Ron Paul has published a message explaining that he is giving up the race. Sure, he declares his determination to “fight on”, but without a national campaign staff; he wants to focus on his constituents in his home district whom he declares unwilling to “let down”, unlike the rest of his supporters, I suppose. Here is the most important part of Ron Paul’s statement:
“Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican”
So there we have it: as with the rest of them, his loyalty to the Party supersedes his loyalty to his country. You see, he “is a Republican and he will always remain a Republican” , nevermind that he used to be a Libertarian in the past. He does not explain any further why exactly being inside the party of Dubya, Guiliani or McCain is more important than preventing a Fascist from sitting in the White House, from having imperial wars, mass poverty, the wholesale violation of civil right or a lunatic Federal Reserve bankrupting the USA.
Nevermind the raised $5’000’000+ still proudly displayed on the campaign website: the Revolution is over: very few Americans will ever take a seemingly principled candidate seriously again, not after this ugly about face. By not even trying to reach out to the other anti-war candidates (Kucinich, Gravel, Nader) and by rejecting even the possibility of a third party candidacy Ron Paul has shown not only his own moral limits but, even more importantly, the limits of hoping that the system can reform itself provided some well-intentioned people show up to do it. If anything good did come from the Ron Paul campaign, it is now the indisputable proof that:
1) any participation in the US political system, be it by running in it or by voting, only perpetuates it; the system cannot be reformed, redirected or otherwise salvaged: it needs to be completely destroyed.
2) unlike the British or Soviet empires, the USraelian Empire will not collapse from within: it can only be brought down from the outside. Unlike the British or the Russians, Americans simply do not have what it takes to get rid of their own ugly, evil, bloated and metastasizing Empire, no matter how “ubuesque” it has become.
So Ron Paul did an immense service to his country after all: he destroyed the last illusion any rationally thinking American could harbor in his heart about some politician working 
within the system would bring about any change. For all the empty talk about revolution, McCain, Obama or Hillary will sit in the White House soon. The remaining choices are as meaningful as the choice between the SS and the SA in Hitler’s Germany. For a while Gravel, Kucinich and Paul gave some of us the illusion that this might not really be the case. That illusion is now gone. As with any illusion – that is a good riddance.
What is your opinion on the Green Party and its candidate, Mckinney? (http://www.gp.org/index.php)
one detail:
“he used to be a Libertarian in the past.”
he has always been a republican, but ran in 1988 on the libertarian party ticket. you can do that.
i agree that between clinton and mccain (and huckabee and obama), we are fucked (love that picture). i agree that the system cannot be reformed. i don’t agree with the vitriol of this attack on paul. is it disappointment?
@a’belle: I have to confess that I don’t know much about the Green Party in the USA. In Europe I found them rather uninspiring, but decent on most issues. I have a great deal of respect for Nader though, and did he not run on a Green Party ticket once?
@petey: no, not disappointment. I am *disgusted* with his Party loyalty and his refusal to look at other options.
I don’t like quitters, I don’t like surrender. If you are alone, you can surrender to your heart’s content, but when other people believe in you and count on you, surrender always becomes betrayal.
If you like the picture, check out libertystickers.com – there is a lot of hilarious stuff there.
What do you think is a smart thing for folks like Nader,Kucinich,Gravel, McKinney, Paul, etc. to be doing?
@curt: I think that what would be needed is a united political movement which would have an extremely limited political platform; something along the following lines:
1) full restoration of all US Constitutional right and end of all US illegal detention facilities (incl. Gitmo of course)
2) full compliance with the international law and all the treaties entered in by the USA
3) immediate withdrawal from Iraq and immediate termination of all foreign interventions (covert and overt)
4) immediate termination of all foreign and military aid to Israel, Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt
5) creation of an independent prosecutor tasked with investigating the Bush administration numerous crimes
how does that sound, for starters?
This comment has been removed by the author.
It may be that his House seat is being genuinely threatened. It is happening to Kucinich in Cleveland. Kucinich’s opponent for his Cleveland House seat, Cimperman, is being heavily funded by AIPAC who are none too happy with him for among other things introducing a motion of impeachment against Bush.
Nevertheless, I am in agreement, that it makes little sense for him to continue as a Republican when they have so completely rejected him and a third part candidacy with Dennis Kucinich or Gravel or Cynthia McKinney would be embraced by so very many. He still has plently of money in the bank. He really should fight it out to the bitter end.
it sounds excellent.
just where is it that he says he is quitting anything? with Captain Hair-doo “suspending”, rather than dropping out, has a direct effect on the delegates that he still holds and what can be done with them, which changes what can be done at the convention. Ron has said from the beginning the he was running a dual campaign including his house seat reset. post stupid tuesday, he doesnt require the amount of national staff to cover the remaining states, they ramped up for S-T. so what’s he supposed to do, just keep people around doing nothing wasting money? he has already purchased over 700k worth of radio and tv ads for ohio and texas and still has millions left for more, unlike McWannabee.
and fwiw, the green party is even less relevant the the LP, unless you would consider the total of those one percenters to have any real significance in the outcome of anything.
as for his ‘options’, the CPD doesn’t allow any options. I always get a laugh outta’ how people think a third party campaign can have any chance of doin’ squat by continuing to genuflect back to Perot as some kind of example. the only reason anyone even heard of Perot is because spook-daddy petitioned for him to be ‘allowed’ into the debates. there are no options outside the two-party fraud.
The 1992 Debate Debacle
The 1992 presidential election featured an incumbent, George Bush, who was facing a deep recession and a charismatic young challenger in Bill Clinton. To make matters worse, in mid May both candidates were losing in the polls to challenger H. Ross Perot. When Perot temporarily withdrew from the race in late June, Bill Clinton’s poll numbers rose 14 percent, whereas George Bush’s poll numbers rose only 3 percent.
When Perot re-entered the race on October 1, 1992 and immediately received approximately 10 percent of public support in polling, the Bush campaign was thrilled, since it was clear that the majority of Perot’s supporters had switched to Bill Clinton after Perot’s earlier exit. Since the Bush campaign was deathly afraid of an impending defeat in November, they petitioned the CPD to allow Perot entry into the debates. Clinton obviously didn’t want this, but they were also equally afraid of a tremendous public backlash, so they also agreed to this change in policy.
Even then, the CPD wasn’t willing to include Perot in the debates; they offered on October 5, 1992 to include Perot only in the first debate, then re-evaluate the situation before the second and third debates. The reason? They were concerned about setting a precedent that would require them to include any candidate that polled at 7 percent in future years; they were deathly afraid of a third player at the table. However, at the strong urging of the Bush campaign and the indifference of the Clinton campaign, Perot was invited to all three debates on October 7, 1992.
If you don’t believe that the debates can have a significant impact on elections, note that Perot’s poll numbers were hovering around 7 percent in early October, but by early November, after “winning” two of the three debates, Perot took home 19 percent of the popular vote. Clearly, independent candidates can have a major impact on politics, but Perot was only included because Bush wanted him there.
I like Ron Paul. He is a true patriot, free marketeer and globalization (open borders, free trade) kind of guy. My kind of guy in other words.
Please do not insult him.
I must admit, however, that there is something magical about Huckubee and Obama.
Rush and Ann Coulter have said on many occasions that they will campaign for Obama against McCain (even they have been wrapped up in Obama’s magnitism.)
I don’t like supporting the person Ann Coulter (the nativist big government pro-sanctions protectionist) is backing. So I might consider voting for McCain.
To get back to Huckubee, just listen to him talk. He is out of this world. I love the way he integrates his faith and spirituality into everything. It is inspirational to listen to him. Don’t the rest of you feel it? I voted for Obama in California . . . but would have voted for Huckubee if the Republican primary were open to independents.
Who is Cynthia McKinney? If I don’t know who she is, you can be sure that no one else does either.
Kucinich is well intentioned. I can’t stand the nativist big government pro-sanctions protectionist Gravel. I would love to see him go to villages in Africa and Asia and tell them why he is so intent on banning imports from poor countries into the US (causing untold suffering upon billions of poor people around the world,) as well as blocking investment and business with respect to poor countries. Gravel can take his pro-sanctions drivel and take a hike!
“I can’t stand the nativist big government pro-sanctions protectionist Gravel. I would love to see him go to villages in Africa and Asia and tell them why he is so intent on banning imports from poor countries…”
More globalist drivel from “if I don’t know who McKinney is, no one does” Anand. He is running for president of the US, not an African or other third world country!
Something magical about Huckubee! LOL! It’s his dreamy green eyes Anand.
I have seen you here before Anand, so the fact that you don’t know McKinney or the “greens” doesn’t surprise me. Your understanding of the left is sorely lacking. I’ve heard you misrepresent Noam Chomsky’s positions in a way that was laughingly mistaken, as if you didn’t get where he was coming from at all and completely missed his message. Your take on Gravel was also hilarious i.e. Unless America outsources millions of it’s jobs leaving tens of millions unemployed here(during a recession)billions will be thrown into hell, as if Big Corporate interests don’t already insure that billions stay in low wage slavery and jobs with no benefits.
Might I ask how old a fellow you are?
Who is being naive? What effect do you think blocking imports from developing countries will have on the poor in developing countries?
Do you support farm subsidies in affluent countries too?
How would you facilitate billions of poor people around the world working their way out of poverty?
Remember former President Salinas’ passionate speeches from the early 1990s saying “we want trade, not aid.” Poor people have dignity too.
Have you ever heard of comparative advantage (google it), monopolistic competition, or how allowing people from around the world to collaborate together in complex processes across the value chain accelerates innovation and efficiency? 1+1=3; trade increases the size of the overall pie. Why are you opposed to increasing the size of the overall pie?
It looks like one American, at least, is envious that the global economy has grown faster in recent years than any time in recorded human history (causing elevated natural resource prices and other temporary shortages because demand is higher than expected.) My fellow American, our % of the global pie will continue to drop . . . but that is a good thing. We benefit when others prosper. In absolute terms, we are far better off having a smaller share of a larger global pie than a larger share of a small global pie. Let us be graceful, and accept this natural process than benefits us.
What do you have against Huckubee? Maybe “dreamy” isn’t such a bad thing. Please do not allow the hard knocks of life to remove all idealism.
Anand, Anand – you are doing it again… Do yourself (and everyone else) a favor and stop that nonsense, its embarrassing for everybody.
I oppose sanctions, period. And I don’t apologize one bit for it. Perhaps those who support sanctions should defend their position.
Just so this is clear, trade doesn’t chance the number of jobs, but rearranges them (from import competing industries to export competing industries, and possibly investment good competing industries.) Trade always has winners and losers. But trade generally results in a larger overall pie.
Well, let me come out and say it. Many people here opposed sanctions on Iraq, and oppose continued sanctions on Cuba, Iran, and Gaza. How can you oppose sanctions in these specific instances but support sanctions against the rest of the developing world? Isn’t that hypocrisy? And it is against America’s, the World’s, and developing countries’ interests.
On a completely different topic, Vineyard why do you use the world “Salafi” instead of Takfiri? Most muslims hate takfiris. Many sunni muslims are slightly defensive about the terms muslim extremist, sunni extremist, salafi extremist. Some are a little concerned that the term refers to them and theirs.
Vineyard, why don’t you use the term ‘Takfiri?’
correction; the ad money spent was for the texas presidential campaign only, not including ohio.
from Jesse Benton:
Paul’s spokesman Jesse Benton said the national staff would likely be reduced from 150 to about 50, with those who worked in the Super Tuesday primaries in states such as California being let go.
In addition, Benton said, he and other national staffers will transfer to Paul’s congressional re-election operation.
But Benton said that even as Paul wages a primary campaign he will also continue running his presidential campaign in Texas. Three staffers will be assigned to his presidential effort here. He said that the Paul campaign has purchased about $700,000 worth of radio and cable television advertising that is scheduled to start running this week in the Houston, Austin and Dallas-Fort Worth markets.
Benton said that Paul still has about $6 million in his presidential election account. He said the lawmaker cannot transfer that money to his congressional campaign unless he terminates his presidential effort, which he does not intend to do.
But Benton said Paul had recently raised several hundred thousand dollars for his congressional race.
Paul is scheduled to hold a rally for his congressional race today at the Lake Jackson Civic Center from 1:30 to 4 p.m.
It strikes me that some people here are very naive, but possibly well intentioned.
Perhaps you would benefit from reading a comment I left at my good friend’s blog (IraqiMojo.com–a TRUE friend of the Palestinians and Lebanese Shia by the way):
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/iraqimojo/8700129821280761802/?a=52676#225236
Everyone here has to answer the question, how to help the Yahoos (poor people) transform themselves into Googles (rich people).
It is possible that some people here have not traveled the world much . . . well let me clue you in to the facts of life:
Most people in the developing world care far more about protectionism in affluent countries than any other single issue. Imperialism, Palestine etc. aren’t nearly as important.
Really caring about someone is seeing the world through their eyes, not your eyes. It is feeling what they feel. And trying to facilitate them helping themselves (in the long run) . . . not win some short term popularity contest (that is populist politics.)
If anyone here has the slightest interest in learning the “TRUTH” about Iraq . . . visit my friend’s blog. Here is the test . . . are you interested in hearing what you want to hear . . . or the truth.
Hi VS
I’m not at all surprised by Ron Paul’s ‘disloyalty’ to the ‘Revolution’. He has always been a conservative reactionary.
What I do/did find so surprising was so many of the “Left”, including huge sections of the anti-war movement, having almost blind faith in the man.
“Once a Tory, always a Tory” as my dad used to say.