Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Pat Buchanan on Ron Paul




Pat Buchanan has a (characteristically) wise essay on Ron Paul:


The True Believer
Jan 12 2012
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Last May, Ron Paul filed his financial disclosure form, and The Wall Street Journal enlisted financial analyst William Bernstein to scrutinize his investments.
“Paul’s portfolio isn’t merely different,” said an astonished Journal, “it’s shockingly different.”
Twenty-one percent of his $2.4 to $5.5 million was in real estate, 14 percent in cash. He owns no bonds. Only 0.1 percent is invested in stocks, and Paul bought these “short,” betting the price will plunge. Every other nickel is sunk into gold and silver mining companies.
Bernstein “had never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe,” said the Journal.
“This portfolio,” said Bernstein, “is a half step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and 9-millimeter rounds.”
“You can say this for Ron Paul,” conceded the Journal. “In investing as in politics, (Paul) has the courage of his convictions.”
Indeed, he does. Paul’s investments mirror his belief that the empire of debt is coming down and Western governments will never repay — in dollars of the same value — what they have borrowed.
And here we come to the reason Paul ran a strong third in Iowa and a clear second in New Hampshire. He is a conviction politician and, like Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, the candidate of a cause.
Aware it is unlikely he will ever be president, the 76-year-old soldiers on in the belief that this cause will one day triumph in a party where he was, not long ago, seen as an odd duck, but a party where today he speaks for a national constituency.
It is easy to understand why the young are attracted to him. There is a consistency here no other candidate can match.
Republicans may deplore the GOP Great Society of Bush 43. Paul stood almost alone in voting against every Bush measure. By two-to-one, Americans now believe the Iraq War was a mistake. Paul, alone among the candidates, opposed the war.
And because his campaign is about a cause larger than himself, it is a safe bet he will not quit this race until the last caucuses have met and the last primary has been held.
Prediction: Paul will go into the Tampa, Fla., convention with more delegates than any other candidate save the nominee of the party.
There is a gnawing fear in the GOP that Paul will quit the party when the primaries are over and run as a third-party candidate on the Libertarian or some other line in the November election.
Not going to happen. Such a decision would sunder the movement Paul has pulled together, bring about his own and his party’s certain defeat in November, and re-elect Barack Obama.
Paul would become a pariah in his party, while his son, Sen. Rand Paul, who would be forced to endorse his father over the GOP nominee, would be ruined as a future Republican leader.
Why would Dr. Paul do this, when the future inside the GOP looks bright not only for him but for his son?
The course Ron Paul will likely take, then, is this.
Commit to this nomination battle all the way to Tampa, contest every primary and caucus, amass a maximum of delegates.
If Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich lose in South Carolina, they will lose in Florida, and begin to peel off and drop out, for none is a cause candidate and each will soon come to realize that his presidential aspirations are done for now if not for good.
Their departure will leave the Republican contest a Romney-Paul race, giving Paul half a year on the campaign trail to increase his visibility, enlarge his following, grow his mailing lists and broaden his donor base.
In return for a commitment to campaign for the ticket, Paul should demand a prime-time speaking slot at the convention and use the speech to emulate Barry Goldwater in 1960 when he admonished conservatives at the convention to “grow up,” so that “we can take this party back.”
Assuming the nominee is Mitt Romney, should he win in the fall and Paul has campaigned for him, Paul will not only have a friend in the White House, but be a respected figure in the party with a constituency all his own.
Most important to Paul are the issues he has campaigned on: a new transparency and accountability for the Federal Reserve, a downsizing of the American empire, and an end to U.S. interventions in foreign quarrels and wars that are none of our business.
Whether Paul goes home to Texas when his last term in Congress is over in January 2013, or whether he remains in Washington in a policy institute to advance the causes he believes in, his views will be sought out by the major media on all the issues he cares about.
Moreover, his fears of a coming collapse, manifest in his portfolio, could come to pass, making of Ron Paul a prophet in his own time.
It may be that Paul's reluctance to criticize Romney in the primaries is part of a strategy by Paul to gain influence (or for his son Rand Paul to gain influence) in a Romney administration.

I have great respect for Ron Paul. I agree with him on most issues, more so than with any other candidate.  The recent tempest about his supposedly racist comments made in a newsletter in the 1980's is, as best I can see, nonsense. Paul expressed some viewpoints that could have been phrased more effectively, but they are not racist viewpoints. The fact that much of the critique about these views comes from liberal democrats who derive their political power from race-baiting is a hoot.

Ron Paul's integrity, fiscal sanity, and foreign policy prudence are a much needed palate-cleanser to the Washington bacchanal. I think that Buchanan is right that Paul will work to increase his influence in the Republican party, rather than set out on a third party run that will do nothing but assure the reelection of a man who represents all of the venality and thuggery that Paul has fought against for so long. 

29 comments:

  1. Michael,

    The question that bemuses me is why you delayed publishing this thread for 7 weeks. There's been quite a few primaries since January 12 and a few of your listed candidates have dropped out already.

    I'm not certain whether Ron Paul's investments are predicated on coming economic catastrophe if a large part of his investments are in gold and silver mining companies. It's just a bet that the market value of gold and silver are going to increase (not a bad bet), and because it's so expensive to mine both gold and silver, even a small increase in the bullion price will result in a enormous increase in the profitability of the mines.

    It wouldn't help much though if there's an economic catastrophe. You can't eat gold after all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike,

    When are you going to dump stocks and buy gold? LOL

    ReplyDelete
  3. “The recent tempest about his supposedly racist comments made in a newsletter in the 1980's is, as best I can see, nonsense.”

    Better tell the white supremacists, they seem to have fallen for this liberal media smear hook line and sinker.

    Don Black, the founder of the white nationalist group Stormfront, has endorsed Paul, saying “he was one of us”.

    When “Anonymous” hacked the neo-Nazi political party American Third Position, they found that Paul regularly met with members and participated in conference calls. Jamie Kelso, white supremacist and American Third Position webmaster, brags about being a Paul organizer and posts pictures of Paul events on “White News Now”.

    Campaigning in Iowa, Paul was asked about receiving support from white nationalists, anti-Semites, and racists, and he responded “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,”

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't put much stock in what white supremacists say.

      I support many of Paul's policy recommendations. If he's a racist, I would repudiate him. I despise racism.

      If you have links that aren't leftie bullshit or white supremicist agitprop, provide them.

      Delete
  4. Right on, Mike.
    Good article and a good take on it.
    Mr Paul is by far the most popular Republican candidate in our 'pool'. Realistically I don't see how he will take it, but there are those among my peers that not only think it's possible - but inevitable.
    They see him as a force that could bring in the 'Tea Party' folks and soundly thrash Mr Obama in any sort of contest.
    That said, I am not sure mainstream US politics is ready for Mr Paul. My personal main difference is his isolationist stance, and his willingness to engage the enemy in diplomacy when show of force is the lingua franca with such forces.

    PS His portfolio sounds like mine!
    Gold is a BIG part of my savings and investment planning. Real tangible, in MY hands gold. The big difference is a I DO have the 5.56mm and 9mm rounds as well. :P (Maybe Ron didn't put that in his brief?)
    But why gold? As Bach notes, you cannot eat it.
    Gold is ALWAYS valued. It has been since the dawn of time.
    No matter what form of new currency or revalued currency may come into play after a market crash - Gold will be valuable.
    As a surgeon you understand many of it's vital applications. It is rare, hard to refine,used in much of our high tech, and is practically indestructible - especially when slightly mixed with harder metals such a as nickel (I have some of that too!).
    Another 'store' I hold is salt. Another thing I did was buy a small plot of heavily timbered land close to my home. Lumber. This is another very valuable good in an economy reverted to post-barter or completely mercantile in nature.
    Local economies could well function along these lines. They will certainly not rely on rapidly devalued bank notes. Think Weimar republic, for example.
    Luxuries like alcohol and cigarettes would also become VERY valuable very fast. Although seemingly useless, these last mentions would no doubt be in high demand. Alcohol, of course , has medicinal and sterilizing properties. The parts required to 'still' would also be very valuable.
    To give you an idea that I am not 'alone' in this thinking, I would simply note that our internal defence measures (like your DHS - but military) are increasingly focused on 'resource rich border regions'.
    That includes areas in the Arctic, but also places like the oil sands and the Windsor to Goderich area (salt mines) in Ontario.
    I can't go into great detail for obvious reasons, but I will say this: We are putting a great deal of very discreet security in place, should a major crash or large scale warfare occur. The nature of these security teams also leads me to believe this is 'serious business'.
    From what I understand, so is your country - in some areas in concert.
    Now before any says 'you're some sort of survivalist nutjob', they may want to consider I have trickled these items into my possession over 10 years, I still go out for dinner and a movie. This is no 'horde', just a store.
    Further I live in a town, have a TV, and mix with my neighbours and friends.
    I have every hope these investments will never be worth more than a fair market value. I hope they will be I simply hope for the best, while expecting the worst.
    I think it is wise to do so in times like our own.
    Maybe it is just a sort of paranoia from being exposed to other crumbling cultures. Maybe I over estimate our enemies from without, and credit our enemies within too early.
    My choice is not about retreat, not yet anyway.
    My choice has been to secure some real commodity for the increasingly uncertain future of our civilization.
    Better safe than sorry.
    I sincerely hope I am wrong. I would bet good money (for now) that Mr Paul is thinking along the same lines.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I DO have the 5.56mm and 9mm rounds as well...

      I am happy to be your friend!

      ;-}

      Delete
    2. LMAO Pépé
      (passes the ammo)

      Delete
    3. Pepe and CrusadeRex,

      You're both crazy ... And deserve each other. Have you ever thought of marrying each other? Just joking ...

      Delete
    4. Why thanks, Bach.
      I am so grateful to be judged by you, oh wise and magnanimous one. (LOLOL)
      Ever thought of marrying your money? Maybe yourself?
      Just joking....

      Delete
    5. CrusadeRex,

      No need to thank me. I was just pleased to point out the truth about you and Pepe.

      Delete
    6. bachfiend,

      You should really invest in that British bridge and/or French tower I talked to you about.

      You seem to be the kind of person who needs at the same time to enjoy and be proud of his investment!

      And I'm not kidding...

      Delete
    7. 'No need to thank me.'
      Too true. You will pat yourself on the back enough for both of us.

      'I was just pleased to point out the truth about you and Pepe.'
      I see your definition of 'crazy' and 'truth' are equally subjective. They would actually mean 'of different opinion' and 'my opinion' to most functional adults.
      So let's translate your comment into English:

      'You're both of a different opinion to me ... And relate to each other. The idea of you two being intimate turns me on.'
      and then...
      "I was just pleased to point out a something obvious/banal about you and Pepe.'

      There we go, now the folks at home can see what you mean even if not familiar with using grunt-speak.

      Delete
    8. crusadeREX,

      Je suis tordu de rire!

      English translation: LMAO!

      Delete
    9. CrusadeRex,

      I called you and Pepe crazy because you both think that it's likely a situation will arise in which having ammunition will be necessary. You deserve each other. You two being intimate doesn't turn me on. It disgusts me. Why don't the two of you with your warped thinking return to beneath the rock from which you came?

      Delete
    10. @Pépé,
      Cheers. :)

      @bach,
      Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

      "I called you and Pepe crazy because you both think that it's likely a situation will arise in which having ammunition will be necessary."
      you mean like a war or civil strife? Who ever heard of such a thing?
      In reality, it was I who said I had a (small and legal) store of ammunition for the weapons I LEGALLY own and use as part of my trade (military), not Pépé.
      He was kidding with me (at my expense), and I just know how to laugh at myself and responded in character. That's called HUMOUR, Bach.

      "You deserve each other."
      Thank you. We all deserve friends, and one good turn deserves another.

      "You two being intimate doesn't turn me on. It disgusts me."
      HOMOPHOBE!!!!!!!!!!!!I am calling Bill Maher on you!

      "Why don't the two of you with your warped thinking return to beneath the rock from which you came?"
      Because we are to busy bashing your childish ideas to pieces with it.
      It's real fun, too :)

      Delete
    11. @Pépé,
      Cheers. :)

      @bach,
      Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

      "I called you and Pepe crazy because you both think that it's likely a situation will arise in which having ammunition will be necessary."
      you mean like a war or civil strife? Who ever heard of such a thing?
      In reality, it was I who said I had a (small and legal) store of ammunition for the weapons I LEGALLY own and use as part of my trade (military), not Pépé.
      He was kidding with me (at my expense), and I just know how to laugh at myself and responded in character. That's called HUMOUR, Bach.

      "You deserve each other."
      Thank you. We all deserve friends, and one good turn deserves another.

      "You two being intimate doesn't turn me on. It disgusts me."
      HOMOPHOBE!!!!!!!!!!!!I am calling Bill Maher on you!

      "Why don't the two of you with your warped thinking return to beneath the rock from which you came?"
      Because we are to busy bashing your childish ideas to pieces with it.
      It's real fun, too :)

      Delete
  5. KW,
    Those groups you mention, while deplorable in their ideology, hold a great influence in the militias, prisons, and rural areas of the US.
    IF what you wrote is true and Mr Paul envisions a total collapse, he would do well to hold dialogue with them. Is it so different than suggesting, as Mr Obama has, that Iran is a 'rational player'? I don't think so.
    Calling Mr Paul a racist is just silly. Is Mr Obama an Islamophile? Does he think Israel and the Jews should be 'pushed into the sea'? No. He shakes hands with (and bows to) these evil and savage people because he feels it is in the 'best interests' of his long term goals (ie The USA).
    Oh, and who was Rev Wright?
    Politicians shake hands with nasty people to secure power and future influence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anyone who thinks that investments in gold or silver companies will be worth anything in the event of a general economic collapse is fooling themselves to such a great extent that they have no business being in the Oval Office.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stocks wont cut it, you need the real deal - in hand. And not just metals, but trade-able commodities.

      Delete
  7. Dr. Paul represents the paleo-con wing of the GOP. Paleo-cons have some good ideas, but also some very bad ideas. They are usually marked by their conspiracy theories and yes, their antipathy toward Jews and blacks.

    Some of Dr. Paul's writings are indeed racist. He has casually written them off as the work of a ghostwriter who published under his name for years. He doesn't recall who the ghostwriter was either. Alzheimer's, you know.

    Actually, the mysterious ghostwriter wrote only the bad stuff. Supposedly, Paul wrote all the good stuff with his own hand. I don't believe him.

    But it appears that Dr. Egnor isn't even making the argument that Paul was duped by a ghostwriter. He simply says that Paul's statements weren't really racist.

    "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."--Ron Paul newsletter.

    That's the smoking gun there. Comments like that are just racist lunacy.

    I could go on and on about Paul. But it's really his fan club that makes him such a repugnant human being. Their fanaticism knows no bounds. They are pushy and vindictive. They want to push the rest of us right out of the party. Only they are the "true" conservatives.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @TRISH:

      I agree with many of Paul's viewpoints, but I absolutely reject racist and anti-Semitic views. I'm not convinced that he holds either-- not supporting specific Israeli policies and not liking the liberal politics of many secular Jews does not make one an anti-Semite, and speaking honestly about the problems of the black community does not make on a racist. I'm not sure about that quote-- it is obviously untrue, but I would like to be sure of the source and of the context. If he does hold genuinely racist or anti-Semitic views, he will not have my support. I have noted that the recent brouhaha about Paul's "racism" has been long on accusations and short on actual evidence.

      I point out that every voter who voted for (or against) Obama because of his race has a much stronger claim to being a racist than anything I've heard Ron Paul say.

      My own views are best described as paleo-conservative. I'm non-interventionalist in foreign policy, socially conservative, and libertarian in economics. There is a tendency toward anti-Semitism (but I don't believe it is actual anti-Semitism) among paleoconservatives, and there we part ways.

      Delete
    2. I am unaware of any real racist intent by Dr Paul.
      That said, if I was, I too would denounce him as a nutter and a loose canon.

      I agree entirely with Dr Egnor when he wrote: "I point out that every voter who voted for (or against) Obama because of his race has a much stronger claim to being a racist than anything I've heard Ron Paul say. "
      Forsooth.

      Delete
  8. You may want to watch this video about Ron Paul:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=igQlbesF0zA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. The BEST
      http://daily-faustian.blogspot.com/2012/03/best-obama-speech-ever.html

      Delete
  9. Theres one with newt gingrich thats pretty good too.

    Heres all of them:

    http://badlipreading.tumblr.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Herman Cane one had me in tucks as well.
      They NEED to do Joe Biden.

      Delete
    2. Cheers for the link. I have never heard so many politicians make so much sense!

      Delete