Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Friday, July 6, 2012
Friday, August 19, 2011
Uncivil Discourse? Bolderdash!
By Tom Rhodes, 8/19/2011
I hear and read cries of people being “tired” of all this partisanship. The president, the press, and pundits claiming that “Never Before has the house/senate been so partisan, so uncivil, yada yada yada.” This is unmitigated Bolderdash. Today’s politicians are virtual bastions of etiquette, following in the footsteps of Emily Post compared to the speech and actions in the History of US Legislative and presidential discourse.
First consider the death of one of our most famous forefathers, Alexander Hamilton. Aaron Burr, the Al Gore of his day, lost the US presidential election in 1800 by a handful of votes. Thomas Jefferson was elected instead and made his defeated opponent Vice President. Burr blamed his defeat on Alexander Hamilton, one of the great figures of the American Revolution. Hamilton – a close friend of Washington, co-framer of the constitution and a former head of the army – had successfully persuaded a tied electoral college to swing behind Jefferson. so when Vice President Burr discovered a few years later that Hamilton had bad-mouthed him in a later, he issued an instant challenge. Hamilton – by then retired from politics – was opposed to dueling on moral and religious grounds, but the duty of honor was greater and so, on July 11, 1804, both men crossed the River Hudson with their seconds to what is now New Jersey. Burr was determined to shot his rival dead, which he did. Hamilton, as he was shot, discharged his own pistol into the ground. There was huge public revulsion at the death of such a popular figure and the Vice President found himself on the receiving end of some seriously bad headlines. He was deprived of his New York citizenship and forced in to hiding. In later years, he was shunned by society and died destitute n Staten Island in 1836.
Although he is ranting and raving a lot, I don’t see Al Gore challenging Dick Chaney or anybody else to a duel, much less killing those who words caused him political harm.
Now let’s consider the legislature, specifically that noble and dignified body the US Senate. On May 19, 1856, Republican Senator Charles Sumner gave his famous "Crime Against Kansas" speech in the well of the Senate. In his over three hour oration, Sumner attack Senators Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina, both pro-slavery. His attack on Butler was especially harsh and made fun of the Senator's speech defect.
Two days later, fellow senator, Democrat Preston Brooks, nephew of Congressman Butler, approached Sumner while the latter was writing at his desk in the Senate chamber. The room was nearly empty, but there were enough people present that an accurate account of what happened could later be assembled. Brooks approached the sitting Senator and said "Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine." With that, he began beating Sumner on the head with his heavy cane, which was topped with a gold head. Sumner could not rise up as his desk was bolted to the floor. Brooks continued to beat him until Sumner tore the desk from the floor and staggered up the aisle away from his attacker, blinded by his own blood. He collapsed in the middle of the aisle, at which time Brooks continued his attack until his cane broke in two. Several senators tried to intercede on Sumner's behalf, but Congressman Laurence Keitt of South Carolina, an ally of Brooks, stood by the men with a pistol drawn and shouted "Let them be!"
Senator Sumner took three years to recover from his wounds. The Massachusetts General Court reelected him in November 1856 anyway, believing that his vacant chair in the Senate chamber served as a powerful symbol of free speech and resistance to slavery. Congressman Brooks became sort of a hero in the South, a symbol of that area's resistance to perceived bullying from the North. Northerners were outraged. Senator Sumner, elected to his seat as a Republican, became a symbol for anti-slavery forces. Congressman Brooks was subject to an expulsion vote in the House of Representatives that did not pass, but nonetheless gave up his seat for the rest of his term. The people of South Caroline promptly re-elected him at the next election. In honor of Brooks, Pierceville, a small Florida town located near the site of Ft. Desoto, changed it's name to Brooksville. Both men remained in their offices for the rest of their lives.
Simply put, politician’s calls for more civility are just political drama, used to avoid having to answer tough questions. What today is called uncivil discourse is milquetoast compared to our history. What we need are not politicians who won't say what they think, and provide us safe middle of the road platitudes. We need bold politicians who are not affraid to say what they believe, stand up to those whom they don't agree, and let the votes fall where they will. We have a man who running for president right now who has remained stedfast in his beliefs, and not affraid to tell not only the other party but his own party what he believes. That's Ron Paul.
I hear and read cries of people being “tired” of all this partisanship. The president, the press, and pundits claiming that “Never Before has the house/senate been so partisan, so uncivil, yada yada yada.” This is unmitigated Bolderdash. Today’s politicians are virtual bastions of etiquette, following in the footsteps of Emily Post compared to the speech and actions in the History of US Legislative and presidential discourse.
First consider the death of one of our most famous forefathers, Alexander Hamilton. Aaron Burr, the Al Gore of his day, lost the US presidential election in 1800 by a handful of votes. Thomas Jefferson was elected instead and made his defeated opponent Vice President. Burr blamed his defeat on Alexander Hamilton, one of the great figures of the American Revolution. Hamilton – a close friend of Washington, co-framer of the constitution and a former head of the army – had successfully persuaded a tied electoral college to swing behind Jefferson. so when Vice President Burr discovered a few years later that Hamilton had bad-mouthed him in a later, he issued an instant challenge. Hamilton – by then retired from politics – was opposed to dueling on moral and religious grounds, but the duty of honor was greater and so, on July 11, 1804, both men crossed the River Hudson with their seconds to what is now New Jersey. Burr was determined to shot his rival dead, which he did. Hamilton, as he was shot, discharged his own pistol into the ground. There was huge public revulsion at the death of such a popular figure and the Vice President found himself on the receiving end of some seriously bad headlines. He was deprived of his New York citizenship and forced in to hiding. In later years, he was shunned by society and died destitute n Staten Island in 1836.
Although he is ranting and raving a lot, I don’t see Al Gore challenging Dick Chaney or anybody else to a duel, much less killing those who words caused him political harm.
Now let’s consider the legislature, specifically that noble and dignified body the US Senate. On May 19, 1856, Republican Senator Charles Sumner gave his famous "Crime Against Kansas" speech in the well of the Senate. In his over three hour oration, Sumner attack Senators Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina, both pro-slavery. His attack on Butler was especially harsh and made fun of the Senator's speech defect.
Two days later, fellow senator, Democrat Preston Brooks, nephew of Congressman Butler, approached Sumner while the latter was writing at his desk in the Senate chamber. The room was nearly empty, but there were enough people present that an accurate account of what happened could later be assembled. Brooks approached the sitting Senator and said "Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine." With that, he began beating Sumner on the head with his heavy cane, which was topped with a gold head. Sumner could not rise up as his desk was bolted to the floor. Brooks continued to beat him until Sumner tore the desk from the floor and staggered up the aisle away from his attacker, blinded by his own blood. He collapsed in the middle of the aisle, at which time Brooks continued his attack until his cane broke in two. Several senators tried to intercede on Sumner's behalf, but Congressman Laurence Keitt of South Carolina, an ally of Brooks, stood by the men with a pistol drawn and shouted "Let them be!"
Senator Sumner took three years to recover from his wounds. The Massachusetts General Court reelected him in November 1856 anyway, believing that his vacant chair in the Senate chamber served as a powerful symbol of free speech and resistance to slavery. Congressman Brooks became sort of a hero in the South, a symbol of that area's resistance to perceived bullying from the North. Northerners were outraged. Senator Sumner, elected to his seat as a Republican, became a symbol for anti-slavery forces. Congressman Brooks was subject to an expulsion vote in the House of Representatives that did not pass, but nonetheless gave up his seat for the rest of his term. The people of South Caroline promptly re-elected him at the next election. In honor of Brooks, Pierceville, a small Florida town located near the site of Ft. Desoto, changed it's name to Brooksville. Both men remained in their offices for the rest of their lives.
Simply put, politician’s calls for more civility are just political drama, used to avoid having to answer tough questions. What today is called uncivil discourse is milquetoast compared to our history. What we need are not politicians who won't say what they think, and provide us safe middle of the road platitudes. We need bold politicians who are not affraid to say what they believe, stand up to those whom they don't agree, and let the votes fall where they will. We have a man who running for president right now who has remained stedfast in his beliefs, and not affraid to tell not only the other party but his own party what he believes. That's Ron Paul.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Reading between the party lines in the Iowa straw poll
By Tom Rhodes, 8/15/2011
There is a faction of the GOP, the Republican Liberty Caucus, which espouses and supports libertarian ideas. They support Ron Paul and other libertarian minded candidates. The RLC claims to be the small government, liberty-defending wing of the Republican Party. The current GOP nomination campaign will clearly be a test of whether corporate or RLC determine the course of the Republican Party.
The RLC more closely rrepresents the actual values of the people, as indicated by the 4671 votes for Ron Paul over the media and GOP leadership preferred nominees. As a Libertarian, in many ways I hope the RLC is not successful in its goals of re-introducing the values that started the Republican Party back to the GOP. Today these values are called libertarian. The RLC Statement of Principles reads much like the LPF platform. For the sake of my party I would prefer the RLC to realize that the corporate powers that control the GOP will not allow their success, and the best chance for true success is to abandon the GOP and urge all liberty loving republicans to join the Libertarian Party. The good libertarian that I am, my true hope is more than the success of the LP but my hope is for actual smaller government and more liberty in my lifetime, so I will cheer the RLC if they are successful and Republican Ron Paul is nominated. If the RLC fails, it will be a clear indicator that the GOP is just a corporate shill promoting statism through corporate cronyism and that the two-party system has failed the people of the United States.
The Iowa GOP straw poll and the media response clearly demonstrate that the statist parties do not want nor respect the actual desires of the people.
Minnesota congresswoman and Iowa native, Michelle Bachmann, spent millions and won the Iowa straw poll. As a local and “favorite son” of Iowa, one would expect that the citizens of the great state of Iowa support one of their own. However, history has shown that nobody who has won the GOP Iowa straw poll (unless unopposed) has ultimately won, EVER! Although an entertaining candidate who sends liberals frothing at the mouth, which is always fun to watch, she will not win the GOP nomination much less the Presidency, and will be defeated fairly early in the primaries, the press and GOP leadership will see to that.
The results of the Iowa Republican straw poll of August 13, had Bachmann, edged out Ron Paul with a 4,823 to 4,671 victory. Ron Paul, despite what the main stream press says, won the debate last Thursday, and clearly has more popular support than the press or leadership in the GOP wants to recognize. Excluding Bachmann, Paul had more than double the votes of any other candidate, and the poll indicates that the rest of the GOP field does not have much popular support. The results of others were: (3) Tim Pawlenty 2,293; (4) Rick Santorum 1,657; (5) Herman Cain 1,456; (6) Rick Perry 718 (write-in); (7) Mitt Romney 567; (8) Newt Gingrich 385; (9) Jon Huntsman 69; (10) Thad McCotter 35.
It is clear that even with their national recognition Santorum, Cain, and Gingrich are in it so that they can hopefully set the direction the GOP want the nomination to go and have a voice in the primaries, not to actually win. The GOP and Press do not really want to recognize or accept the actual direction the people indicate they want the party to move. Romney finished 7th, he is not conservative, does not believe small-government principles, and does not have popular support, and the albatross of Romneycare makes him unelectable; Yet according to the media, he is the front runner for the Republican nomination. Some in the press have declared that it is a race between Romney and Perry, the statists want the people to choose the candidate they prefer, not the candidate who voices the ideas the people actually want.
Romney is leading in corporate donations; Perry will be another large corporate beneficiary (big oil). The GOP elites in Washington do not want some outsider nominated. The current GOP nomination campaign will clearly demonstrate whether statist corporate cronyism or the people determine the course of the Republican Party. Last November the GOP elite and corporate cronies got caught with their pants down. The people through the TEA Party actually upset their apple cart, and the elected a good number of republicans who actually did as they promised, and voted to keep government spending down. They are being vilified by the press, the Democrats, and GOP leadership. Note the double standard in how the members of the TEA Party faction were treated for not voting to extend the debt ceiling, compared to the Democrats who also refused to vote for the plan.
I predict that the GOP elite and corporate cronies will do all they can to insure that they do not let the Republican nomination go to somebody who isn’t firmly in their pocket. I believe they would rather lose the presidency, then allow a person who they don’t firmly control, and who won’t continue to support the expansion of government, get nominated. The very idea of a GOP candidate who doesn’t support corporate supremacy, and the continued control of the economy and people through government largess frighten them. The Republicans and Democrats are both statists, their only difference is the means of state control they support. The Democrats want state control by controlling the people, the GOP wants state control through corporations, and neither promotes individual liberty and freedom.
The idea that somebody with true libertarian ideas who has popular support, like Ron Paul, wins the GOP nomination is not something the statists will tolerate. They do not want the people to have the chance to choose a candidate who supports small government. Expect the press to ignore or denigrate any success of candidates with libertarian ideas. Expect the leaders from both statist parties, the Republicans and Democrats, to work together to kill any libertarian candidate. Expect them to do all they can to down play the significance of the TEA Party changing the election in 2010, and the TEA Party faction actually voting in congress the way they promised. Expect the Democrats to attack and make the TEA party look smaller than it is, and the GOP to try and co-opt the TEA Party, and move it to corporate cronyism.
There is a faction of the GOP, the Republican Liberty Caucus, which espouses and supports libertarian ideas. They support Ron Paul and other libertarian minded candidates. The RLC claims to be the small government, liberty-defending wing of the Republican Party. The current GOP nomination campaign will clearly be a test of whether corporate or RLC determine the course of the Republican Party.
The RLC more closely rrepresents the actual values of the people, as indicated by the 4671 votes for Ron Paul over the media and GOP leadership preferred nominees. As a Libertarian, in many ways I hope the RLC is not successful in its goals of re-introducing the values that started the Republican Party back to the GOP. Today these values are called libertarian. The RLC Statement of Principles reads much like the LPF platform. For the sake of my party I would prefer the RLC to realize that the corporate powers that control the GOP will not allow their success, and the best chance for true success is to abandon the GOP and urge all liberty loving republicans to join the Libertarian Party. The good libertarian that I am, my true hope is more than the success of the LP but my hope is for actual smaller government and more liberty in my lifetime, so I will cheer the RLC if they are successful and Republican Ron Paul is nominated. If the RLC fails, it will be a clear indicator that the GOP is just a corporate shill promoting statism through corporate cronyism and that the two-party system has failed the people of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
