in so many areas in which it has no business? Nevertheless you people are aware of it and choose to virtually ignore it, do not become active, can find nothing worth doing to help the cause and go on about your lives as if all is well.

Most of us will go on with our (private) lives whether or not we pretend all is well. What alternative is there except to go on with one's private life? Should those who oppose the current order become revolutionaries? Or saboteurs? Or should they drop out of sight as did you namesake? What alternatives are there?

As to Ron Paul, it was simple. Anyone who wants to turn the females of the country into brood mares does not get my vote. My litmus test is two fold:

a. The person I favor will have no difficulty in making war to make sure our country prevails. I will not willing assent to anyone who pushes a policy wherein the U.S. gets the "suckers payoff" in a struggle, for lack of military action. To put it briefly, I tend to favor warriors. Ability and willingness to make war is the price we pay for survival in the world.

b. The person I favor will in no wise interfere with a female's right to dispose of the contents of her body in a safe hygienic manner or interfere with the right of anyone, male or female to ingest what they will.

Is Ron Paul a warrior? I think not.

If -a- conflicts with -b- then I go with -a-. I want a warrior at the helm. Congress can keep him under control.

Fortunately for us, the Constitution currently protects our right to free expression in a public forum, so I am not too concerned about that at present.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[georgedonnelly]

Galt: Most likely most everyone here agrees with your estimation of the situation.

I supported RP at first, including with donations, but at this point I am getting quite irritated with him and here is why:

- he lost and has no chance to win, but he stays in the race egging on his supporters who are effectively falling on their swords.

- he could have had the nomination of the LP but he has this misguided goal of taking over the GOP. Never. gonna. happen.

- his supporters are irrational in thinking he can still win and self-destructive in thinking that casting a write-in vote for him will make any difference whatsoever.

- Lots of people changed their registration from LP to GOP in order to vote for him in the primaries. This wreaks havoc with the LP, as LP voters on the rolls goes down - which affects other important things like ballot access - and in some states those who voted in the primary are now not allowed or face higher burdens to run in the general election with a third party.

Time is short. The most liberty-oriented candidate in the race now is Bob Barr. RP fans need to get behind him lest we trash all the great - yet meager - accomplishments we have produced so far.

[galtgulch]

I posted this because it appears to be the case that this country has been on the wrong course or path for so long that things are so bad and probably will continue to get worse. Do I really need to spell it out how the government has gotten huge and involved in so many areas in which it has no business? Nevertheless you people are aware of it and choose to virtually ignore it, do not become active, can find nothing worth doing to help the cause and go on about your lives as if all is well.

Most of us will go on with our (private) lives whether or not we pretend all is well. What alternative is there except to go on with one's private life? Should those who oppose the current order become revolutionaries? Or saboteurs? Or should they drop out of sight as did you namesake? What alternatives are there?

As to Ron Paul, it was simple. Anyone who wants to turn the females of the country into brood mares does not get my vote. My litmus test is two fold:

a. The person I favor will have no difficulty in making war to make sure our country prevails. I will not willing assent to anyone who pushes a policy wherein the U.S. gets the "suckers payoff" in a struggle, for lack of military action. To put it briefly, I tend to favor warriors. Ability and willingness to make war is the price we pay for survival in the world.

b. The person I favor will in no wise interfere with a female's right to dispose of the contents of her body in a safe hygienic manner or interfere with the right of anyone, male or female to ingest what they will.

Is Ron Paul a warrior? I think not.

If -a- conflicts with -b- then I go with -a-. I want a warrior at the helm. Congress can keep him under control.

Fortunately for us, the Constitution currently protects our right to free expression in a public forum, so I am not too concerned about that at present.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Of course one goes on with ones private life. That was not the issue. The question was will one ignore the presidential election except to vote on election day or will one become active in the movement to help Ron Paul be the next president.

I disagree with your opinion about Ron Paul as a "warrior." Ron Paul served as a Flight Surgeon in the Air Force for four years or more. He would not declare war under any circumstances and you should not expect him to because declaring war is the responsibility of the Congress. Ron Paul did submit a bill after 9/11 for the Congress to consider to vote to declare war. You mention that the Constitution currently protects our right to free expression and I wonder how consistent is your advocacy of the Constitution as a whole. Ron Paul has stood alone against the entire Congress when those who took an oath to uphold the Constitution voted to pass legislation establishing programs not explicitly authorized in the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8. He has done so about 300 times where his was the sole vote against a bill's passage. No one has a better record than Ron Paul regarding adherence to the Constitution. It is one of the most appealing things about him to his supporters. It is also an issue which Obama and McCain pay no attention to at all.

Ron Paul would bring home American troops from most of the 700 some odd military bases in over 130 countries around the world thus trimming close to one trillion dollars off the annual Federal Budget because he does not agree that America should be the policeman of the entire world and finds no authorization in the Constitution. He has also read George Washington's Farewell Address which advices against "entangling alliances" a position also held by Thomas Jefferson.

I encourage you to listen to and watch the interviews by John Stossel of Ron Paul to be found on the ABC news website which includes the topic Is War ever justified.

http://tinyurl.com/6de9y9

Wm

[galtgulch]

Galt: Most likely most everyone here agrees with your estimation of the situation.

I supported RP at first, including with donations, but at this point I am getting quite irritated with him and here is why:

- he lost and has no chance to win, but he stays in the race egging on his supporters who are effectively falling on their swords.

- he could have had the nomination of the LP but he has this misguided goal of taking over the GOP. Never. gonna. happen.

- his supporters are irrational in thinking he can still win and self-destructive in thinking that casting a write-in vote for him will make any difference whatsoever.

- Lots of people changed their registration from LP to GOP in order to vote for him in the primaries. This wreaks havoc with the LP, as LP voters on the rolls goes down - which affects other important things like ballot access - and in some states those who voted in the primary are now not allowed or face higher burdens to run in the general election with a third party.

Time is short. The most liberty-oriented candidate in the race now is Bob Barr. RP fans need to get behind him lest we trash all the great - yet meager - accomplishments we have produced so far.

I disagree with you that Ron Paul has no chance to win. He understands the process and realizes that the ultimate decision is made by the delegates at the national convention. His supporters are choosing to organize themselves, nominate each other to become delegates with some degree of success. They will go to Minneapolis as McCain or Romney or Huckabee delegates but they are Ron Paul people. It remains to be seen if they have enough delegates. In addition some of them are creating pro Ron Paul DVDs with the intention of distributing the DVDs to non Ron Paul delegates across the country in the hope that many will see the superiority of Ron Paul to be their candidate for president.

I just watched result of polls which indicate that Obama is beating McCain even among groups where McCain was supposed to do well e.g. independents, women, Hispanics, etc.

Ron Paul ran on the LP ticket in 1988 when he was not in his Congressional seat with the Republican Party. He has alwasy been a Republican Party Congressman for the ten terms he served and was recently reelected with 70% of the vote in the 14th C. District in Texas.

I was one of the original delegates to the first National LP convention in Denver in 1971 and became a founder of the LP of Pennsylvania. I had written a letter to over one hundred subscribers of Reason Magazine and 14 of them were willing to form the party. Tonie Nathan stayed at my apartment during her campaign and I have a picture of her kissing my son who was a baby at the time.

My loyalty is not to the LP however but to America and our freedom. I think it makes sense for Ron Paul to remain in the Republican Party and not to run as a third party candidate. Even if he is not chosen this time he has ignited a movement of over one million who might continue the effort to enlighten the voters, their neighbors and friends, and engage them in the profreedom proConstitution movement. Ron Paul has succeeded in presenting us with an understanding of how the country has gotten into having such a runaway government on the verge of tyranny and bankruptcy and totalitarianism and loss of sovereignty. Also he shows that return to the principles of the Constitution will restore our freedom and reduce the government to its proper size and function.

http://tinyurl.com/6de9y9

Watch the videos, read The Revolution: A Manifesto and you might find he is more appealing that Barr whose motivation is suspect.

See you in Minneapolis!

Wm

[BaalChatzaf]

I encourage you to listen to and watch the interviews by John Stossel of Ron Paul to be found on the ABC news website which includes the topic Is War ever justified.

http://tinyurl.com/6de9y9

Wm

War is justified if our country is attacked or a plausible threat of imminent attack exists, in which case preemption is justified. If the U.S. had been both aware that the Japanese fleet was on its way to Pearl Harbor and able to attack Japan we would have been justified in both attacking their fleet (in transit) and attacking their homeland because they sent their fleet in the first place. Unfortunately we did not know what they were up to until they attacked and we were not in any position to effectively attack their homeland. It took the better part of four years to get to the state.

As to R.P., do any of his policies "put the scare" in to our actual or probable enemies. War with the Soviet Union was avoided because they new we would destroy them if they started a war with us. We "put the scare" into them. Self defense starts -before- one is attacked, not after. A case in point is Gideon who attacked the Midianite camp at night because he knew the Midianties were going to attack the following day. The attack was thoroughly devastating and the Midianites were slain or scattered before they could do any harm. Gideon and his troop sustained no casualties.

Just a side note: Gideon attacked the Midianites with 300 picked commandos. I prefer the Israelite version of -The 300- to the Spartan version, because it had a happier ending. All the Israelite commandos survived, whereas all of the Spartan 300 were slain by the Persians.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

(Never mind...)

Edited June 12, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I know I am going to regret approving Bob's posts so quickly.

Please prove me wrong, Bob!

I want to remove this yoke from both of us.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Galtgulch "Aside from the few comments made on occasional posts, there do not appear to be any activists here on this entire website, except for a handful of individuals who express their believe that Ron Paul deserves their involvement and have indicated the role they have played being active in their communities to enlighten others of this, to them, golden opportunity to elect a man of principle who cherishes the Constitution.

"The others appear to condescend from their lofty, intellectual heights, to comment or pass judgment on the futility of any involvement in this contest for the supreme power of the executive branch of our government."

These are remarkably presumptuous statements. You are not in a position to know who on this site is an activist and who is not. The refusal to support Ron Paul does not give you that information. I, for one do not inhabit "lofty intellectual heights" which stop me from involvement in contests where I have a chance to win something of value -- and I know at least several others here who are like me in that regard. I have in the past worked for candidates in whom I believed; I was prepared to work for Rudy Guiliani; I am not prepared to work for Ron Paul, John McCain, or Barak Obama, because I do not believe that their policies, for the most part -- and therefore the election of any one of them --can be anything other than a disaster and I do not want to bear any part of the responsibility for what will follow the elections, I may, in the end, decide I must vote for McCain, grudgingly, solely because of the strength of his stance on terrorism, and because the other two candidates are marginally worse then he is. There are no circumstances under which I would vote for Paul or Obama..

Barbara

[galtgulch]

Galtgulch "Aside from the few comments made on occasional posts, there do not appear to be any activists here on this entire website, except for a handful of individuals who express their believe that Ron Paul deserves their involvement and have indicated the role they have played being active in their communities to enlighten others of this, to them, golden opportunity to elect a man of principle who cherishes the Constitution.

"The others appear to condescend from their lofty, intellectual heights, to comment or pass judgment on the futility of any involvement in this contest for the supreme power of the executive branch of our government."

These are remarkably presumptuous statements. You are not in a position to know who on this site is an activist and who is not. The refusal to support Ron Paul does not give you that information. I, for one do not inhabit "lofty intellectual heights" which stop me from involvement in contests where I have a chance to win something of value -- and I know at least several others here who are like me in that regard. I have in the past worked for candidates in whom I believed; I was prepared to work for Rudy Guiliani; I am not prepared to work for Ron Paul, John McCain, or Barak Obama, because I do not believe that their policies, for the most part -- and therefore the election of any one of them --can be anything other than a disaster and I do not want to bear any part of the responsibility for what will follow the elections, I may, in the end, decide I must vote for McCain, grudgingly, solely because of the strength of his stance on terrorism, and because the other two candidates are marginally worse then he is. There are no circumstances under which I would vote for Paul or Obama..

Barbara

Well Barbara, I may be presumptuous, but you have succeeded in submitting a "package deal" as Ayn Rand used to say. " I am not prepared to work for Ron Paul, John McCain, or Barak Obama, because I do not believe that their policies, for the most part." I agree that the policies of McCain or Obama would be disastrous but Ron Paul's policies that I know of would restore this country as a Constitutional Republic and would spare us the bankruptcy of our currency which lies ahead if either of the others win the election.

I do realize that Ron Paul is opposed to abortion and I share his horror of the procedure which I have witnessed in medical school myself years ago. He is wrong in his thinking about it and largely driven by his emotions on the subject. It would be a deal breaker for me generally but in the present circumstances in which so much is at stake here and now that I am reluctantly willing to support him and continue to reason with him on the issue.

You do not mention any particular policy at all in your condemnation of Ron Paul. It makes it hard for me to understand just why you are willing to take the position you take. You seem to have been influenced by the media who have pushed him to the side all along. Ron Paul is a strong advocate of strict adherence to the Constitutional limits set on government powers. He has stood alone against the entire Congress by voting no on bills where he found no Constitutional authorization for a government program. He has revealed to his supporters how failure to adhere to the limits set in Article 1 Section 8 is responsible for our current situation. He has ignited a movement of people of all ages who are aware and will continue to struggle for restoration of our once limited government. He will bring troops home from overseas from the 700 plus military bases in over 130 countries around the world.

Perhaps that is what you fear would be a disaster. I am sure he will do that in a reasoned, measured way in order to support our troops in combat. Or do you believe the US should be the policeman of the world?

Please take a few minutes to watch his interviews with John Stossel to be found at whoisronpaul.name

Wm

[Selene]

Galtgulch:

See this http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/st...6019&page=1

Your thoughts?

Adam

[galtgulch]

Galtgulch:

See this http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/st...6019&page=1

Your thoughts?

Adam

The main stream media distort as usual. Ron Paul is not ending his campaign. In any case here is a link to a response from a Republican delegate from Alaska who is leading the project called DVDs4Delegates which is designed to persuade delegates that Ron Paul is the best choice to be the Republican nominee:

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/52162

Whether they are successful or not the movement to regain the freedoms and the Constitutional Republic this country once was will continue. The arguments over specific issues such as the correct position on the right of a woman to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy or whether the US should be the policeman of the world will be argued within the movement and I wish that more Objectivists were willing to help ensure that the reasonable solutions become more prevalent within the movement.

Ron Paul has supporters all over the country from every walk of life. Over 500 donors to his campaign were in my obscure central MA Congressional district alone. Whatever their disagreements they all share a commitment to restoring the Constitution and holding their politicians to take their oath to uphold the Constitution seriously from now on. The disillusionment with the way these "debates" were held by the media will change the way they are done in the future.

Whatever your opinion of Ron Paul and his positions on the issues and despite his flaws he has stood up for limited government and respect for the Constitution and for individual rights and sound money. His supporters do not necessarily agree with him on everything but respond to his character, integrity and most of all to what he has stood for above. His supporters are not clones of him. They can see where the country is heading and want to help to get it back on the proper course, a course which Objectivists can agree with. Each realizes it will take ongoing effort for years and are willing to do their share. This movement is devoted to restoring our country to the principles upon which it was based. Voters in the future will have better choices of candidates in every election who will be dedicated to this cause. You may not be willing to vote for Ron Paul but certainly want to be free.

It is tempting to refer to a Biblical analogy. Ron Paul has shown that the Red Sea has parted and there is an opportunity for freedom loving people to join those who are going to the promised land! Mind you I have been an atheist all my life, am an Objectivist and a Bright (one who believes in the natural universe with no belief in the supernatural) but enjoy Bible stories and holidays which celebrate freedom and giving up the sacrifice of little boys, thanks Abraham!

The Second American Revolution is underway. Join us!

Wm aka galtgulch

Edited June 12, 2008 by galtgulch