Obama proposes new rules banning profits, losses

In the wake of last week’s news that investment bank JP Morgan had lost a staggering $2 billion in hedge fund trading, President Obama today proposed a new “Dimon Rule” that would prohibit banks from investing in securities that lose money. The rule, named for JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon, would hold investment firms civilly and criminally liable if their investments decrease in value.

President Obama announced the initiative in a press conference at the White House this morning. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, President Obama praised Dimon and JP Morgan saying, “JP Morgan is one of the best-managed banks there is. Jamie Dimon, the head of it, is one of the smartest bankers we got, and they still lost $2 billion and counting."

Obama continued, “That is why I have directed the Securities and Exchange Commission to make it illegal to lose money in the markets. Jamie Dimon is a good and honorable man and if it was illegal to lose investment money, he would not have broken the law. Americans are hurting and making losing money illegal is one thing that the government can do to make their lives easier.”

The proposed Dimon Rule is the latest in a series of Obama Administration reforms of the financial industry. In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd – Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which protected against future financial crises by placing more power in the hands of the federal regulators who did nothing to prevent the 2008 financial crisis. The law also includes the Volcker Rule, which bans banks from using deposits for trading on the bank’s proprietary accounts. More recently, Obama proposed the Buffett Rule, a minimum tax for millionaires that would generate $36 billion annually as the solution to the nation’s $1.3 trillion annual federal deficit. The president’s signature legislation, Obamacare, was a remaking of the health insurance industry that made it illegal to not purchase health insurance policies.

In tandem, President Obama also attacked what he called excessive profits earned by the oil industry. “When oil companies are making huge profits and you’re struggling at the pump, and we’re scouring the federal budget for spending we can afford to do without, these tax giveaways aren’t right,” Obama said in the Washington Post. “They aren’t smart. And we need to end them.”

He continued, “That is why I am proposing that we return to the policies that worked in the past. By reinstituting the Excess Profits Tax that President Roosevelt used to help end the Great Depression, we can spread the wealth of these greedy corporations to where it is needed most, to the least among us.”

The proposed Exxon Rule actually goes a step farther that the New Deal-era Excess Profits Tax. Under the new law, companies would be taxed to exact value of any profits that they report to the IRS. Explains Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in the Huffington Post, “"Democrats won't agree to a one-sided solution that lets the super-wealthy off the hook while forcing the middle class, and those in greatest need, to bear all the hardship.” Reid said, “"Republicans refused to be reasonable. They refused to raise even a penny of new revenue, or ask millionaires to contribute their fair share to help reduce our deficit and our debt.”

Reid continued, “That is why Democrats have proposed that 100 percent of profits of wealthy corporations and their millionaire owners be shared by all Americans. These new revenues will go to help fund necessary and vital programs like Social Security, Medicare, deficit reduction, and the cowboy poetry festivals that so many Americans know and love.”

Apparent Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney blasted the two new proposed rules at a speech before the Hahira, Ga. Rotary Club’s annual pancake breakfast. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Romney told the gathered Peach State Rotarians, “President Obama and I have very different visions. Government is at the center of his vision. It dispenses the benefits, borrows what it cannot take, and consumes a greater and greater share of the economy…. This President is putting us on a path where our lives will be ruled by bureaucrats and boards, commissions and czars. He’s asking us to accept that Washington knows best – and can provide all.” At the conclusion of his speech, Romney noted, “Speaking of consuming, this maple syrup is really delicious. I would love to be provided with another short stack.”

Rep. Ron Paul, who recently stopped spending money on his campaign, also weighed in on the new rules. Paul told Marketwatch, “"My ultimate goal remains to repeal the 16th Amendment and end the tyranny of the IRS once and for all.” Rep. Paul concluded by urging his supporters to rally in Tampa at the Republican National Convention, where they would “have a hoe-down and then march on the Federal Reserve.”

Economists noted that the president’s new rules would prevent any transfer of wealth except through the government, turning banks into giant holding companies that were only allowed to return the exact amount that the customer deposited. Milton Bergman of the People for American Dollars pointed out that without the risk of loss or the possibility of profits, investments would cease and economic growth would stop. “How does the president plan to reduce unemployment without jobs associated with growing and profitable industries?” Bergman wondered.

White House press spokesman Jay Blarney responded, “All we are trying to do is get through the next six months until the election. After that, if we win, we’ve got another two years to worry about job creation. If we don’t, its Romney’s and the Republicans’ problem.”

In case you haven’t guessed, this is a work of satire. It is not real. Some real quotes were used. When a real quote was used, its source was cited with a hyperlink. Milton Bergman and Jay Blarney are entirely fictitious. Don’t believe everything you read.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obama-proposes-rules-banning-investment-losses-profits

Ron Paul wins Maine but nomination still a long shot

Ron Paul shook up the Republican Party over the weekend when he won a majority of delegates at the Maine Republican convention. Paul is mounting an insurgent strategy in caucus states where his supporters disregard the nonbinding results of straw polls and commandeer delegates in spite of the fact that their candidate has not been able to win a single election.

In spite of the apparent success of the strategy in several states including Maine, the Boston Herald reports that Paul’s delegates may not be a factor at the convention. The Romney campaign alleged that Paul supporters had committed rules violations and claimed that ballots were tampered with. Romney supporters are considering challenging the results with the Republican National Committee. Romney supporters who objected to alleged rules violations were overruled by convention chairman Brent Tweed, a Paul supporter.

The Herald quotes Maine state representative Jeffrey Timberlake as saying, “This thing is going to get thrown out. Nearly everything they did here was illegal.”

Paul supporters indicated that their legal team was ready to meet the legal challenge from Romney. Romney’s legal team includes Benjamin Ginsburg, who was also an attorney for George W. Bush during the 2000 Florida recount.

The big question is whether Ron Paul’s strategy of flooding the caucus states with supporters has a chance of succeeding. According to the Republican primary schedule on 2012.presidentialelectionnews.com, 17 states and territories use the caucus system. These states and territories include Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine, Wyoming, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Kansas, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Marianna Islands, Hawaii, American Samoa, and Missouri. There are a total of 481 delegates available in these areas according to The Green Papers .

A total of 1,144 delegates are needed to nominate this year’s GOP candidate. Even if Ron Paul supporters were to secure the all of caucus state delegates, which they have been unable to do, Paul would still not receive enough delegates to secure the nomination.

There are no more caucus states left on the primary schedule. The remaining 14 states (Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Nebraska, Oregon, Arkansas, Kentucky, Texas, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota and Utah) are all primary states. Of these, only Utah and New Jersey are winner-take-all states according to The Center for Voting and Democracy. This means that Ron Paul does have the chance to pick up some additional delegates in the majority of states where delegates are awarded proportionally.

Thus far in the primary season, Mitt Romney has proved much more popular with voters than Ron Paul. Paul has not won a single election. According to results on Politico, his best showing has been the 40 percent of the vote that he carried in Virginia where only he and Romney were on the ballot. Mitt Romney has won the elections in 32 states and territories so far.

The picture may change slightly for the remaining primaries with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich out of the race. There are three primaries scheduled for this week: North Carolina, West Virginia, and Indiana. According to Real Clear Politics, Romney leads Paul by comfortable margins in all three states. In North Carolina, Romney is at 48 percent and Paul at 12 percent. Gingrich is in second place with 30 percent. In Indiana, Santorum and Romney are in a statistical tie at 27-26 percent respectively. Paul trails with six percent. In a West Virginia poll from October 2011, the latest available, Gingrich led Romney 18-16 percent, while Paul was at six percent.

The results of the remaining primaries depend on whether Santorum and Gingrich supporters will break for Romney or Paul. In any case, Paul faces an uphill battle. The remaining 14 primaries are worth a total of 770 delegates. The New York Times estimates that Ron Paul has 94 delegates so far. This means that he would have to win almost all of the caucus delegates as well as most of the remaining primary delegates to win the nomination. In contrast, Mitt Romney, with 856 delegates, needs only 288 plus however many caucus delegates he loses to Paul. Romney’s total also does not include voting at-will party leaders according to Yahoo. These party leaders are more likely to vote for Romney.

Paul’s likely strategy is to try to win enough delegates to deny Romney a victory on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention. Political scientist Jonathan Bernstein told Talking Points Memo, “Basically, if we ever get there [to a brokered convention], it’s up for grabs and we have no idea who the delegates will be loyal to. They may just be an individual case by case basis.”

An open question is how many Romney delegates might be closet Paul supporters that would reveal themselves when they are unbound after the first round of voting. The delegates committed to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would also be added to the mix.

It is unlikely that Ron Paul will be able to force a brokered convention, but there is a slim chance. Despite his early success in the caucus states, the Romney campaign will undoubtedly be ready to fight for every delegate in subsequent caucus state conventions. Likewise, non-Paul Republicans in the remaining primary states are likely to be galvanized by what many may feel is an unfair strategy. Nevertheless, Paul will almost certainly amass enough delegates to rate a prominent slot at the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/ron-paul-takes-majority-of-maine-delegates-but-nomination-still-unlikely

Democratic politicians desert Obama

In what may be the first of many similar stories this election year, a Democratic governor and U.S. senator have announced that they will not endorse President Barack Obama for re-election. In an Associated Press report this week, West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin and Senator Joe Manchin both decline to support the president due to his energy policies. Manchin announced his decision not to endorse Obama last month.

Tomblin told the AP, “President Obama has apparently made it his mission to drive the backbone of West Virginia's economy, coal and the energy industry, out of business. That will not only hurt thousands of West Virginia families, it will destroy the economic fabric of our state."

Neither Tomblin nor Manchin said that they would support Republican Mitt Romney against Obama. Tomblin criticized Romney for “supporting policies that will end Medicare and Social Security as we know it,” a reference to the Republican budget plan crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan that would reform Medicare, which is rapidly approaching insolvency.

There are indications that other Democrats are deserting the president as well. In many campaign stops prior to the 2010 elections and since, Democratic politicians have been conspicuously absent from Obama’s visits. When President Obama visited Atlanta in August 2010, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Roy Barnes was a hundred miles away in Monroe County near Macon according to 11 Alive. Few Democratic politicians have opposed the president as overtly as Tomblin and Manchin, although Rep. Jim Marshall (Ga. – 8), who lost to Republican Austin Scott in 2010, was singled out as one of the “top ten Democrats opposing Obama” by Newsmax.com.

Many Democrats are opposed to the president’s policies. A report and video of interviews with protesters at Occupy Wall Street on May Day by the Washington Free Beacon revealed that many members of the left feel betrayed and angry by the president’s foreign policy, saying that little has changed since President Bush left office. Others are unhappy with what they see as the president’s assault on civil liberties. President Obama’s corporate bailouts have also earned him the ire of some in the Democratic base.

Anecdotal data indicates that some disaffected Democrats are crossing party lines to support Ron Paul. A number of groups such as Democrats for Ron Paul and the Blue Republicans are comprised of Democrats who have dumped the president for Ron Paul’s anti-war, anti-bailout philosophy. At Occupy Atlanta last year, more protesters told Examiner.com that they supported Ron Paul than President Obama.

Natural News listed ten reasons why “Democrats, liberals and progressives are choosing Ron Paul over Obama.” The list ranges from his support for legal marijuana and opposition to war to Paul’s desire to end the Federal Reserve and stop the bailouts of “wealthy banksters [sic].” The article also cites the belief that Obama will use the NDAA to put Americans “in secret military prisons, interrogate them and even kill them with no due process.” The ACLU agrees that Ron Paul is more progressive than Obama on a host of civil liberties and anti-war issues.

The Democratic opposition to Obama is reflected in an April 2012 CBS News poll. Thirteen percent of Democrats disapproved of the president’s job performance and more than a third of Democrats believed that the country was headed in the wrong direction. In comparison, in a February 2009 CBS poll, “nearly all” Democrats approved of the president. According to New Hampshire’s official Democratic primary results, Ron Paul finished second behind Barack Obama with almost five percent of the vote.

Although many of the Democrats who are dissatisfied with Obama will vote for him anyway, if even a small number write in Ron Paul or vote for Ron Paul on a third party ticket, it could be enough to cost Obama several important swing states. In the absence of a Ron Paul candidacy, many Democrats might simply stay home rather than go to the polls for Obama. With the election in a statistical dead heat, even a small number of disaffected voters could sway the outcome.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/democratic-governor-and-senator-refuse-to-endorse-obama

GOP race now between Romney and Paul (and it might be closer than you think)

Newt Gingrich announced this week that he planned to end his campaign soon. According to the New York Times, Gingrich told supporters in North Carolina “The campaign will go bye-bye.” Gingrich still trails Rick Santorum and frontrunner Mitt Romney in delegates.

According to the New York Times tally, Gingrich has 137 delegates. With 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination and only 962 delegates remaining, it would have been mathematically impossible for Gingrich to become the nominee.

As Gingrich leaves the race, the Republican presidential primary comes down to Mitt Romney, the presumptive nominee, and another mathematically eliminated candidate, Rep. Ron Paul. Paul has won an estimated 80 delegates so far. Even if he were to win all remaining delegates he would fall far short of the nomination. The question is why Paul is staying in the race with the numbers stacked against him.

Paul’s strategy appears to be two-fold. In February, Rachel Maddow reported that Paul supporters were mounting a grass roots effort to gain control of delegates in caucus states. Regardless of the straw poll, Paul supporters would simply show up at local precincts and outlast the supporters of the winning candidates. In turn, they would take control of county and state caucuses as well. The strategy is working well in states won by Santorum and Gingrich.

For example, according to the Associated Press, Rick Santorum won the Minnesota primary caucus with 44.9 percent of the vote. Paul placed second with 27.1 percent. However, The Hill reported this week that Paul won 20 of 24 possible delegates and “nearly all” alternate delegates from Minnesota’s district conventions. Thirteen more delegates are at stake in the state convention on May 4 and Paul is likely to win many of these as well.

The second part of Paul’s strategy is to take delegates from Santorum and Gingrich, who have withdrawn from the race. CBS Denver reports that some Santorum supporters are turning to Ron Paul as an anti-Romney protest. The Santorum-Paul alliance won 13 of 18 delegates at the Colorado Republican convention. Colorado is also a caucus state. The Independent Voter Network speculates that Paul might similarly win a majority of delegates in the caucus states of Iowa, Missouri, Washington, and Nevada as well.

Paul’s ultimate strategy seems to be to sway enough delegates to deny Mitt Romney the 1,144 needed to secure the nomination. According to the Independent Voter Network, if no candidate wins on the first ballot all delegates will be released to vote for whomever they choose. This is called a brokered or contested convention. In this case, the convention would become a free-for-all. There is speculation that many of Romney’s delegates might be Ron Paul “sleeper” supporters that would then vote for Rep. Paul on subsequent ballots.

Paul’s covert strategy explains why he is remaining in the race even though he has yet to win a single election. In spite of Paul’s failure to win over Republican voters, he has a chance to become the Republican nominee and the only person standing between Barack Obama and a second term as president.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-race-down-to-romney-and-paul-and-may-be-closer-than-you-think

2012 primary looks like 2008; Gingrich likely to drop out soon

In the wake of Super Tuesday, this year’s Republican primary is starting to look a lot like 2008. In the primary of that year, initial results were also muddled with a large field of challengers. This made the outcome unpredictable as large voting blocs split for different candidates.

Two of the current candidates were also in the 2008 final four. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul were among the candidates that were not winnowed out after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary in January. Mike Huckabee and John McCain, the eventual nominee, were the other major players. Alan Keyes stayed in the race until April, but received even less support than Ron Paul. Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thompson, also candidates in early races, helped to further muddy the waters.

As in 2012, a social conservative scored a surprising win in Iowa. Mike Huckabee won the caucuses in 2008 while Rick Santorum got the nod in 2012. In both cases, the candidate went on to have little traction in other states.

In 2008, the candidate that nobody seemed to like was John McCain. McCain was decried by pundits, bloggers and talk show hosts as a RINO (Republican in name only) who derided him for not being a real conservative. Much of the criticism sounds the same and comes from the same people as this year’s attacks on Mitt Romney.

When the voting started, the broad primary field aided McCain. According to data from USelectionatlas.org, McCain scored a decisive win in New Hampshire with 71 percent of the vote. In many other states, however, particularly those that voted on Super Tuesday of 2008, McCain won largely because Huckabee and Romney split the vote of the economic and social conservatives. McCain won less than a plurality in South Carolina, Florida, California, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arizona, Delaware, and Washington. In many cases, McCain won by only a few percentage points above either Romney or Huckabee and in almost all cases the combined total of the two candidates was greater than McCain’s percentage of the vote.

It was only after Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2008, that McCain started consistently winning. Ironically, after the Super Tuesday losses, the campaigns of Huckabee and Romney floundered. Mitt Romney suspended his campaign almost immediately on Feb. 7. Mike Huckabee continued until March 4, when McCain clinched the nomination. Huckabee was never able to win beyond the socially conservative states of the South. Romney’s wins were primarily in the upper Midwest, along with his home states of Massachusetts and Michigan.

In the results of 2012’s Super Tuesday, Mitt Romney played the role of John McCain while Rick Santorum continued in Mike Huckabee’s place. According to the Associated Press, Mitt Romney won seven of the 11 states holding primaries or caucuses on Super Tuesday (Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio, Virginia, Vermont, and Wyoming). Rick Santorum won three states (North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee), all with less than 40 percent of the vote. Newt Gingrich won only his home state of Georgia and Ron Paul, who failed to win any states, almost certainly peaked with 40 percent of the votes and three delegates in Virginia, where Santorum and Gingrich were not on the ballot.

As with McCain in 2008, several of Romney’s wins were very close, particularly in the hotly contested swing state of Ohio, and if he had faced only one or two challengers instead of three, the end result might have been different. As it is, Gingrich and Santorum (and in some cases Paul and Santorum) split the not-Romney vote, which had the effect of giving Romney a majority, if not a plurality.

According to the AP’s estimated delegate count, Mitt Romney now leads with 415. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are neck-and-neck with 176 and 105 respectively. Ron Paul trails the pack with 47. A total of 1,144 delegates is needed to secure the Republican nomination.

With a firm lead in the delegate count, fundraising, and momentum, Mitt Romney is now almost assured to win the Republican nomination. The question is how long the other candidates can afford to stay in the race. According to the N.Y. Times, Ron Paul, who has not won a single state, has raised the second-highest amount of money after Romney. Gingrich, who has won only Georgia and South Carolina, places third in the money race. Santorum, in spite of his electoral victories, has raised the least of any of the candidates still in the race.

Both Gingrich and Santorum will likely find donations harder to come by as their hopes of winning the nomination fade. Gingrich’s website today had replaced its home page with a solicitation for $2.50 donations to “help bring gasoline prices down to $2.50.” Ron Paul, with his fanatical supporters, will not likely face the fundraising limitations of Gingrich and Santorum.

It is likely that the campaigns of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are reaching their ends. In particular, Newt Gingrich, who has had to spend heavily to combat negative ads and who has only won two states, is likely to decide that further campaigning is not cost effective as the race moves further outside the South. Gingrich will probably withdraw from the race before Santorum.

Santorum has had more electoral success than Gingrich, but has also spent much less. According to the N.Y. Times, Santorum is ranked ninth of nine GOP candidates on spending. This means that he has spent less money than five candidates who are no longer in the race. The Santorum campaign is used to making do with little and can conceivably stay in the race for several more weeks or months.

Ron Paul will likely be the last holdout. His fundraising is second only to Romney’s and his supporters are the least willing to support any of the other candidates. During the 2008 campaign, Paul continued his campaign until the bitter end. His campaign continued until June even though John McCain secured the nomination in March. His 2012 campaign will probably be similarly long-legged.

If the primary in 2012 looks like the 2008 primary, the general election probably will not. In 2008, the Democrats benefitted from an unpopular Republican incumbent and a high level of excitement surrounding Barack Obama, the charismatic first black man to win the nomination of a major party. In 2012, Obama is the unpopular incumbent and the excitement is gone.

 

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/republican-field-likely-to-thin-after-super-tuesday

Romney is best candidate for conservatives

The candidates are not the only ones flip-flopping in the 2012 Republican primary. With the exception of Ron Paul, every candidate has led the field at one time or another as voters closely examine them and then move along to the next “flavor-of-the-month.” The author is no exception, having leaned toward three or four different candidates in the past year. I have never taken as long to decide who to vote for. Now, with Georgia’s Republican preference primary looming tomorrow on Super Tuesday, voters in Georgia and nine other states are being forced to make a decision.

The four remaining candidates each have their own pros and cons. Ron Paul was the easiest candidate to discard. On economic issues, Paul is reliable except for the fact that he is one of only four Republicans who still uses earmarks, which makes him somewhat hypocritical on the issue of federal spending. This is a stance that he continues to justify.

More disturbing, however, is Rep. Paul’s stance on Iran and the War on Terror. Paul stands alone among the Republicans in believing that Iran is pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes. He also has repeatedly mischaracterized the National Defense Authorization Act with the claim that it allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens in spite of language in the bill that specifically excludes Americans. Further, Paul’s views on prostitution and drug use are outside of the Republican - and American - mainstream.

Newt Gingrich was the second to go. Newt, a fellow Georgian, is a very intelligent man with a lot of great ideas, but he has a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. A case-in-point is his idea to plant a colony on the moon and eventually admit the moon as a state. This is a time when the country doesn’t need grandiose schemes; it needs a return to the basics.

Just as important is Newt’s difficulty with women. His past relationships and divorces give Newt a tremendous disadvantage with female voters. In an election that is as important as this one, the Republican candidate does not need to start with any more disadvantages than he already has by virtue of being a Republican.

Finally, just as Romney does, Newt has numerous flip-flops. One of the most memorable is a 2008 global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi, but he has also flip-flopped more recently on Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to save Medicare. If voters don’t like Romney’s flip-flops, Gingrich’s more recent reversals should disqualify him as well.

In the end, my choice came down to Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. Rick Santorum is a strong conservative, both socially and fiscally, but his performance in the last debate (which he entered as a frontrunner) was decidedly lackluster. His attempts to defend his senate voting record fell short, even though he made important points about how social issues are driving America’s economic problems. The debate also shows how vulnerable he is to attacks on his senate voting record.

In addition to not being a great public speaker, Santorum also has contracted Newt’s tendency to put his foot in his mouth. In recent weeks, he has fallen prey to Democratic attempts to paint him as an extremist on issues like birth control and prenatal testing. One of Santorum’s strongest moments in the February 22 debate in Arizona was when he said, “You know, here's the difference between me and the left, and they don't get this, just because I'm talking about it doesn't mean I want a government program to fix it.” Nevertheless, Santorum’s views are particularly vulnerable to attack by the Democrats and he has not shown himself adept at returning the debate to the issue at hand: the economy and Barack Obama’s mismanagement of it.

Everyone knows about Mitt Romney’s disadvantages, his flip-flops on social issues, his Massachusetts health care reform, his corporate background, and his 15% effective tax rate. The fact that his negatives are known and old news may be one of Romney’s most important advantages. He has been vetted in two presidential campaigns so there should be few, if any, last minute surprises. This is not true for Gingrich, whose links to Fannie Mae are still being explored, or for Santorum, who has never faced national scrutiny and was almost ignored in the campaign until two months ago.

Further, Romney has leadership experience, both as a businessman and a governor. Gingrich and Santorum were legislators (although Gingrich did have a leadership role as Speaker of the House). There is a vast difference between writing laws and leading a country. This may explain why so few senators (and even fewer representatives) become president. Since WWII, only five presidents were also senators. Two of these, Truman and Johnson, assumed the presidency after the death of the preceding president. Only two, Kennedy and Obama, went directly from the senate to the Oval Office. With the exception of Truman and Kennedy (whose administration was too short to accomplish much) and specifically including President Obama, these senator-presidents have dismal records.

Romney has also developed into an effective speaker and debater. He has been the most consistent of any of the candidates throughout the long series of Republican debates. While he has not always soared, neither has he turned in poor performances. With a few exceptions, and these mostly taken out of context, such as the “I don’t care about the very poor” and “I like being able to fire people” comments, he has avoided gaffes in his speeches. Most people probably agree with Romney when they hear these comments in their entirety. Further, when people realize that his comments were taken out of context and misrepresented, they are likely to sympathize with Mitt and like him even more. The ability to fire people is a plus for anyone who believes that the federal government is too large and intrusive and is dire need of scaling back.

All of the top three Republican contenders offer solid conservative visions for the country. All three would implement pro-growth policies and scale back the federal government. All three would work to repeal Obamacare. All three would stand against Iran. All three would be vastly preferable to President Obama. The question is which of them would be best able to get elected, implement their plans, and lead congress and the nation in the right direction. Mitt Romney seems to be that candidate.

A Gallup poll from December 2011 shows that only Gingrich and Romney are acceptable to a majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Santorum was the least acceptable, scoring below even Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. Gingrich however, has a much higher unfavorable rating to overcome according to a separate Gallup poll from February 2012.

Tellingly, Romney has secured the endorsements of many Republicans who worked with both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Much of Santorum’s support comes from social conservatives, while Gingrich has the backing of many southerners and Tea Partiers, but both have the support of few of the people in Washington that the next president will need to work with. Not surprisingly, Ron Paul has little support among Republicans in general. His website lists primarily actors and third party politicians as supporters. Romney obviously has the support of most of the Republicans in Washington who will be called upon to enact the new president’s policies into law.

Further, Obama and the Democrats have spent more of their time and money attacking Romney than any of the other GOP candidates. This means that Obama considers Romney the biggest threat to his re-election. It is easy to see why President Obama would prefer to face Newt, Rick Santorum, or especially Ron Paul. In fact, Michigan Democrats were recently encouraged to go to the polls for Rick Santorum.

But what about Romney’s flip-flops on social issues and gun control? For starters, the fact that he has changed his mind once makes it harder for him to change it again. His reversals of opinion came years ago and he has been consistent since then. Further, his more moderate to liberal positions on social issues came when he was the governor of Massachusetts, a deep blue state. If he had adopted a more conservative platform there, he would not have been elected in the first place. Moreover, much of Romney’s so-called liberal record, like his record on abortion, has been greatly exaggerated.

There is no chance that Romney will go to Washington and pursue a liberal social agenda. With a Republican majority in the House of Representatives (and probably in the Senate as well after the election), Romney could not pass liberal social legislation even if he wanted to (and there is no indication that he does). Romney’s record is one of being pro-growth and pro-freedom. Obama’s record, even before he became president, was an indication of his agenda for whoever cared to look.

In the end, Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney would all make fine presidents (and Ron Paul would make a fine Treasury secretary), but for voters who want to make sure that Barack Obama is not re-elected, Mitt Romney is the most practical choice. He has consistently led the other candidates in head-to-head matchups against the president in addition to his other advantages. Above all else, avoiding a second Obama term and beginning the process of repairing the damage of his first term is what this election is all about. Voters should remember as they go to the polls however, that to fix Obama’s mistakes, a candidate first has to beat Obama in November. Mitt Romney is the candidate most likely to do so.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/romney-is-best-candidate-for-conservatives

New poll shows 3-way tie in Georgia

A new poll released Tuesday shows that the Republican presidential primary race in Georgia is a three-way tie. The new poll by the Fox Five and the Southern Political Report shows Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum running neck-in-neck among registered likely Georgia voters.

Newt Gingrich placed first in the poll with 26 percent, but Romney and Santorum are both within the margin of error. Romney was in second place with 24 percent and Santorum placed third with 23 percent. Ron Paul was a distant fourth place with 12 percent. Earlier this month, the Atlanta Elections Examiner predicted that the Georgia presidential primary would be too close to call.

The results come amid a Santorum surge since the first weeks of the year. Real Clear Politics shows that Santorum leads in all recent national polls by margins from two to 12 percent. Romney places second in each poll, while Gingrich has dropped to a distant third, just ahead of Ron Paul.

One interesting aspect of the Georgia poll is that 11 percent of voters are still undecided or have no preference. This year’s fluid race has left an inordinate number of voters open to changing their minds or waiting until the last minute to decide. It remains to be seen who the majority of these voters will ultimately favor.

The Georgia primary election is on March 6, but early voting has already opened. Polls will be open statewide this Saturday. Voters can also check their My Voter Page or the Secretary of State website for more information.

Ron Paul’s strategy: Poach candidates from caucus winners

Ron Paul hasn’t won a single primary or caucus in Republican primary, but Rachel Maddow of MSNBC notes that Paul seem “both happy and like he has something up his sleeve.” In an interview with Paul’s senior campaign advisor, Doug Wead, Maddow explains the reason behind Ron Paul’s giddiness.

Essentially, Ron Paul’s strategy centers on the fact that votes in caucus states are not binding. After the votes are cast at the caucus, many of the voters go home before delegates are actually chosen for the state convention. Ron Paul supporters are apparently staying behind to make sure that delegates who support Ron Paul are chosen regardless of the results of the vote. This isn’t how the process is supposed to work, but it isn’t illegal either.

Maddow cites one Larimer County, Co. precinct as an example of the strategy in action. In the precinct, Rick Santorum won the straw poll with 23 percent of the vote. Ron Paul finished second with 13 percent. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich received five and two percent of the vote respectively. However Ron Paul supporters were awarded all 13 delegate slots for the precinct in spite of the fact that he lost the vote. Wead told Maddow that the Paul campaign is tracking delegates at the precinct level and believes that it has won Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado and Nevada in this manner; all caucus states where Ron Paul has lost the popular vote.

Georgia does not use the caucus system. Its 124 delegates will be distributed proportionally among the winners of the March 6 primary election.

Paul’s delegate strategy is roughly analogous to usurping the Electoral College in the presidential election. Voters actually vote for electors, who then cast their vote for president in the Electoral College. Although the electors almost always vote to reflect the will of the people of their state, they are not legally bound to do so. The strategy raises concerns that are also reminiscent of the super-delegate controversy from the Democratic primary of 2008.

The Paul campaign is open about the delegate strategy. Wead openly acknowledges what Paul supporters are doing. Wead tells Maddow, “There is nothing wrong or deceptive about this. Anybody can stay. Woody Allen says 80 percent of success is showing up. Well, our people show up and they have a right to do that and they are committed.”

An article on RonPaulSignBomb.com by Todd King, Paul’s New Mexico state leader, explains the process in detail. King describes how the goal of the Paul campaign is to get enough Paul supporters to the precinct caucuses to win there, then take control of the county and state caucuses in turn. He writes, “Gaming the system is easy for anyone who seriously wants to.”

According to King, the goal is make Ron Paul the party nominee because “typical boobus-americanus [sic] does not think for himself, and accepts the party nominee.” According to this line of reasoning, “If Ron Paul gets the party nomination, then he gets top line on the ballot during the primaries, and is almost assured a win” at the convention.

Nevertheless, although Paul may be winning delegates in spite of the will of the people, he is not winning primaries. It is highly unlikely that Paul’s supporters will be able to use their sneak attack to win enough delegates to secure the nomination, especially as supporters of other candidates become aware of what is happening.

Wead raises the possibility of a contested convention in which no candidate receives enough delegates to secure the nomination on the first ballot. Although Wead concedes that the possibility of a contested convention is remote, he points out that while some delegates might support other candidates, “Ron Paul delegates are not going to go, even if they are offered Secretary of State….” Wead hints that even if Ron Paul is not the final nominee, his delegates might be traded in exchange for “many things we want. We would like to see the Federal Reserve audited for example….” If Paul cannot win the nomination, his campaign is positioning itself to play kingmaker, most likely favoring Santorum or Gingrich over Romney.

The end result of Paul’s gambit is questionable. It is highly unlikely that most Republicans will look favorably on such questionable tactics from a man who did not endorse the Republican candidate in 2008. While Paul’s tactics are not illegal, they clearly flout the will of the people and are not likely to win Paul any friends within the Republican Party. This raises the question of how effectively he would be able to govern if he did win the nomination and the presidency.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/ron-paul-s-road-to-nomination-poaching-delegates

Georgia Republican primary too close to call

It is now less than one month until March 6, when Georgia and nine other states conduct their Republican presidential preference primaries. Thus far, the only constant in the Republican primary is that there is no constant. There have been a multitude of frontrunners and the states that have conducted primaries and caucuses so far have been split between Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.

In Georgia, Newt Gingrich has held a commanding lead for the past several months. The most recent poll by Survey USA was conducted February 1-2 and showed Gingrich leading Mitt Romney by 45-32 percent. This was similar to a December poll by Mason Dixon that showed Gingrich leading Romney by 43-21 percent. A series of Insider Advantage polls from the summer shows Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann, both now withdrawn from the race, leading last summer and fall.

Although the most recent two polls show Romney rising by 11 points, the real story may be Rick Santorum. As late as December, Santorum garnered less than two percent in the Insider Advantage poll and one percent in the Mason Dixon poll.

Santorum eked out a surprise victory in Iowa on January 3, even though his victory wasn’t known until two weeks later. In the meantime, he placed a distant third in South Carolina and Florida. It was at this point that the Survey USA poll was taken that showed Santorum had jumped to nine percent. Since then, Santorum pulled a hat trick, winning all three of this week’s primaries in the states of Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado.

In the weeks remaining until Super Tuesday, there are only four states holding primaries or caucuses. Arizona and Michigan hold primaries on February 28 while Maine caucuses on February 11 and Washington on March 3.

It remains to be seen whether Santorum’s victories this week will increase his popularity in Georgia and the other Super Tuesday states. If so, he may be unable to keep up his momentum in the weeks until Super Tuesday with few elections and debates.

As Newt Gingrich’s campaign sags under the weight of his personal baggage and high unfavorability ratings, it is likely that he will not receive anywhere near the 45 percent of the vote that he received in the most recent poll. It is most likely that Santorum will be the beneficiary of disaffected Gingrich supporters as the new alternative to Romney.

At this point, factoring in the recent events, the Georgia primary is too close to call, with Romney at 32 percent and Gingrich and Santorum splitting another 60 percent, Romney looks to be the favorite. Ron Paul is unlikely to go much higher than 10 percent. The big question is whether Santorum’s rise will cause Romney as well as Gingrich voters to defect.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/georgia-republican-primary-too-close-to-call

Questions for Ron Paul

Last year, the Atlanta Conservative Examiner published an article that asked several questions of supporters of Barack Obama. While well-intentioned and honestly seeking the liberal perspective on a number of issues, the response was underwhelming. Perhaps this was because there are no good answers to the questions asked.

In a similar vein, here are several questions for Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul and his supporters. Judging from the large response that typically comes from any article mentioning Ron Paul (especially when it mentions him critically), the Paul supporters are likely to have more to say in his defense than the Obama supporters did.

First, Ron Paul makes a point of saying that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional on the grounds that the Constitution gives only Congress the power to “coin Money, [and] regulate the Value thereof….” (Article I Section 8). If this interpretation is correct, then why is it that Congress established the first private central bank, the Bank of the United States, within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution? At that point, many of the framers of the Constitution were still in Congress.

The Bank of the United States was a private company. The bill establishing it was signed into law in 1791 by none other than George Washington. After the bank’s charter expired in 1811, Congress created the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. This bank existed until 1841. At 99 years old, the Federal Reserve is the longest lasting central bank in U.S. history, but it was far from the first.

Also along economic lines, Ron Paul advocates a gold standard, which leads to another question. Paul blames fiat money and the Federal Reserve for the current economic unpleasantness, but even when the U.S. was on a gold standard the business cycle led to periods of economic depression. In fact the Federal Reserve and the gold standard coexisted for decades. The gold standard did not prevent the Great Depression, the worst economic crisis in U.S. history.

The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and the United States stayed on the gold standard until 1973. In 1933, President Roosevelt made it illegal for Americans to own gold and required them to sell their gold to the Federal Reserve at a price set by the government, but technically the dollar was still linked to gold. Roosevelt’s executive order remained in effect until the 1960s and 1970s when it was repealed piecemeal.

In the past, linking the value of the dollar to the value of gold did not prevent the boom and bust cycle. A federal gold standard did not prevent the government from manipulating the value of the dollar. Why does Paul believe that a new gold standard would be any different? Further, U.S. production of gold is declining. Would a gold standard remove the influence of unelected bureaucrats at the Federal Reserve only to replace it with a dependency on gold miners, bankers, and bureaucrats in countries like China and Russia for economic growth?

A third question involves Paul’s assertions that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war (Article I Section 8), but stops short of requiring a declaration of war. The same section gives Congress the power to “define and punish… offences against the law of nations,” arguably the power to intervene on behalf of victims of crimes against humanity, and to “provide for the common defense,” a general term that could be construed to include pre-emptive war against a hostile nation believed to be developing WMDs.

As Max Boot notes in his book, “The Savage Wars of Peace,” declared wars have been the exception rather than the rule in American history. One of the first undeclared wars occurred during the administration of none other than Thomas Jefferson against the Barbary pirates. This conflict is memorialized in the line of the Marine hymn that references the “shores of Tripoli.”

In the 20^th century, U.S. forces, almost always the Marines, essentially invaded and governed several Central American and Caribbean nations. For almost 20 years prior to WWII, the Marines ruled Haiti. Long undeclared interventions also occurred in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua, not to mention Panama. After the U.S.S Greer, an American destroyer, was fired upon by a German U-boat, President Roosevelt essentially launched an undeclared war against the Germans in the Atlantic more than a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

While the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did not begin with a formal declaration of war, President Bush did seek and receive the approval of Congress (President Obama’s intervention in Libya is another matter). How can Paul really consider the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illegal when both interventions were approved by Congress with Paul himself having voted to approve military action in Afghanistan?

Finally, why does Ron Paul oppose the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)? Did Paul not read Section 1021 paragraph (e) which reads “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States?” Similarly, Section 1022 paragraph (b) (1) says, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

Since the law plainly does not allow the indefinite detention of Americans but Paul opposes it anyway, does this mean that Paul opposes indefinite detention of foreign terrorists captured abroad? These are the people who the law allows the military to detain indefinitely. There are Americans who believe that these foreign-born, foreign-captured, non-U.S. citizens should be entitled to a day in American courts. Is Paul among this group?

If Paul thinks that foreign terrorists should have habeas corpus rights and access to U.S. courts, it would be the first time that prisoners of war (actually unlawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions) captured in combat outside the country have been granted access to the judicial system. Even German POWs housed in prison camps within the United States itself during WWII were not accorded constitutional rights due to American citizens. No one would have dreamed of allowing captured Nazis to challenge their detention in American courts.

Hopefully, Rep. Paul or his supporters will answer these questions and help to clear up some of the apparent inconsistencies in Ron Paul’s political platform.

This article was originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/questions-for-ron-paul

Democrats may be behind Ron Paul’s success

Ron Paul’s surprisingly strong showing in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary is likely due to several factors. One of those factors may be Democrats crossing party lines to vote for him in the primary.

There is some statistical support for this notion from the exit polls in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is an open primary state which allows voters unaffiliated with a party to vote in either primary. Voters could also change their affiliation several months before the primary date in order to vote in the other party’s primary.

One way to tell would be to compare the number of registered Democrats and Republicans in 2008 and 2012. However, a comparison of registered voters, either total or by party, between 2008 and 2012 would be skewed because New Hampshire purged its voter rolls of more than 97,000 voters between the two elections. This is a decline in total voters of about 11 percent.

The Boston Globe reports that the number of registered Republicans actually voting in the N.H. primary was down from 2008 and 2010, even though the number of total voters increased in 2012. According to the Globe, there were 249,655 votes cast with “around 152,000” votes cast by registered Republicans. However, the N.Y. Times elections results show a total of 248,485 votes cast for Republican candidates. This means that around 96,000 votes in the Republican primary were cast by independent or unaffiliated voters for Republican candidates. This is almost 40 percent of the total. Former Democrats might well choose to become independent rather than registering as Republican.

New York Times exit polls from New Hampshire seem back up the hypotheses that many of Ron Paul’s votes came from people that typically would not vote Republican. Jon Huntsman won the most votes from self-described Democrats (40 percent), but Ron Paul won the most independents (31 percent). Paul also won younger voters (46 percent) and lower income voters (31 percent). Paul also took 47 percent of the voters who claim no religious affiliation. These categories of voters typically lean Democrat.

CNN exit polls from Iowa show similar findings. Paul won handily among young and low income voters. He also won 40 percent of moderate and liberal voters. Iowa does not allow Democrats to caucus with Republicans, but Paul won the most independents (43 percent).

There are several possible reasons for Paul’s strong showing among Democratic cohorts. One possibility is that dissatisfaction with President Obama is driving Democrats out of their party. This theory is borne out by a Gallup poll from 2011 that shows identification with the Democratic Party is trending down.

If Democrats left their party to support a Republican, Ron Paul would be a logical choice. According to the ACLU, Ron Paul is more “progressive” than President Obama on a host of civil liberties and anti-war issues. There is even a website, BlueRepublican.org, dedicated to “joining the Republican party for one year to help Ron Paul.”

Similarly, Paul may be benefitting from an influx of Occupy Wall Street voters and campus radicals who are unhappy with Obama. Last summer, several of the Occupy Atlanta members reported that they were considering Ron Paul. Other reports throughout the OWS movement revealed anger at Obama for his support of corporate bailouts and his failure to swiftly end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

Another possibility is that Democrats are crossing party lines to sabotage the Republicans. With President Obama running unopposed in the Democratic primary, there is little incentive for Democrats to go to the polls on his behalf. Democrats might be tempted to vote for the Republican least likely to win the general election. Ron Paul would likely meet these criteria, with a number of fringe positions and extremist followers.

As the Republican race continues, more will be learned about Ron Paul’s surge. If Democratic voters are turning out to vote for him in large numbers, he will likely do well in the states with open Republican primaries. Many of these voters will ultimately vote for President Obama or a third party candidate in the general election when Paul fails to become the GOP candidate.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/democrats-may-be-behind-ron-paul-s-suprising-success

2012 voter guide: Ron Paul

Ron Paul is a Republican representative from Texas in his third presidential run. He is a medical doctor who has a private practice as an obstetrician. Read a full biography of Ron Paul by the Atlanta Elections Examiner here.

Campaign website: ronpaul2012.com

Supporting PAC: revolutionpac.com

Georgia website: ga4ronpaul.com

Georgia 2008 results: 2.9 percent/fourth place (Real Clear Politics)

Latest 2012 Georgia poll results: 5.0 percent/third place (Real Clear Politics)

Taxes: Paul supports a constitutional amendment to end the income and death taxes. He would also repeal the capital gains tax. He supports a flat tax or the Fair Tax as a replacement for the current tax system. He believes that a zero percent tax rate can be achieved with cuts in spending. Paul would abolish the Federal Reserve and establish a new gold standard.

Obamacare: Ron Paul would repeal Obamacare and enact a tax credit for health insurance premiums and medical expenses. He would allow the sale of health insurance across state lines. Paul favors health savings accounts and tort reform. He opposes a taxpayer-funded national database of health records and the government “interfering with Americans’ knowledge of and access to dietary supplements and alternative treatments.”

Energy: Ron Paul opposes federal interference in the energy markets and cap-and-trade. He would repeal the federal gasoline tax and ease government restrictions on coal and nuclear power. Paul would create tax credits for alternative fuel technologies.

Life: Paul would pass a “We the People Act” to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue of abortion to the states. Paul would pass a “Sanctity of Life Act” that would define life as beginning at conception. He opposes taxpayer funding of abortion.

Iran: Ron Paul does not believe that Iran threatens U.S. national security (ABC News).

Immigration: Ron Paul supports secure borders, while opposing amnesty and REAL ID laws. He supports an end to birthright citizenship and opposes government benefits for illegal immigrants.

National Security: Ron Paul opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would avoid future nation-building. He opposes the PATRIOT Act and would end all foreign aid. Paul would “revitalize” the military by eliminating waste in the military budget.

Spending: Ron Paul would refuse to raise the debt ceiling, forcing Congress to live within its means. Paul has proposed $1 trillion in spending cuts. He would eliminate the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development. He would also abolish the TSA, return most spending to 2006 levels, and cut ten percent of the federal workforce. Paul would take a salary equal to that of the average American in lieu of the president’s current salary of $400,000. (Yahoo)

Entitlements: Ron Paul points out that “entitlements are not rights.” (Washington Post)

Second Amendment: Ron Paul believes that the second amendment is the “guardian of every other right.” He would repeal the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. He would end U.S. membership in the U.N. “to ensure American tax dollars are not used to fund global gun control schemes like the so-called ‘Small Arms Treaty.’”

Gay marriage: Paul opposes federal efforts to redefine marriage, but opposes a federal marriage amendment. Paul voted to end Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell. (Yahoo)

Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/2012-voter-guide-ron-paul

ACLU: Ron Paul is more progressive than Obama

Ron Paul supporters claim that Rep. Paul is the only candidate who represents a change from what they see as the almost identical policies of Presidents Obama and Bush. A closer look reveals that just the opposite is true. Not only are the policies of President Obama starkly different from those of President Bush on most issues, but the platform of Rep. Paul is almost identical to that of President Obama in many key areas. A new report card by the American Civil Liberties Union, Liberty Watch 2012, ranks Paul higher than Obama on a host of progressive and anti-war issues.

The area where President Obama and Ron Paul are the most alike is on foreign policy. Both seem to share the conviction that the United States is to blame for many of the world’s problems. Obama said in 2009 that “America has shown arrogance.” In many other statements, he has made clear his belief that the U.S. does not have the moral authority to lead the world. In a similar vein, Ron Paul stated in a 2007 presidential debate on Fox News that the 9/11 attacks were “blowback” from U.S. interference in Middle Eastern politics.

Both Paul and Obama opposed the War on Terror. In 2001, Paul voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force (H.J.R. 64) in Afghanistan, but the next year he voted against the authorization to use force against Iraq (H.J.R. 114). More recently, Paul has called for an end to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and would like to have the U.S. exit from the U.N.

For his part, President Obama also originally supported the war in Afghanistan while opposing the war in Iraq. In 2002, just prior to the congressional vote on Iraq, in a video on CNS News Obama said, “… After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars.  ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.”

A central part of Obama’s 2008 platform was the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. At the end of 2011, the last U.S. troops left Iraq on Obama’s orders. He is currently withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan with the last American soldier scheduled to leave in 2014 according to the New York Times. At the same time, Obama has stepped up drone attacks on terrorists, a policy which Ron Paul has criticized.

On the issue of gay rights, Ron Paul also shares similarities with President Obama. Paul was not in Congress in 1996 when Georgia’s Bob Barr (then a Republican, but now a Libertarian) sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act and President Clinton signed it into law. He did state on Fox News that he opposes a federal marriage amendment on the grounds that marriage is a religious and state issue and that the federal government should not be involved, although he did co-sponsor the Marriage Protection Act, which never became law. Paul was one of only 15 Republicans to vote for the repeal of “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell.”

President Obama has called the Defense of Marriage Act “unconstitutional” and instructed Attorney General Holder not to defend the law against legal challenges. Obama signed the repeal of “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” into law, and under his authority the Pentagon permitted military chaplains to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Hillary Clinton, Obama’s Secretary of State has said that U.S. policy is that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.”

On a number of issues, Ron Paul is even farther to the left than President Obama. President Obama recently rebuffed a petition to legalize marijuana. Ron Paul advocates an end to the drug war, which he claims is rooted in racism. In a 2011 debate on Fox News, Paul also defended the legalization of prostitution. Paul would end all foreign aid. Paul voted against the PATRIOT Act. President Obama reauthorized the law in May 2011.

Ron Paul has criticized President Obama for the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was a senior recruiter and theological leader of al Qaeda. Paul believes that Awlaki should have been given due process, even though he was beyond the reach of the American legal system in Yemen when he was killed in 2011.

Paul is also the only candidate of either party who does not believe that Iran’s nuclear program poses a threat to world peace. On December 30, 2011, Paul told ABC News that “they [the Iranians] don’t threaten our national security,” in spite of the recent revelations of an Iranian plot to plant a bomb in a Washington, D.C. restaurant. President Obama has called a nuclear Iran “unacceptable” and pursued sanctions as a means of isolating that country. Ron Paul calls these sanctions an “act of war.”

Rep. Paul and President Obama travel on two different ideological roads, but they often reach the same destination. Often Paul is farther down the road than Obama. Perhaps that explains why more members of Occupy Atlanta favored Ron Paul than Obama.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

 

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/aclu-ron-paul-is-more-progressive-than-obama

The Ron Paul phenomenon

Ron Paul is beginning to frighten me.

To be totally accurate, it isn’t just Dr. Paul that frightens me, but his followers as well.  The relationship between Ron Paul and his followers seems to be almost unique in modern American politics.  Dr. Paul’s followers, often referred to as “Paulestinians” by talk show host Michael Medved (listen to Medved on Atlanta’s AM-920 WGKA), are fiercely loyal to their candidate, which explains why Paul often wins straw polls.  These contests are not normal elections, but consist of activists who often have to pay or go out of their way to take part.  Paul’s supporters, while small in number, are fully dedicated to Paul’s success.

Ron Paul is in the Republican Party, but is not of it.  He was originally sent to Congress as a Republican, but later left the party to run for president as a Libertarian in 1988.  He was re-elected to Congress as a Republican in 1996 and has run for president twice, both times as a Republican, since then.  When he failed to win the Republican nomination in 2008, Paul did not support John McCain.  Instead, he endorsed Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

Most of his supporters do not seem to consider themselves Republicans either.  In fact, the majority of Ron Paul supporters that I have come in contact with see both major political parties as two sides of the same coin.  Recently, a Ron Paul supporter told me that it was her opinion that Obama was “Bush’s third term.”  This is not the view of a majority of the Americans regardless of their party affiliation.

Many of the other views of Paul and his disciples are not shared by other Americans.  Paul criticized President Obama for ordering the raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideout and his foreign policy platform smacks of isolationism.  He has favored extending friendship to Iran, rather than threatening sanctions or attacks to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

Paul claims to be for “nonintervention” rather than isolationism.  In a speech posted on Youtube, Paul explains that this means he is for trade and talk between countries, rather than for sealing the country off from other nations.  He doesn’t explain how he would protect Americans abroad (or at home for that matter) without intervening militarily against foreign threats from people who have no such compunctions about using military force against Americans.

Many Ron Paul supporters also seem to be more at home with members of the Occupy Wall Street movement than with the Tea Party.  When I visited Occupy Atlanta last October, more occupiers professed an admiration for Ron Paul than any other presidential candidate, including Barack Obama.  Paul supporters are often quick to parrot liberal criticism of the Tea Party and the Koch brothers, even though Paul is widely considered to be one of the inspirations of the Tea Party movement.

Paul’s most vocal supporters seem willing and even eager to believe the most outlandish conspiracy theories.  Ron Paul supporters have argued with me that Israelis are not really Jewish, that FEMA is secretly building concentration camps around the country, and that American soldiers are required to take an oath to kill their own families if ordered to do so.  Many are believers in the 9/11 truther and birther movements as well.  These are only a few of the many paranoid fantasies that Ron Paul supporters have supported in dialogues with me.  The only requirement seems to be that the conspiracy must be anti-American and anti-Israeli.

Even Paul himself has seemed to endorse conspiracy theories as well.  He says at a gathering recorded and posted on Youtube that the government investigation of the attacks was “a cover-up, basically.”  As late as 2007, Paul told liveleak.com that he believed that there was a cover-up of 9/11, even though he denied being a truther.  In an article from his newsletter posted on ConservativeNetwork.com, Paul shared “research” that speculated that the U.S. government created the AIDS virus.

Paul also has a history of racist statements in his newsletters.  I could find no statement where Paul has renounced the racist statements in his newsletters or the anti-Semitic comments of his supporters that are common on websites dedicated to Paul.  While Paul cannot be held responsible for the behavior of his supporters, there is evidence that he authored or had direct knowledge of the contents of his newsletters.  When asked to condemn the behavior of his supporters by “American Spectator” blogger Jeffrey Lord, he failed to do so.  He is, however, on record as saying that “the philosophy of white supremacy is wrong and immoral” in an interview posted on Youtube.

Paul and his supporters both seem to agree that he is the only candidate who is worthy successor to the Founding Fathers as an upholder of the Constitution, yet they both misunderstand American history.  For instance, Paul criticizes the Federal Reserve as unconstitutional, but fails to note that Congress established a central bank, the Bank of the United States, in 1791.  This was only three years after the Constitution was ratified. 

Likewise, Paul criticizes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as unconstitutional.  He fails to note, however, that Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations,” such as genocides and crimes against humanity.  Military interventions are not new.  According to “the Savage Wars of Peace,” U.S. Marines landed abroad 180 times between 1800 and 1934, with one of the first actions, the war against the Barbary pirates, occurring during Thomas Jefferson’s administration in 1801.

As disturbing as their political beliefs is the ardor with which Paul’s disciples support their man.  Their fervor approaches the point of becoming a cult of personality.  They seem to see him as a Messiah-figure.  Many unabashedly pronounce their belief that Ron Paul is the only hope for the country and the world.  The only thing that comes close in recent U.S. history is the leftist adoration of Barack Obama prior to the 2008 election. 

When others fail to see the world as the Paulestinians do, they are denounced as “sheeple,” unthinking people who follow the crowd and do what they are told.  When presented with evidence contrary to their beliefs, they cite a conspiracy to cover up the “truth” (even though Paul hasn’t been silenced over his long career and the conspiracy sites are still up).  When Ron Paul suffers an electoral defeat, it is because he was ignored by the media, not because his ideas only appeal to a small, vocal minority.  (In 2008, he won less than three percent of the Republican primary votes in Georgia and less than two percent of delegates nationally.)

Admittedly, there are some casual supporters of Paul.  These are people who may have heard him in the debates and like his fiscal policies, without knowing the details of the man, his platform and his disciples.  Their existence is illustrated by Paul’s recent rise in the polls as Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich faltered.  These people have not yet been swept up into the world of paranoid fantasies that the Paulestinians inhabit.  Some will.  Others will take a closer look at the candidate and reject him as they have rejected other Republicans this primary season.

Nevertheless, if, by some miracle, Ron Paul became the Republican candidate in 2012, I would support him.  In spite of the good doctor’s foreign policy failings and questionable attitudes about race, his economic policies would make him a better president than Barack Obama…  but just barely.

Read this article on Examiner.com:


http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/the-ron-paul-phenomenon