2008: A Turning Point In The Politics Of Absolutism? genre: Hip-Gnosis & Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation

Absolutism & Relativism

I have no problem with other people’s marriages. In fact, I’m in favor of expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. All too often, those who venture into the topic, do so with a religious construct and no doubt the associated bias…the morality mindset, if you will. In that regard, recent elections (the George W. Bush era) have had the notion of marriage as a central issue…one used to motivate voters…one that was arguably successful; at least until the 2006 election.

Every now and again, real life events serve to illuminate some of the inconsistency that exists in morality…an inevitability which I attribute to the fact that the absolute nature of religious doctrine and the even more absolute need for it to remain unchallenged is undoubtedly in conflict with the human condition. When such circumstances arise, I’m always fascinated to watch the dance of the doctrinaires…the process whereby inconsistency must be explained and/or extinguished. How that takes place, in my opinion, simply highlights the fact that politics is integral to doctrine…meaning doctrine is frequently manipulated to fit the reality of our flawed and fragile human identity.

The 2008 presidential election appears to possess many of the elements mentioned above…particularly with regard to the GOP candidates (though by no means exclusively). Keep in mind that Karl Rove, in conjunction with his long-time political pony, George Bush, upon which the GOP brain trust sought to complete its journey to insurmountable power and dominance, believed that a coalition built on morally charged ideology…black and white…good versus evil…was the political equivalent of the Holy Grail (no pun intended).

The 2006 midterm election exposed the numerous weak links in the strategy…despite Rove’s assertion that “his" numbers would prevail and that speculation of a GOP defeat wouldn’t materialize. As we know, Rove was wrong and now less than two years before the election of our next president; the GOP must build a strategy…one that for the most part will have to be built from scratch. The coalition that brought George Bush and the GOP to power in 2000 is nary a shell of its former self.

Jumping forward to the current stable of GOP candidates, one can begin to expound on the inconsistency that exists, that may have to be explained or extinguished, and that may well force those predisposed to absolutist rhetoric into morally challenged contortions.

I contend that this quandary was inevitable. Group-think is powerful so long as the group has power and they needn’t employ that much thinking. See religion for a time-tested historical example. See the actions of followers of the Catholic Church with regard to its position on contraception for an understanding of how time and thought undermine power and authority. Further, if religious doctrine isn’t strong enough to keep the flock in tow, why would anyone think that any one political strategy could hope to exert as much or more sustained influence over voters?

In other words, the GOP mantra of god, guns, and gays could not and will not suffice in 2008 in light of the changing terrain and the proof can be found in the candidates vying for the GOP nomination. Not only have voter priorities diverged, the attributes found in the candidates are far different from that which was found in the successful marketing of a malleable George W. Bush.

Unfortunately for George Bush and the GOP, six and a half years into the Rove advertising campaign, the least common denominators approach has left the vast majority of GOP voters wanting more…and it leaves them struggling to identify a candidate that they can support. The glisten of a manufactured candidate with a tight message aimed to mollify the moral imperatives of the matching mindset masses (the group-think gang) has lost its luster. Even if one assumes that a “canned" successor candidate could be created, the sales job would have to be far more intensive and able to overcome a skepticism that may be all too severe.

Additional reasons for doubt are abundant. There exists a very unpopular war in Iraq; the GOP is divided on how to handle the immigration issue; the fiscal standards of conservatism have seemingly evaporated, and the sting of 2006 is far too fresh in the minds of GOP voters. In other words, the dynamics necessary for an overarching coalition premised on moral platitudes is unlikely attainable; other factors have sullied and overwhelmed the equation.

The miscalculation of absolutism arises when the group-think strategy wins over those in the center…independent minded individuals which have an affinity for the moral message and few other issues upon which they are focused. When this happens, the absolutist (in this case the GOP hierarchy), ever looking for absolute reinforcement presumes that the moral imperative has been affirmed and therefore stands now and forever head and shoulders above all other issues. The assumption is that power has been attained and its nature is absolute. Ironically, the assumption by the absolutists is therefore flawed.

In the rush to identify and promote the moral equation for victory, the equal or more relevant realities that may have waned for the moment still exist; lying dormant but poised to resurface under changing circumstances. When they do resurface, the absolutist equation becomes irrelevant.

Look at who was anticipated to be the GOP frontrunners prior to the 2006 election and then look at the GOP candidates for 2008. The list has been repopulated by candidates that meet a changing dynamic and that no longer fit the moral absolutist model of candidate selection. Gone are George Allen, Bill Frist, and Rick Santorum…moralists by most measures and in keeping with the Rove/Bush model.

In their place are Mitt Romney, Rudy, Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson…all hybrids of one form or another…all relatively insufficient for the absolutists within the party yet more appealing to the independents that had previously embraced the ascension of more extreme ideologues in the absence of other issues.

Romney, a Mormon with the Massachusetts Governorship in his resume, has sought to recast some of his more liberal positions to hold the absolutists while still maintaining appeal with the centrists. At the same time, he likely possesses more of the moral components that are frequently espoused by the ideologues…one marriage, devoutly religious, and now opposed to gay marriage and abortion. Unfortunately, a number of Christians have questioned his religious credentials based upon his Mormonism…suggesting it may not actually be a Christian faith. He’s a mixed bag at best.

Rudy Giuliani is perhaps the least congruent with the prior equation. He is currently on his third marriage with a history of infidelity, supportive of gay rights and pro-choice with regards to abortion and a Catholic from the liberal Northeast. In his favor are his history with 9/11 and the perception that he would be strong on defense and the war on terror. Nonetheless, he would be a real stretch for the absolutists.

John McCain, a maverick by description, attempted to position himself as the Bush successor by shifting to the right and making nice with evangelicals. Notwithstanding, his two marriages and his nuanced positions on abortion and gay rights make him suspect for the absolutists. Factor in his strong support for the Iraq war and his ability to attract the independents virtually evaporates. He’s undoubtedly a tough sell.

Alas we come to the darling of the moment, Fred Thompson. Thompson, whether by design or happenstance, has avoided the intense scrutiny that comes with an actual candidacy. If one concludes it is by design, consider the calculations. Let’s assume that Thompson has identified the very shift I’ve noted along with the realization that the GOP needs to build a strategy from the ground up.

First, allowing the GOP voter the opportunity to cut their proverbial teeth on the crop of existing candidates…candidates who all posses a number of handicapping attributes that hurt their appeal with the intense partisans (generally made up of the absolutists)…provides a subsequent opening for the next best alternative. A late entrance with hopefully fewer negatives…or at least less vetted ones…would be a prudent demonstration of political acumen. In our new is better society, Thompson stands to appeal to a GOP voting block that will potentially, by the time he is fully in, have grown weary with unsatisfying candidates who are far too weak on the absolute quotient.

Notwithstanding, Thompson is by no means a shoo-in. If the recently accelerating scrutiny is indicative of what is to come, the road to the nomination will be a bumpy ride. The most recent assertion that Thompson worked for a pro-life organization certainly throws a few more stones in the road. Further, Thompson, like McCain and Giuliani has been divorced and his much younger “trophy wife" has begun to raise some morally engaged eyebrows.

Nonetheless, one might be safe to view Thompson as the nearest thing to an acceptably manufactured commodity…cut out of the actor’s mold that served Ronald Reagan and possessing the same affable, though perhaps more measured charm…which leads me to some relevant observations.

When one thinks of the conservative evangelical movement that has come to prominence under the direction of Karl Rove and George Bush, one can’t help but recall a few key events which demonstrated the absolutist mindset. Two stand out for me.

One was the Terri Schiavo matter wherein evangelicals made her situation a touchstone event and demanded and received the highest order of intervention by Congress and the President.

The second was the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court…a nomination that originated with all the certainty expected of a George Bush decision and ended miserably when the fully flagellated candidate fled with her tail between her legs under the intense pressure of establishment conservatives’ intent on shifting the courts disposition hard right.

In retrospect, moral relevance was routinely rejected in favor of absolutist adherence. As we approach 2008, I can’t help but grin at the prospect that many of these dogmatic ideologues may well be forced to cast a corrupted vote...a lesser evil selection as opposed to the much preferred take no prisoners mentality...if you will.

In the ultimate irony, should Fred Thompson be the selection, it will, in my opinion, affirm my belief that moral absolutists…when pressed to the wall…abandon principle in a demonstration that they too share the very trait that they so often assail…the one that suggests that little in the lives of we humans is absolute.

While they frequently seek to impose absolute beliefs upon the remainder of us…and scornfully judge the worthiness and moral turpitude of those who resist their strict interpretations (frequently driven by their requirement for a literal Biblical interpretation)…they may well grant themselves an exception to their high minded dogma in 2008 when they deem it appropriate or necessary…despite their endless protestations when others have suggested the relevant reasonability of such actions.

While many in the GOP have called Thompson the newest iteration of Ronald Reagan, I would suggest that should that characterization facilitate his nomination it would be more about packaging than about substance. Then again, in the absence of authenticity...coupled with a suspension of all or nothing etiquette, an accomplished actor may be the next best thing for the compromised absolutist psyche.

Call me a critical cynic, but in my thinking, nothing undermines dogma and invalidates the rhetoric of absolutism better than run of the mill hypocrisy. My antennae are keenly adjusted for an abomination…an arbitrary event of ethical relativism. I’m still debating if that eventuality would make for an acceptable marriage?

Daniel DiRito | July 7, 2007 | 6:04 PM
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

1 On July 9, 2007 at 6:01 PM, Seth wrote —

What about Ron Paul? He's a constitutionalist, is anti-war, pro sound money, pro gay marriage, more $ in campaign funds than McCain and he's led every online poll I've seen by a pretty good margin.

2 On July 11, 2007 at 7:43 PM, Seth wrote —

Won't somebody give me some feedback regarding Ron Paul on this thread? Daniel, PBCLiberal, anybody, Hannah even.

A lot of people think Ron is the best thing since Thomas Jefferson and everything I've read and seen seems to bear this out. Or is true freedom, based on one of the greatest documents ever written, the US Constitution, too much for today's society to handle?

Yeah, I'll admit, Ron has been quiet and understated when it comes to advocating gay rights and gay marriage, but it's much more than any other candidate has done including the Democrats. It's been enough to work up the likes of Devvy Kidd, a pseudo pro-freedom, Anne Coulter wanna be, among many others. Just what are people looking for in a candidate? Enquiring minds want to know!

Thanks for listening to me ramble.

Seth

============================================

Keep Your Eye on the Target
by Congressman Ron Paul

House of Representatives
203 Cannon H.O.B.
Washington, D.C. 20515

The other day, I made a huge "gaffe" on national TV: I told the truth about the crimes of the U.S. government.

As you can imagine, the ceiling fell in, and a couple of walls too. Congressman are supposed to support the government, I was told. Oh, it's okay to criticize around the edges, but there are certain subjects a member of the House of Representatives is not supposed to bring up. But I touched the real "third-rail" of American politics, and the sparks sure flew.

I was interviewed on C-SPAN's morning "Washington Journal, and I used the opportunity, as I do all such media appearances, to point out how many of our liberties have been stolen by the federal government. We must take them back.

The Constitution, after all, has a very limited role for Washington, D.C. If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: No federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid.

We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no Nafta, Gatt, or "fast-track" ; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax.

We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited.

That system is called liberty. It's what the Founding Fathers gave us. Under liberty, we built the greatest, freest, most prosperous, most decent country on earth. It's no coincidence that the monstrous growth of the federal government has been accompanied by a sickening decline in living standards and moral standards. The feds want us to be hamsters on a treadmill working hard, all day long, to pay high taxes, but otherwise
entirely docile and controlled. The huge, expensive, and out of control leviathan that we call the federal government wants to run every single aspect of our lives.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's not America. It's not what the Founders gave us. It's not the country you believe in. It's not the country I believe in. So, on that TV interview, I emphasized not only the attacks on our property, but also the decline of our civil liberties, at the hands of the federal police.

There are not supposed to be any federal police, according to the
Constitution.

Then I really went over the line. I talked about the Waco massacre. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno claim those 81 church members, including 19 children, burned down their own church and killed themselves, and good riddance. So they put few survivors on trial, and threw them in prison for 40 years.

We're not supposed to remember that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms talk about an unconstitutional Agency rather than arrest David Koresh on his regular morning jog, called in the TV stations for big publicity bonanza, and sent a swat team in black masks and black uniforms to break down his front door, guns blazing. They also sent in a helicopter gunship, to shoot at the roof of a church full of innocents.

The Branch Dravidian's resisted, and after a heartless siege of almost two months, and after cutting off food, water, and electricity, and playing horrible rock and roll through huge speakers 24 hours a day, the feds sent in the tanks to crush the walls of the church, and inject poisonous CS gas.

Now, CS gas is banned under the Paris Convention on Chemical Warfare. The U.S. could not use it in a war. But it could and did use it against American civilians.

After the tanks did their work on the church, the place burst into flame, and all 81 people -- men, women, children, and babies -- were incinerated in a screaming horror.

Did some feds set the fire?

Did the flammable CS gas ignite, since without electricity, the
parishioners were using lanterns? Did a tank knock over a lantern, striking one of the bales of hay being used against the thin walls as a "defense" against bullets? Or did the Dravidian's, as Clinton and Reno claim, kill themselves?

A new documentary Waco: The Rules of Engagement may show, through FLIR infrared photography, FBI snipers killing the Dravidian's by shooting through the back of the church, where no media cameras were allowed. This film won a prize at the famed Sundance Film Festival. It was made by people who took the government's side, until they investigated.

Whatever the truth, there's no question that an irresponsible federal government has innocent blood on its hands, and not only from Waco. And the refusal of corrupt and perverse liberals to admit it means nothing.

In my interview, in answer to a caller's question, I pointed out that Waco, and the federal murders at Ruby Ridge especially the FBI sniper's shot that blasted apart the head of a young mother holding her baby caused many Americans to live in fear of federal power.

Then I uttered the sentiment that caused the media hysteria: I said that a lot of Americans fear that they too might be attacked by federal swat teams for exercising their constitutional rights, or merely for wanting to be left alone.

Whoa! You've never seen anything like it. For days, in an all out
assault, I was attacked by Democrats, unions, big business, establishment Republicans, and of course the media, in Washington and my home state of Texas.

Newspapers foamed at the mouth, calling me a "right-wing extremist." (Say, isn't that what George III called Thomas Jefferson?)

I was even blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing! And by the way, I don't believe we've gotten the full truth on that either.

All my many opponents were outraged that a Congressman would criticize big government. "If you don't like Washington, resign!" said a typical big-city newspaper editorial.

But the media, as usual, were all wet. (Do they ever get anything right?) The average Congressman may go to Washington to wallow in power, and line his pockets with a big lobbying job for a special interest (so he can keep ripping off the taxpayers). But that's not why I'm in Congress. It's not why I left my medical practice as a physician. It's not why I put up with all the abuse. It's not why I refuse a plush Congressional pension.

I'm in this fight for a reason. I want to hand on to my children and grandchildren, and to you and your family, a great and free America, an America true to her Constitution, an America worthy of her history. I will not let the crooks and clowns and criminals have their way.

I'm in Congress to represent the ideas of liberty, the ideas that you and I share, for the people of my district, for the people of Texas, for the people of America. That's why I'm working to stop federal abuses, and to cut the government: its taxes, its bureaucrats, its paramilitary police, its spending, its meddling overseas, and every single unconstitutional action it takes. And not with a pair of nail scissors, but with a hammer and chisel. Won't you help me do this work?

Not much of the federal leviathan would be left, if I had my way. But you'd be able to keep the money you earn, your privacy would be secure, your dollar would be sound, your local school would be tops, and your kids wouldn't be sent off to some useless or vicious foreign war to fight for the UN.

But Jefferson and the other Founders would recognize our government, and our descendants would bless us. By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code.

I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing.

Recently, I asked a famous Republican committee chairman who's always talking about getting rid of IRS- why he engineered a secret $580 million raise for the tax collectors. "They need it for their computers," this guy told me. So the IRS can't extract enough from us as it is! The National Taxpayers Union says I have the highest pro-taxpayer rating in Congressional history, that I am the top "Taxpayer's Best Friend." You know I won't play
the Capitol Hill games with the Capitol Hill gang, denouncing the IRS while giving the Gestapo more of your money. Or figuring out some other federal tax for them to squeeze out of you. I also want to abolish the Federal Reserve, and send Alan Greenspan out to get a job.

The value of our dollar and the level of our interest rates are not supposed to be manipulated by a few members of the power elite meeting secretly in a marble palace. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, pure and simple. The only Constitutional money is gold and silver, not notes redeemable in them. Not fed funny money. Without the Federal Reserve, our money could not be inflated at the behest of big government or big banks. Your income and savings would not lose their value. Just as important, we wouldn't have this endless string of booms and busts, recessions and depressions, with each bust getting worse.

They aren't natural to the free market; they're caused by the schemers at the Fed. President Andrew Jackson called the 19th century Fed "The Monster" because it was a vehicle for inflation and all sorts of special interest corruption.

Let me tell you, things haven't changed a bit.

I also work to save our schools from D.C. interference. Thanks to the feds, new curriculums not only smear the Founders as "racist, slave-owning elitists," they seek to dumb down our students so they will all be equal.

"Look-say" reading and the abolition of phonics has the same purpose, and so does the new "fuzzy" math, in which there are no right and no wrong answers. That must be what they use in the U.S. Treasury! It's certainly what they use in the U.S. Congress.

But ever since the beginning of federal aid to education and accelerating with the establishment of the rotten Department of Education, SAT scores have been dropping. Schools, with few exceptions, are getting worse every year. To save our kids, we must get the sticky fingers of the feds off our local schools, and let parents rule. That's what the Constitution says, and the Bible too.

And then there's my least favorite topic, the UN. World government is obviously unconstitutional. It undermines our country's sovereignty in the worst way possible. That's why I want us out of the UN, and the UN itself taking a hike.

After all, the UN is socialist and corrupt (many votes can be bought with a "blonde and a case of scotch," one UN ambassador once said). It costs many billions, and it puts our soldiers in UN uniforms under foreign commanders, and sends them off to unconstitutional, undeclared wars. When Michael New, one of the finest young men I've ever met, objected to wearing UN blue, he
was kicked out of the American Army. What an outrage! Not one dime for the UN, and not one American soldier! Not in Haiti, not in Bosnia, not in Somalia, not in Rwanda. I know it's radical, but how about devoting American military efforts to defending America, and only America?

Such ideas, said one newspaper reporter, make me a maverick who will never go far because he won't go along to get along.

Darn right! What does "go far" mean? Get a big government job? To heck with that. And I won't sell my vote for pork either.

When I walked through the U.S. Capitol this morning, I got angry. The building is filled with statues and painting of Jefferson, Madison, and the other Founders. Those great men sacrificed everything to give us a free country, and a Constitution to keep it that way.

When I was first elected, I placed my hand on the Bible and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. That's exactly what
I'm fighting for. But such ideas drive the liberals crazy.

That's why I badly need your help. I've been targeted nationally for defeat. The Democrats, the AFL-CIO, the teachers union, big business PACs, the trial lawyers, the big bankers, the foreign-aid lobbyists, the big media, and the establishment Republicans want to dance on my political grave. The Fed, the Education Department, and the UN are anxious to join in.

They can't stand even one person telling the truth. And they're terrified when that truth gains the people's support.

Right now, four well-funded Democrats are competing to try to beat me, and a Republican is rumored to have been offered money at a secret meeting in Mexico(!) if he would try to knock me off in a primary. Won't you help me stay up here to fight?

Frankly, I am in trouble if you don't. My Texas district has 22,000 square miles (not a misprint). I've got to travel all over it, set up small offices to be manned by volunteers, advertise, pay phone bills, and distribute video and audio tapes to the people to get around the big-media lies. As I know from my last election, which I won by the skin of my teeth, the media will carry any smear, repeat any libel, throw any piece of mud, no matter how untrue. In fact, the less true, the more they like it. They are determined to silence me.

But you can help me overcome all this.

Together, we can beat the bad guys arrayed against our country and our freedom. We can support the Constitution. We can win. Your generous contribution of $25 or $50 would be great ...$100, $250, or even $500 or $1,000 would be magnificent. Of course, any amount would help, and in return, I will keep you up to date
on this fight as a member of my "kitchen cabinet."

What great men founded this country! What great people have carried on their fight! That fight is not lost, not if you will join it. Washington, D.C. is a loser, but among the people, our ideas are gaining every single day.

Keep the tide turning in our direction. Please make your most generous contribution. Join this fight for the Constitution, and stop those who want to rip it up, and throw it in the Potomac.
Together, we can join the Founders' fight. Together, we can make history.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul
U. S. Congressman
203 Cannon House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Committee to Re-elect Ron Paul
837 W. Plantation
Clute, Texas 77531

3 On July 11, 2007 at 8:13 PM, Daniel wrote —

Hi Seth,

Sorry to have ignored your comments Seth...my bad.

While I can't say that I know enough about Ron Paul to be an informed voice, I can say that what little I have seen and heard has been, for the most part, impressive.

If nothing else, I admire his candor...a rarity in politics.

Seth, can you tell me if his expressed positions are in fact his long held positions or if he has "positioned" himself to be a unique voice in an otherwise lockstep group?

In perusing his remarks above, the only hesitation I have is his references to the Bible. Perhaps it is safe to assume that the letter is one he sent to GOP supporters and it was a necessary inclusion...but if not, I must say that I will be on the lookout for another theocrat in 2008.

Also, his comment that swearing an oath to uphold the constitution drives liberals crazy makes no sense whatsoever to me and I hold a number of liberal beliefs.

If his remark is to be understood to place him in line with the likes of Scalia, who argues that the Constitution is in no way a "living document", then I would have reservations. That's not to say that I favor wholesale "modernization" of the Constitution but times do change.

Lastly, a strict federalist view would give me pause. While it worked well many years ago, I would argue that today's interrelated nature of the country and the world make it more impractical...and I oppose it if it is used to circumvent civil rights or to allow special interest blocks to impose biased and inconsistent beliefs.

Seth, I hope that provides some worthy feedback. I'll be anxious to hear your thoughts.

Take care,

Daniel

4 On July 11, 2007 at 10:47 PM, PBCliberal wrote —

I like Ron Paul's answers on the war, because I've been opposed to the war from the beginning, but I think the state (meaning governments from federal to local) has to play a bigger role than it did at the time the constitution was written. That's where I run afoul of Ron Paul

He's real big on finding egregious examples of federal intrusion into personal affairs. Going after Waco is a perfect example, and who likes the IRS? But I wonder how he feels about the more typical roles of the ATF, the FDA, and the INS. As inconsistent as our rules and enforcement have been, how about we start policing our food supply the way China does?

Libertarians love to cry caveat emptor, hoping that too much time has passed since the day when that was really true and the downside of it was evident every day. Should we have no building codes? What right is it of the government to tell us what we can and cannot build on our own property?

Should all streets become private enterprises? Should anyone who wants a radio station be allowed to simply start broadcasting on any frequency they wish?

Is the determination of who votes and who doesn't purely a states rights issue? Is marriage? Does Utah have the right to forbid marriage licenses to all but Mormons because the state constitution has been legally amended to allow it? His out on all the gay issues is "states rights." Just how much right to limit rights do states have?

Does New Jersey have the right to remove each and every restriction on the storage of chemical waste because it is in its economic interest to do so? If it wants to become America's dump, what right is it of the federal government to intercede?

Do we have any responsibility to stop the generation of greenhouse gases? I don't find any consideration in the federalist papers of the melting global icecaps, which probably isn't surprising since no one had even been to the north pole until Peary in 1909.

There are issues that have been brought about by scientific advancement and instantaneous communication that the founders never considered, and for these we're on our own, and the answers may not be the same as when people generally lived miles apart.

So I'm not real keen on Ron Paul, especially when I see in his funding pitch that he hits all the hotbutton issues where conservatives want to take no action or retreat: the UN, taxation, the federal reserve system.

But he's strangely silent on issues where conservatives want to spend money, like closing the borders and building a fence. I don't find him saying a word about drugs, probably because the libertarian position doesn't sit well with the "just say no" arm of the far right. Isn't a meth lab a perfect example of how market forces work? Shouldn't we be encouraging entrepreneurship wherever we can nurture it?

I find Ron Paul's little pitch, quoted above, extremely disingenuous, because for all the posing that the unions and the big bad liberal media are upset because he's telling the unvarnished truth, he obviously doesn't have the cojones to step up and tell the truth about what closing down the IRS would really do to all the right wing pet projects that his potential donors depend upon to protect their wealth and keep Rio Grande the dividing line between class and privilege that god intended it to be.

Give me your tired your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free? Not in today's Republican party, and if Ron Paul wants to go back to the good old days of the founding fathers, he'd throw those borders wide open and invite the downtrodden to share our freedoms.

Ron Paul should tell the whole truth about where he'd take the country, but if he did, not many would send him money.

5 On April 11, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Prince wrote —

There are two questions that you mental health therapist jobs need to sell
a product that's going too turn cold prospects into cash.

6 On April 11, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Prince wrote —

There are two questions that you mental health therapist jobs need to sell
a product that's going too turn cold prospects into cash.

7 On April 12, 2014 at 7:06 AM, buying a domain name wrote —

Nice blog here! Also your website so much up
very fast! What web host are you the use of? Can I get your associate hyperlink in your host?
I want my web site loaded up as quickly as yours lol

8 On April 12, 2014 at 7:08 AM, buying a domain name wrote —

Nice blog here! Also your website so much up
very fast! What web host are you the use of? Can I get your associate hyperlink in your host?
I want my web site loaded up as quickly as yours lol

9 On April 14, 2014 at 1:27 PM, acheter cialis original france wrote —

Reasons for individuals getting canker sores can be genetics, stress, food
allergies, hormonal changes or some medications will cause them.
The Poll taken in December 2006 by The Conspiracy
Files, a BBC TV series suggests, "that there is strong public support for the theory, Princess Diana's fatal car crash was not an accident. Making them more effective and less likely to cause side affects.

10 On April 14, 2014 at 1:29 PM, acheter cialis original france wrote —

Reasons for individuals getting canker sores can be genetics, stress, food
allergies, hormonal changes or some medications will cause them.
The Poll taken in December 2006 by The Conspiracy
Files, a BBC TV series suggests, "that there is strong public support for the theory, Princess Diana's fatal car crash was not an accident. Making them more effective and less likely to cause side affects.

11 On April 18, 2014 at 2:02 PM, gabinet psychologiczny w Krakowie wrote —

Ultimately, the Arlington direct neurosis and intelligence mailing company can only do so much.
The letter, brochure, lift note, order form and otther neurosis
and intelligence enclosures all work together, and they have to give out my physical
address. Remember that you do not distribute
your materials bby hand to the afea won't know about you, your compan or individual needs.

12 On April 18, 2014 at 2:04 PM, gabinet psychologiczny w Krakowie wrote —

Ultimately, the Arlington direct neurosis and intelligence mailing company can only do so much.
The letter, brochure, lift note, order form and otther neurosis
and intelligence enclosures all work together, and they have to give out my physical
address. Remember that you do not distribute
your materials bby hand to the afea won't know about you, your compan or individual needs.

Thought Theater at Blogged

Post a comment


Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry


© Copyright 2021

Casting

Read about the Director and Cast

Send us an email

Select a theme:

Critic's Corner

 Subscribe in a reader

Encores

http://DeeperLeft.com

Powered by:
Movable Type 4.2-en

© Copyright 2021

site by Eagle River Partners & Carlson Design