The growing clout of Lake Jackson's Ron Paul

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Paul goes from ridicule to respect:

Ron Paul is a white-haired, soft-voiced, 74-year-old doctor who has twice failed in presidential campaigns and is frequently derided by his Republican colleagues as an ideologue from the party's libertarian fringe.

No one would have been surprised if the Lake Jackson congressman had slipped off the political radar after his 2008 quixotic bid for the presidency, his ambitions for higher office thwarted.

But Paul has refused to go out to the political pasture to live in comfortable irrelevance. As odd as it may seem, he has become one of the most influential Republicans in a capital city dominated by liberal Democrats.

The subject that has brought him to prominence is the same issue that subjected him to ridicule from establishment Republicans for years: his long-standing opposition to the nation's monetary system and the Federal Reserve Board that prints money and controls its supply.

“On economic matters, he was seen as a way outside the mainstream,” University of Houston political scientist Richard Murray said. “His views were somewhat 19th century in the view of a lot of economists.”

Well, they say history repeats itself, and suddenly Paul's “19th-century” thinking seems appealing to those suffering through the first economic meltdown of the 21st century.

No longer ignored

Paul's proposal to audit the Federal Reserve — first introduced by the Texas congressman more than 20 years ago — recently sailed through the House Financial Services Committee. His bill has an astonishing 317 co-sponsors in the House, three-quarters of the chamber's members.

In the Senate, where Paul asked Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont socialist, to introduce a similar bill, the measure already has 30 co-sponsors.

And while he was once ignored by his political antagonists at the Federal Reserve, Paul is now engaged in a very public policy debate with Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, who has criticized the Texan's legislation in speeches, interviews and an op-ed last month in the Washington Post. Asked about Paul's proposal, the chairman declared it would be “bad for markets, bad for the Fed's credibility, bad for inflation expectations and bad for the dollar.”

But not bad for Paul. The lawmaker has been booked solid with media interviews and college speeches; indeed, the Don Quixote of congressional Republicans has had more success in 2009 than any time in his three-decade legislative career.

“I never had so many calls as I had last week,” Paul said.

It's a sweet moment for someone who has long been on the margins of Washington politics. Paul attracted his share of attention during his presidential campaign, but even then, he was painted as a fringe candidate zealously supported by libertarian ideologues.

In the House, Paul was ignored by Democrats and marginalized by Republicans. He was punished for the very views that earn him so much adulation today.

According to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in 2003, when Paul was set to assume the chairmanship of the Financial Services subcommittee, Republican higher-ups eliminated the panel because they didn't want Paul in charge.

“He told me, ‘I won't get anywhere until you become the chairman,' ” Frank said.

Paul may have been kidding at the time, but his words were prophetic.

With the Democrats in control and Frank as chairman, the committee voted 43-26 in favor of Paul's amendment that would give Congress more power latitude in auditing the Fed.

“I'm very proud to have been involved in bringing his amendment to a vote,” said Frank, who still voted against it.

Going mainstream

In Texas, analysts see Paul's renaissance as a reflection of the changing political landscape of America.

“Ron Paul's got a hell of a lot more political support now than just fringe nuts,” Murray said. “It's gone mainstream now.”
But it's not that Paul has gone mainstream. Rather, the mainstream has gone Paul-ite, with popular anger at Wall Street and the Federal Reserve crystallizing into support for policies Paul has long advocated.

“What happened was the Fed got itself in trouble and he's the one who was there to take advantage of it,” Frank said.

Paul says concerns about American monetary policy — specifically President Richard Nixon taking the country off the gold standard in 1971 — drove him into politics, and he's spent most of his career wondering whether people would ever care.

The answer, suddenly, is yes, something the congressman admits “seems strange after all these years.”
He's also noticed that his colleagues are treating him differently, too.

“It was like, there he goes on his way, nice guy, but he's not in the ballgame,” Paul said.

“But today, I think they're paying a little more attention.”
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Ron Paul have a much better idea of what is going on with our economy that most others in Washington. He does, however, have two major flaws himself. One, he is a ReBumLiCan that therefore part of the problem. Two, he has no idea in the world on military and intell issues, which if president, is he primary function as commander in chief.

He is at best a fair second stringer.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
I will be voting for Ron Paul's son, Rand, as the next US Senator from Kentucky. This bright, relatively young conservative is poised to take a leadership position in Washington. He reminds me a great deal of his father.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
What is his miltary/intelligence background? Any at all? Is he a ReBumLiCan? I don't like the idea that he is a Senator either. It is likely that he has little experience in running a large budget or large work force
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
One, he is a ReBumLiCan that therefore part of the problem. ...
Well, one of the problems with speaking out publicly is the fact it has a tendency to show the depth of one's knowledge (or, in this case, the lack thereof ....)

So - are you advocating that no Republicans should ever be elected ?

Or that anyone who would affiliate with the Republican party is always part of the problem ?

FWIW, Ron Paul is undoubtedly the most independent-minded elected national "Republican" official out there. And he is the one out of all of them, that is least beholden to the Republican machine - or any special interest.

Such statements are just plainly ignorant on their face - certainly to anyone who has bothered to inform themselves of who the man is, and what he stands for.

I'd rather imagine that there are more than one or two here that are undoubtedly better informed about the man than you appear to be - so you might want to temper your comments in light of the fact that at least some of the populace you are speaking to is not as mis-informed as you apparently are.

Two, he has no idea in the world on military and intell issues, which if president, is he primary function as commander in chief.
Such a statement is roughly analogous to saying: "George Washington had no idea no idea in the world on military and intell issues ......"

Of course, it is sadly mis-informed (I'm trying to be really polite here ... :rolleyes:)

"Since 9/11 Americans have been bombarded with categorical assertions that from Democratic and Republican leaders, academics, U.S. generals, and the media that the United States and it's allies are in a race with Islamists to win the hearts and minds of Muslims.

The politicians and generals claims are cynically grounded in the fact that they have used the nations military power too sparingly and are afraid to urge it's more abundant use; thus we have "too-little-too-late" half measures like President Bush sending five brigades to Iraq when fifty would be too few to assure victory.

These individuals are trying to convince the citizenry, and perhaps themselves, that they have not failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that military might has completed it's part in the struggle, and now victory hinges on a successful hearts-and-minds campaign.

Starting from different points, the two groups arrive at the same conclusion: we must win the war with al-Qaeda with a hearts-and-minds campaign. If honesty were in their toolkits, however, both would have to admit that they have nothing with which to win, or even purchase, Muslim hearts and minds, and that in that arena America will be drubbed to death for as long as the status quo in U.S. foreign policy exists.

To date, much of the U.S. public diplomacy effort has been conducted so as to avoid the issue of Islamists' motivation ......

Ten years into the war declared by Bin Laden then, official Washington resolutely refuses to address the Islamist's true motivation: only a single member of America's governing elite - Representative Ron Paul (R - Texas) has publicly indicated that he has caught on to the reality that our enemies are motivated by U.S. foreign policy.

Instead, U.S. government officials, and leaders of both political parties, simply and reflexively repeat that the Islamists hate America and are waging war against it because of our freedoms, liberty, and gender equality - not because of what the U.S. government does in the Islamic world.

This claim is a blatant lie, bad for that reason alone - but worse because it keeps Americans from clearly gauging the enemy's motivations and intentions, or bin Laden's enormous potential appeal among the world's 1.4 billion Muslims.

Frankly, persisting in this lie amounts to a death wish."


..... Michael Scheuer, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq

Two points:

1. the author argues that thus far our military response has been wholly inadequate,

2. he identifies Ron Paul as the only national U.S. political leader that has publicly indicated that he has a clue about the actual motivations of the enemy (and consequently, has at least some chance of obtaining victory)

Considering who it is that is speaking, what do you make of that ?
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I don't like the idea that he is a Senator either.
One literally couldn't make this **** up if one tried ..... :rolleyes:

Rand Paul isn't a Senator, he's just running for that office .....

Layout, you need to get out a little more ......
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I am not familiure with his work, either as an author or his work with the CIA. he could be very good or just another malcontent with a tell all book. Of that I have no idea.

Knowing when and how to apply military force and known when not to is a function of experience.

George Washington learned many of his lessons on military tactics etc the hard way during the French and Indian War when he fought for the British. Got his butt kicked at Ft. Necessity near Uniontown, PA. The experience he gleaned during his service in the British army served him well during our Revolution.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I am not familiar with his work, either as an author or his work with the CIA. He could be very good or just another malcontent with a tell all book. Of that I have no idea.
Well, he was good enough to put together targeting packages to kill bin-Laden on ten different occasions - all of which our government officials failed to act on (first Clinton, then Bush)

The only way you will be able to judge whether he was/is good and whether what he is saying makes any sense is to read what he has written. His most recent book, Marching Toward Hell is only $16 (paperback) ......

I can assure you that reading what he wrote will be far more enlightening and informative than anything you read here in the Soapbox ...

Michael Scheuer

"In 1993 Osama bin Laden began speaking in detail to Muslim and Western journalists about his beliefs, goals, and intentions, and began publishing commentaries on these matters in the media.... While bin Laden's words have not been a torrent, they are plentiful, carefully chosen, plainly spoken, and precise. He has set out the Muslim world's problems as he sees them; determined that they are caused by the United States; explained why they must be remedied; and outlined how he will try to do so. Seldom in America's history has an enemy laid out so clearly the basis for the war he is waging against it."
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I might look it up. I wish I had contacts at CIA like I have at my old workplace. I would much rather talk to the people who worked with him.

Take a look at a book called the Puzzle Palace, by James Bamford. Sounds cool, he too has credentials. I never knew him. I know several who did know him. I trust those people, I know them well. They said that he was a cry baby who blamed all of his problems on others. He was a guy who did not want to go the extra mile when needed.

Lots of people did lots of things in that business. He may be legit, may not, I just have no way to confirm that either way.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I will be voting for Ron Paul's son, Rand, as the next US Senator from Kentucky. This bright, relatively young conservative is poised to take a leadership position in Washington. He reminds me a great deal of his father.

Here is the thing, is he a conservative or a libertarian like his father?
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I might look it up. I wish I had contacts at CIA like I have at my old workplace. I would much rather talk to the people who worked with him.
Oh heavens yes, don't bother to actually read what the guy wrote and evaluate it on your own, on it's merits - instead rely on the rumormill, from people whose motivations you may not even be entirely aware of ......

He may be legit, may not, I just have no way to confirm that either way.
Yeah, well ..... if your ability to determine legitimacy is based solely on what other people tell you (rather than using your own abilities to evaluate), you are placing yourself in a rather precarious position indeed.

BTW, the CIA (which vetted and approved all of his books for publication) isn't generally in the habit of allowing "tell-all" books .......
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Where did I say I was not going to read his book?

One thing, personal knowlege is worth much in this world. Knowning someone involved always assists in determining just how good or not someone elses works are.

I take nothing for granted.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Where did I say I was not going to read his book?
You didn't - I was just pullin' your chain :D

One thing, personal knowlege is worth much in this world.
That is absolutely true - however when one relies on the knowledge and opinions of others, the knowledge is no longer, by definition, personal.

Knowning someone involved always assists in determining just how good or not someone elses works are.
Not always - but it can (in theory, at least)

I take nothing for granted.
Neither do I - particularly "group-think" or so-called "common wisdom".
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"That is absolutely true - however when one relies on the knowledge and opinions of others, the knowledge is no longer, by definition, personal."


Maybe so, but, even second hand knowlege from someone you know and trust is better than a book by someone you have never heard of. At least it is for me.

As to "common wisdom" I am afraid that "wisdom" is far less common than it used to be. It is also more likely to be ignored now.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Maybe so, but, even second hand knowlege from someone you know and trust
Were there no such things as inability to observe the obvious, personal agendas, and betrayal, the above would be an absolute that you could take to the bank everytime.

is better than a book by someone you have never heard of.
Like I said - you might want to get out more ..... or just simply pay a little more attention to what's going on.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
And how, pray tell, do you know just how much I do or don't get out? How much or how little I pay attention? Or how good or bad my friends are? Just because they are not published does not make them wrong and just because someone is does not make them right.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
And how, pray tell, do you know just how much I do or don't get out? How much or how little I pay attention?
That you have not even heard of Scheuer or any of his books is evidence enough ... the first two books were highly controversial at the time they came out .... was a big deal.

The first book Through Our Enemy's Eyes was begun in 1999 as an unclassified manual for counterterrorism officers.

He was publicly outed after publication of the second book - ostensibly because folks were trying to cover their keisters .....

He's been interviewed since then in numerous places (print and tv) - it could be that if you were to (re ?)familiarize yourself, you might realize that you are at least aware of who he is ... although perhaps not.

Or how good or bad my friends are?
I certainly have no idea how "good" or "bad" they they are - I do however know one thing for certain: They are human and subject to the same passions and frailties that we all are.

Just because they are not published does not make them wrong and just because someone is does not make them right.
Uhhhh ... yeah ... no doubt ... :rolleyes:
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"That you have not even heard of Scheuer or any of his books is evidence enough ... the first two books were highly controversial at the time they came out .... was a big deal.

The first book Through Our Enemy's Eyes was begun in 1999 as an unclassified manual for counterterrorism officers."


I have was out of the business long before that. In reality, I am glad I am out and have spent a long time trying to just live my life. I was tired. I still am.

I most likely will read one or all, what I don't understand is why this appears to be so personal to you. Do you Know this guy? Are you him? Sorry if my desire to check him out in other ways offends you. I like to argue concepts, thoughts and ideas, why do you like to get personal?

My thoughts, ideas and passions are based on a lifetime of dealing with things that most in here and in this country in general only sort of know are out there and don't really want to know about. When you spend a large part of your adult life, the "best years" of it, dealing with death, it wears on you.

Not crying, just trying to give you some little insight into my thoughts.

I take pride in everything I had done in my service. I did what had to be done to keep this Nation safe. So have many others. I don't take hearing lies about what we did or what today's agents are doing very well. I am quite sure that you would not cotton at that well to it either. No man does.
 
Top