Yours truly in the Chronicle - I told her I was Libertarian but she didn't print it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/05/MNM61MKTTH.DTL

Is Ron Paul left of Obama, or a throwback to Ike?

Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau<mailto:clochhead@…>

Friday, January 6, 2012

Washington -- GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul's antiwar stand is considered so out of sync with his party that rival Rick Santorum put him in league with liberal Democrat Dennis Kucinich, to the left of President Obama<http://www.sfgate.com/barack-obama/>.

But to his supporters, Paul is returning the GOP to its cautious foreign policy roots, articulated in President Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 warning about "the military-industrial complex."

In their view, the Republican Party lost its way starting with the Reagan military build-up in the 1980s and reaching a crescendo with former President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"George Bush was the worst thing that ever happened to the Republican Party," said Paul supporter Robert Nadeau, owner of Nadeau Family Vintners in Paso Robles (San Luis Obispo County). "When I look at the Republican Party going back to World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, the Republican candidates were the end-the-war candidates.

"The party of Eisenhower and Nixon has now become the war party," he said. "How did that happen? How is it we're willing to borrow $1 trillion from the Chinese so we can throw bombs on people whose regimes we propped up?"

Trillion-dollar deficits at home and a war in Iraq that is estimated to have cost at least that much are creating dissonance among Tea Party, evangelical Christian and traditional Republicans in conservative regions of California and the nation.
Compelling message

For some voters who once supported Sen. John McCain and George W. Bush, the small-government, antiwar message from Paul, a 76-year-old candidate who critics say looks like he could be feeding pigeons, is compelling.

Establishment Republicans give Paul zero chance of winning the GOP nomination, but the party's neoconservative wing is alarmed enough about his message that former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson accused Paul's supporters of trying to "erase 158 years of Republican Party history," including Abraham Lincoln.

"He really is not resonating with establishment Republicans," who consider Paul's opposition to sanctions on Iran as "extremely dangerous," said GOP analyst Ford O'Connell.

Still, polls show Paul headed for a second-place finish in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, behind Mitt Romney, boosted by the state's open primary that allows independents to vote. Paul doubled his showing in Iowa from four years ago, capturing 21 percent of the vote there on Tuesday.

Exit polling from the Iowa caucuses showed Paul picking up 18 percent of participants described as evangelical Christians, outpacing Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who each got 14 percent of those voters. Santorum, who finished in second place, just eight votes behind Romney, got 32 percent of those voters.

Paul also matched Romney among Tea Party supporters, at 19 percent, while Santorum won the Tea Party bloc at 29 percent. In New Hampshire, however, Santorum is lagging behind Paul, drawing 8 percent support to Paul's 18 percent, according to a poll released Thursday by Suffolk University<http://www.sfgate.com/education-guide/> in Boston. Romney is drawing 41 percent.

Analysts say Paul's appeal is limited to a loyal bloc of diehards.
Popularity ceiling

"He hits a ceiling at 25 percent," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, which runs the poll. "The only state where he can break above 25 percent is Virginia, and that's only because he's one of two candidates on the ballot" along with Romney.

John Dennis, a San Francisco activist for Paul who ran as the Republican challenger to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi<http://www.sfgate.com/nancy-pelosi/>, D-San Francisco, two years ago when she was House speaker, said Paul's loyal supporters have doubled in the past six months.

"The Republican Party was non-interventionist, but the neoconservatives took that over," Dennis said. "But our roots are still there because it makes common sense to conservatives not to go to war simply from a fiscal point of view."

The Paul campaign's strategy is to collect delegates with an eye toward influencing the party platform. Caucuses in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota and Washington can allow passionate followers an outsized influence because open balloting is conducted among small local groups, compared with statewide primaries with secret ballots.

Political analysts are skeptical, however, that Romney or any of the other GOP contenders would embrace Paul's libertarian positions, which include not just his antiwar stance but his opposition to the war on drugs, the Federal Reserve and other issues.

At the same time, the eventual candidate can ill afford to alienate Paul's followers if he continues to rack up vote shares in the 20 percent range.
Getting a little help

Boosting Paul's visibility is a war-weary public, record deficit spending and a sitting Democratic president who many Democrats believe has continued Bush policies on terrorism, civil liberties and war, said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute.

Paul has "brought together this concept of economic conservatism, social moderation and staying out of unnecessary wars," Boaz said. "That combination hasn't been offered by any other Republican presidential candidate in a long time."

But Michael Denny, a San Francisco volunteer for the Paul campaign who described his political views as "Old Right revivalist," said the sentiment he has encountered among many GOP voters is that "war is religion," and that faction shows little sign of change.

"I can't say I'm seeing a shift among those who have taken a hard-line position," Denny said. "But for those who are undecided or feel queasy about the way the government is going, Ron Paul gives them an alternative voice."

E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@...<mailto:clochhead@sfchronicle.com>.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/06/MNM61MKTTH.DTL

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Mike

Fantastic, Mike!! "Old Right Revivalist" is good too!!

Marcy

Michael,

Excellent quotes! Congratulations on getting your voice heard in the paper/online.

All the best,

Don

Thanks Don…one thing she said that was interesting….she told me she had interviewed Milton Freidman and that he told her “War benefits the State” and then she said “And I’ve never forgotten it”.

From the way the interview went, I believe is starting to get the message personally. Little by little the myth of the benevolent State collapses.

Mike

LPSF,

Last night, a friend, whom I recently renewed a long-broken friendship (We had gone years without speaking to each other because of arguments over political and lifestyle differences), called to question my support of Ron Paul and Paul's efforts to end the War on Drugs. Though my friend listens intently to every word of all democrat and republican debates, he stated: "Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin so that little kids can walk into Kroger and buy heroin, like candy, off the shelves." My friend wanted to know how I can support Paul's position. I, like you, am well aware that my friend's characterization of Paul's stance on the War on Drugs is a calumny against Ron Paul. Fortunately, either my friend's cellphone batteries died or he hung up, we never had the conservation. (The thought crossed my mind that renewing this friendship may have been a mistake.)

Here's some background information on my friend: He's white, 45 years old and divorced (his ex-wife is a lawyer). He is a former lawyer, a former tax accountant, is studying for a masters degree in divinity and is a Ph.D.-level student in gerontology. He had a narcotics problem for several years and is in a Narcotics Anonymous 12-step program and blames his abuse of pills on genetics and the "disease of addiction." His heroes are Ted Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. He is pro-war, voted for Obama and believes G-d supports the social security system and the welfare system.

If you encounter a friend/person who more-or-less fits this description, presents a similar argument and demands that you explain your support for Ron Paul and your opposition to the War on Drugs, what would you say? How would you interact with such a person?

All the best,

Don

Dear Ron,

Regardless of the color or background of the person to whom I were explaining my opposition to the insane War on Drugs, I would quote the heart-breaking statistics on innocents caught in drug gang cross fire, the turf wars that engulf once-peaceful neighborhoods, the misery of prisons overflowing with drug-related incarceration, youth tempted by the promised riches of dealing in the restricted supply of drugs. I would also mention the public resources bloating the governmental agencies engaged on the War on Drugs. I would also mention that I, or your "friend", have no moral right to keep drugs from the hands of those who feel they need them.

Kids walking into Kroger on their own volition to purchase drugs seems mild compared with kids walking into drug gang cross fire on their way to school.

Don, make new friends!

Kind regards,

Marcy

Don, your post got me so distressed that I called you Ron!

Marcia, I mean Marcy

Mike,

  Carolyn Lochhead (the Chron reporter who interviewed you) is already in our camp, as far as I know, though she tows the line as far as not making her views evident in her reporting (my guess is she would not have shared the anecdote about interviewing Milton Friedman if she hadn't known you share those views). When I did a summer session back in the '90s with the libertarian non-profit Institute for Humane Studies, she was one of the guest lecturers and clearly had a libertarian perspective.

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))

Good to know Starchild and good news too....thanks

Mike

Beautiful, Marcy. Terrific line about Kroger.

(Attachment image001.jpg is missing)

(Attachment image002.jpg is missing)

Agreed, well put Marcy!

  Don, another idea would be to try to introduce your friend to some other people with libertarian ideas besides yourself. Different members of our community have different styles and ways of expressing libertarian ideas, and someone who doesn't click with those ideas as expressed by one person (or who may have resistance due to personal history with a conversation partner, etc.), may be more receptive to the pro-freedom message as articulated by someone else.

Love & Liberty,
                                   ((( starchild )))

Hi Starchild,

I, too, thought Marcy's heartfelt reasons to end the war on drugs were
well put. Indeed, I think Marcy and you, for that matter, are among the
better expositors of libertarian ideas.

Despite your talents, however, and in view of your current suggestions
for Don to "convert" his friend, I like to remind you of "triage."

According to the Oxford American Dictionary, triage is "the assignment
of degrees of urgency to decide the order of treatment of people injured
in a battle or a disaster, etc."

The way it works in a MASH unit, or a busy ER, is the injured would be
examined and assigned one of three levels of urgency. Patients whose
injuries are serious and life-threatening are, of course, assigned high
urgency and treated asap. Patients whose injuries are minor and will
likely recover with little treatment are considered low level and set
aside. Another group that's also set aside are those patients whose
injuries are mortal and will most likely die despite any treatment.

In the current battle (or war) over ideas, unfortunately, there are many
in that last triage group. These are people who are so ideologically
screwed up, whose ideas and thought processes are so faulty that they
imbue themselves with "mortal wounds." Doubtless you've encountered such
people and you and Marcy can talk about freedom to these people till
you're purple, but you'll never get through to them. As medics and
doctors in a MASH unit or in a busy ER do, I suggest you do likewise:
leave these "mortally wounded" people alone to die.

And once you do that, then do as Marcy suggests, "make new friends."

Alton

Agreed, well put Marcy!

Don, another idea would be to try to introduce your friend to some
other people with libertarian ideas besides yourself. Different
members of our community have different styles and ways of expressing
libertarian ideas, and someone who doesn't click with those ideas as
expressed by one person (or who may have resistance due to personal
history with a conversation partner, etc.), may be more receptive to
the pro-freedom message as articulated by someone else.

Love & Liberty,
                                   ((( starchild )))

> Beautiful, Marcy. Terrific line about Kroger.
> From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com

> ] On Behalf Of lpsfactivists
>
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 6:07 PM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Outreach Question: Ron Paul / Ending the
> War on Drugs
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> Regardless of the color or background of the person to whom I were
> explaining my opposition to the insane War on Drugs, I would quote
> the heart-breaking statistics on innocents caught in drug gang cross
> fire, the turf wars that engulf once-peaceful neighborhoods, the
> misery of prisons overflowing with drug-related incarceration, youth
> tempted by the promised riches of dealing in the restricted supply
> of drugs. I would also mention the public resources bloating the
> governmental agencies engaged on the War on Drugs. I would also
> mention that I, or your "friend", have no moral right to keep drugs
> from the hands of those who feel they need them.
>
> Kids walking into Kroger on their own volition to purchase drugs
> seems mild compared with kids walking into drug gang cross fire on
> their way to school.
>
> Don, make new friends!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Marcy
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Defliberty defliberty@
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > LPSF,
> >
> > Last night, a friend, whom I recently renewed a long-broken
> friendship (We had gone years without speaking to each other because
> of arguments over political and lifestyle differences), called to
> question my support of Ron Paul and Paul's efforts to end the War on
> Drugs. Though my friend listens intently to every word of all
> democrat and republican debates, he stated: "Ron Paul wants to
> legalize heroin so that little kids can walk into Kroger and buy
> heroin, like candy, off the shelves." My friend wanted to know how I
> can support Paul's position. I, like you, am well aware that my
> friend's characterization of Paul's stance on the War on Drugs is a
> calumny against Ron Paul. Fortunately, either my friend's cellphone
> batteries died or he hung up, we never had the conservation. (The
> thought crossed my mind that renewing this friendship may have been
> a mistake.)
> >
> > Here's some background information on my friend: He's white, 45
> years old and divorced (his ex-wife is a lawyer). He is a former
> lawyer, a former tax accountant, is studying for a masters degree in
> divinity and is a Ph.D.-level student in gerontology. He had a
> narcotics problem for several years and is in a Narcotics Anonymous
> 12-step program and blames his abuse of pills on genetics and the
> "disease of addiction." His heroes are Ted Kennedy and Abraham
> Lincoln. He is pro-war, voted for Obama and believes G-d supports
> the social security system and the welfare system.
> >
> > If you encounter a friend/person who more-or-less fits this
> description, presents a similar argument and demands that you
> explain your support for Ron Paul and your opposition to the War on
> Drugs, what would you say? How would you interact with such a

person?

What a great analogy. I couldn't think of a better way of putting it.

As far as I understand his position on the matter, Dr. Paul does not necessarily support the legalization of heroin, as much as he supports the repeal of Federal laws prohibiting it, on the grounds that they are in violation of the 10th Amendment, which limits the jurisdiction of the federal government, and defers further authority to local governments.

I would say yes. Each community decides, not the Feds.

Marcy

LPSF,

A great big thank you to all of you (including Marcy, Dr. Edelstein, Starchild, Alton, Kurt, MyklValentine and others) who responded to my outreach question. Your input and suggestions are informative, helpful and interesting. I'll make an effort to use your information and techniques in future discussions.

Looking back on my friend's question about Ron Paul's desire to end the War on Drugs: I believe my friend purposely mischaracterized Paul's position and used his kids-in-Kroger argument as a way to attack me (a supporter of Ron Paul) without being honest with himself or me. I believe some prohibitionists, especially those, like my friend, who have had addiction problems, fear legalization because of what they are afraid they will do to themselves based on their past behavior. I, also, believe this is why many people support tougher laws, regulations and taxes on legal products that they abuse/d.

As Alton suggested in his triage analogy, sometimes we (I) need to recognize when we are engaged in a hopeless political discussion and peacefully walk away knowing that irreconcilable differences without hope of reconciliation exist. Simply put, some people do not want to be free because they fear the responsibility that comes with it.

Thanks for your help.

All the best,

Don