McCain in talks with Ron Paul for backing

Gunning for valuable but loyal supporter list

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/0...backing-suppor/

ST. PAUL, Minn. | The McCain campaign, acting through the Republican National Committee, has been negotiating with Rep. Ron Paul to win his support and acquire the names of his sympathizers among the 4,607 delegates and alternates at the Republican National Convention, according to a senior aide to the Texas congressman.

The aim is to try to win support for the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket from Paul sympathizers, some of whom formally committed to Mr. Paul during his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination and others of whom are closet sympathizers of his libertarian brand of Republicanism.

Sen. McCain and national party strategists worry that Mr. Paul's sympathizers will vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate and former Republican congressman who shares many of Mr. Paul's views.

Mr. Paul has refused to endorse Mr. McCain, and Mr. McCain's operatives have refused to let him address the Republican National Convention.

As a result, Mr. Paul decided to hold a rally of his own Tuesday billed as the "Campaign for Liberty." Initially set to be held at the University of Minnesota's 11,000-seat Williams Arena, it has been moved to the far-larger Target Center in Minneapolis. Mr. Paul said in an interview that he expects to attract up to 18,000 people.

Earlier this year, the congressman shocked the party establishment by twice setting single-day fundraising records during his quest for the Republican presidential nomination.

He has a donors list of about 180,000 people that Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said would do the McCain campaign no good because the loyalty of those donors is not transferable.

Mr. Benton said Mr. Paul is negotiating with convention officials - who are in effect McCain campaign representatives - for permission to make the rounds on the convention floor Wednesday in the company of his personal security guard, communications director and political aides.

Mr. Paul has said he will speak respectfully about Mr. McCain in return for the convention granting the entourage access to the floor of the Xcel Energy Center. Mr. Paul, as a member of Congress and a member of the Texas delegation, automatically has floor access for himself.

Earlier negotiations to have Mr. Paul address the convention fell through because the congressman would not change his position on the war in Iraq, which he opposes as needless and self-defeating for the United States.

He also was denied permission to address the Republican Platform Committee last week in Minneapolis, Mr. Benton said. He said Mr. Paul wanted to discuss the foreign-policy planks in the platform, but the McCain forces who controlled the platform proceedings, as well as the Rules Committee and the Credentials Committee, objected.

The McCain campaign is concerned about the impact of Mr. Paul's rally Tuesday, which is expected to attract many young, first-time voters and is being referred to in much of the press as a "counter-convention."

Mr. Paul, in an interview with The Washington Times, said he doesn't regard the event as a counter-convention so much as a big-stage training session for future cadres of the party - cadres who see the world Mr. Paul's way.

Asked whether he really thinks he can influence the party to be less hawkish on war, he said, "No, not at the upper level. You know, I'm not going to convert [Vice President] Dick Cheney. He's going to be always a neoconservative.

"But what we are also doing here is training thousands of people and encouraging them to be involved in precinct work, and then getting involved in the Republican Party and have an influence that way."

Some conservatives, including several prominent Republicans, privately support Mr. Paul's aim, which they see as taking the party back from its neoconservative wing and restoring it to a tradition of limited-government conservatism.

He was asked why he was holding "training events" - one of which consists mostly of music groups performing - during the convention..

"Because this is where the action is," Mr. Paul said with a smile.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The interview is interesting, although he pretty wildly misrepresents the founding fathers' views on government and taxation.

He also make a wild claim about Obama wanting to march us into Iran.

Ron Paul supporters seem to think it is an appropriate use of the government's power to go and round up 12 million people and deport them back to Mexico in a massive operation.

I hardly see that as limited government.

The weird thing is so many of these "libertarians" don't appear to know that a platform of the Libertarian Party (with a capital "L") is open borders.

(I'm not for open borders, but I just can't get how these so-called "libertarians" like Paul reconcile the contradiction.)

I have thought the same thing myself.

On the borders issue, I'm more in favor of stricter enforcement of social security/ identity checks on ALL businesses. The company I work for (Panera) does it, it doesn't cost us a dime to do it, and it protects our workers.

I hate that the Libertarian Party (and Ron Paul's movement for that matter) has highjacked the word and turned it into something very weird, like something out of a Wild West movie. I've long considered myself a libertarian socialist, and I line up with about 20% with the platform of the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul claims illegal aliens come here because of our welfare state. Bogus. They come here to be hired by illegal employers, primarily in the agriculture, hospitality, and construction sectors.

It's a lose-lose for them and us and a win-win for the illegal employers. We lose because their employers use them to drive everybody's wages down, they lose because they are exploited and often brutalized because obviously they can't go and report their employer for violations or not providing benefits. The illegal employers win because they get a nice exploitable labor population that can't join unions or complain about working conditions.

We should be cracking down on the illegal employers. This is an illegal employer problem, as Thom Hartmann says. Unfortunately, the Bush administration doesn't appear interested in doing that, they only went after 3 companies in 2004 (as opposed to the Clinton DOJ going after hundreds in the 90s).

BTW, you cannot seriously claim you are for civil liberties, and accept the massive violation of Posse Comitatus going on with militarization of our borders.



Here's the problem in a nutshell. There are two libertarian political traditions in this country.

The first, anarcho-capitalism (right libertarian), is primarily concerned with the liberty and freedom of capitalists, economic elites, and property owners.
The second, anarcho-syndicalism (left libertarian), is primarily concerned with the liberty of workers and the poor, who often work in workplaces run like authoritarian dictatorships, where you can be fired just for demanding better working conditions. They emphasize social cooperation over competition & social darwinism.

Here are some famous Left Libertarians (libertarian socialists/anarcho syndicalists):
http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libertarians.html

Emma Goldman
Noam Chomsky
Mikhail Bakunin
Peter Kropotkin
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Emiliano Zapata (from whom the Zapatistas take their name)
Big Bill Haywood (founder of the IWW)
Henry David Thoreau
Mother Jones

There's an easy way to tell the difference. If they believe property rights are more fundamental than human rights, they're right-libertarians. If they care more about owners than workers, likewise.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Libertarian Party and its candidates are rooted in the Right-Libertarian tradition, not the Left. So are Ron Paul and Bob Barr.

*opens new window, goes to wikipedia, looks up Posse Comitatus*
ah, okay.

I didn't realize this was happening. Scary stuff. Any articles I can look at?



Wow, you just listed the content of half of one of my book shelves I would probably include Thom on the list too.

Border control is a civilian law enforcement problem, for the U.S. Border Patrol. Ordering in the military to do civilian LE violates Posse Comitatus.

However, Bush sent 6000 national guardsmen to the border.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6051501739.html

The national guard is a branch of the U.S. military, and this constitutes militarization of our borders.

Wonder where the "libertarians" are on this one?

But, Seeker, RP supporters - many of them - CAN vote. And as he's demonstrated repeatedly, McCain cares more about that than all the "issuey" stuff you keep mucking about in.

expressing absolutes = displaying ignorance



couldn't agree more.



strawman, half-truth. you're on a role today.



what, you afraid of "the mexicans?" time to "end the invasion?"

how very... absolute and authoritative.

oh yea, wrong too.

you wear fail, but you wear it so well.

I don't understand why libertarians vote.... I'm libertarian about some issues. There are some things I think the government has no business being involved in. However these are hard core libertarians that back the libertarian candidate yet they don't agree with government. They are all very antigovernment. So y would they be voting in the first place? It's kinda weird to me.

RON PAUL for WRITE-IN president!

History repeats - similar to 1992, in that a third-party candidate thrashes the Republitards.

Uh-huh, Grampy's selection of Miss American Taliban should help a lot with the Ron Paul Constitutionist crowd who, if anything, are more Pro-Separation of Church and State than Progressives.

Nice try, Grampy, but no dice.

Unfortunately it seems like a lot of them of very pro NRA and are only in it because they care so much about gun ownership rights. Then they think because liberals make gun control laws that they want to take away everybody's guns, which is just stupid. lol It's like they aren't doing this to take away your toys. They are trying to stop people from getting killed!!! Not to mention I don't get people's obsession with guns. I think it's kinda creepy that people are so fascinated with things that were invented to kill people, and the fact that they should beer cans and stuff with them for fun is really scary.

It's not us who aren't unified. lol It's the republican party that isn't unified anymore.

IMO, this could be a replay of 1992, where Ross Perot caused King George the First to lose by a landslide.

I intend to start posting Write-in Ron Paul signs!

No. I do see a role for civilian patrol of our borders, though, just as I see a role for civilian inspection of things entering our ports.

You have a weird way of arguing, paracelsus.

I almost was starting to like you.

For once, I'd actually like to see you show where I'm wrong, without just asserting it.

Kind of a precondition.

No attempt to show WHY he's wrong?



On a role of being correct.

From the Libertarian Party platform

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

The Libertarian Party Platform: Open borders with the exception of foreign nationals.

Ron Paul's for separation of church and state?

Yep, there's a war on Christmas in this country. Didn't you know? This is something where RP and Bill-O agree.

Ron Paul sez there's a War on Religion in this country
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

[snip]

That's Ron Paul's own words, folks.

That's been the right wing worldview for eons: let capital flow as it will, do not dare tax or interrupt its movement across borders, but people, human beings, well, no.

Not only is that not true but RP doesn't have any such plan.

If he's opposed to amnesty, explain what he's going to do, then. No amnesty = person must be deported.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-05-07/ron-paul-no-amnesty/

Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. (*) This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

[snip]

(*) All 12 million illegal immigrants in this country have broken our immigration laws. From what I can see, this means they should be deported.

Ron Paul not havin' it?

Well, good on the f'n moron.