The message to Republican presidential contender John McCain and his Democratic rival Barack Obama don't waste any time courting no shot former GOP presidential contender Ron Paul's backers especially since Paul has not endorsed either candidate. From his few stray comments on the race, he likely won't. Yet the intense debate, speculation, and media talk continues that McCain at least will make a concerted effort to get Paul's backers on board. If true that won't do much for his campaign and even less for his image.
The scary thing about Paul's candidacy was never his fringe views on taxes, social security, abortion rights, his opposition to tough environmental regulations, tout of non-interference in state rights issues and his opposition to civil rights laws (said Paul, they actually promote bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class).
Or that during his truncated presidential campaign, Paul took much deserved heat for his screwball past shoot-from-the-lip quips that blacks are criminally inclined, political incompetents, and chronic welfare deadbeats, and that Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War. Nor was it really scary that he ran a campaign ad demanding that students from alleged terrorist countries should be denied visas into the U.S. Paul offered not a shred of proof that there are hordes of students pouring into America to commit terrorist acts.
The really scary thing was that his out of the pale views and bigoted quips made sense to the throngs of mostly young, naïve, and impressionable voters who shrilly cheered him on. They repeatedly lambasted, hectored, harangued, and giddily name called anyone who dared utter criticism of their leader. The Paul phenomenon had all the dangerous earmarkings of a political cult and that hasn't changed.
Yet, that notwithstanding, politics is politics. And with both Obama and McCain scratching and clawing for any edge they can get over the other, they will be sorely tempted to pander to the Paul crowd. In Obama's case that means claiming that he's in sync with Paul on a quick fold up of the Iraq war. He'll hope that the more liberal leaning Paul backers might be susceptible to this pitch and will ignore that he supports an assault on poverty, affordable health care, immigration reform, strong civil rights and civil liberties protections, abortion rights and environmental protections. These are issues that Paul and his backers are as far part from Obama on as the sun and the moon.
In McCain's case, it means that he'll try to convince the conservative leaning Paul backers the he's a bit of a closet Libertarian himself on taxes and loose government regulations. He'll hope that they ignore his tough it out, win the war stance on Iraq, support of deficit spending, and waffle on abortion, environmental and civil rights protections. Paul's backers share no common ground with McCain on these issues either.
As yet Paul's backers haven't given any sign that either of the candidates holds any real appeal to them. The likelihood though is that the majority of Paul backers regard Obama as a too liberal Democrat. His tout of big and expanded government renders him a poor option. A significant number of them abhor McCain's war stance enough to consider him only a slightly more viable option.
The even greater likelihood is that many Paul backers will simply render the Biblical pox on both of their houses and stay home. Or, in a few cases, throw in their lot with former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr. That might not be a bad fit considering Barr's sordid history of flirting with racist and ultra-right fringe groups.
In any case neither Obama nor McCain can ever hope to stir the rabid juices in the Paulites as Paul did with his kick the establishment in the teeth views.
Though Paul's views are an odd mesh of libertarianism, know-nothing Americanism, and ultra conservative laissez faire limited government, he still sees himself and his backers as major players on the political scene. He'll milk that for all it's worth.
In fact, he now says that he will hold a big rally in Minnesota at the same time as the Republican convention. Paul advisors say that they'll keep close tabs on how the Republicans treat their man and his supporters at that time.
If Obama and McCain think that they have to bend over backward to woo him and his true believing flock, then Paul will win what he couldn't at the polls, namely inflated political influence. If that happens, Obama and McCain lose.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mr. Hutchinson, does this mean you won't be attending the rally in Washington on July 12th?
To say Obama supports "strong civil rights and civil liberties protections" is utterly ridiculous. Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Ron Paul is the one who supports "strong civil rights and civil liberties protections," not Obama!
You forgot to mention many Paul supporters are attracted to Chuck Baldwin of the Constitutional Party.
And can you blame not just Ron Paul supporters, but anyone, for not being rabidly juiced about either McCain or Obama? Neither of those candidates are about the "change" they claim they are. They're just more of the same.
Mr. Hutchinson, you couldn't even get the part about the newsletters right. Most people, including me, now rightly believe that Ron Paul had nothing to do with them. Do you have proof that he wrote them? If so, I'd like to see it.
But even if you want to argue that Ron Paul is racist, I ask you this: How can he be when throughout his entire career as Congressman and during his bid for the presidency, he called for the complete abolishment of the racist WAR ON DRUGS? Months ago, he said to Wolf Blitzer on CNN that he would pardon ALL non-violent drug offenders as soon as he got in office. Don't believe me? Do your own homework and look it up on YouTube.
That's a lot of minorities that would be freed from jail, wouldn't you say? Particularly a lot of Blacks and Hispanics. A LOT. Freed from the conviction of petty inconsequential so-called crimes to society that have unfairly stigmatized and targeted minorities for years (about 35 years, to be exact). Why would a racist want to do such a thing? Please, if you could answer that question, I, as a minority, and more particularly, as a Hispanic male, would really appreciate it.
Oh, and by the way, Obama is not for ending the War on Drugs, is he? Neither is McCain, right? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Sincerely,
Eloy Gonzalez II
Don't waste your time trying to talk sense to Hutchinson about the various "Ron Paul" newsletters. He's pretty thick.
However, I will admit it's pretty ballsy when you attack someone else for not being aware of racist stuff going out in unofficial newsletters when you are the same guy who appears in Minister Farrakhan's newspaper.
http://www.finalcall.com/perspectives/political_requiem07-16-2002.htm
And he believes the Civil War shouldn't have been fought, you guys call him out on that like it's a bad thing. To say there is such thing as a good war is an oxymoron, and to ignore Lincoln's white supremacy is neglectful in itself. He didn't want to free the slaves, he wanted to save the Union. There is a big difference. If Lincoln's full plans were executed all the African slaves would have been sent back to Africa. Walter Jones, a black economist, even thinks the war shouldn't have been fought.
I can't comprehend why there are so many ignorant and intolerant people out there. I often laugh at the assertion that the "left" claim they are somehow different from the right, but they are just partisan sheep who only think they are somehow independent when they really aren't.
Wow, really? Know-nothing Americanism? Is this all a joke? Kool-aid drinkers? This is all really laughable.
Isolationism? Somehow speaking to other countries and trading with other countries have become "isolationist" because he believes we should bring the guns home.
Outdated economic views? Or an understanding of freedom and history?
Racism, now that's a joke. You can point your fingers all you want to those letters, but those who know Paul know he's not a racist. Even the NAACP Austin director, who has known Paul for 20-30 years, knows him as a good man and not a racist. Now, I agree that he was neglectful, but don't cast a stone upon a man for that. Even those who dug up the newsletters say Paul didn't write them.
Strict interpretation of the constitution? What the hell is wrong with that? The Constitution is the rule of law, a contract with America. Calling it a "breathing living constitution" is ignorant, it lives through amendments not through loose interpretation. That's like playing chess and having the rules "living", do whatever the hell you want with the game cause your interpreting it differently.
The worst forms of racism are neglect and indifference. Katrina is a good example. Most important is the fact that there is a trail of evidence indicating that Paul, on more than one occasion, spoke at events held by racist hate groups and had regular contact with members of racists groups. And then there is the racist writings on HIS letterhead that none of his supporters have been able to logically explain away. If he did not write them, his letterhead is a stamp of approval and has the same effect as if he had written them. We are always guilty by association, right. Or does that only apply to Obama and his connection to Rev. Wright?
"In any case neither Obama nor McCain can ever hope to stir the rabid juices in the Paulites as Paul did with his kick the establishment in the teeth views."
yeah, us kick-the-status-quo-in-the-teeth crowd don't really care much for corrupt politicians that are bought/sold by Wall Street. lazy consumer America really likes those guys though so good luck w/ that lifestyle during the coming credit contraction.
i'll write in "none of the above" before settling for the evil of two lessers.
Unsubstantiated drivel through and through.
Earl, I love how you just kinda write off Ron Paul's platform as "odd mesh of libertarianism, know-nothing Americanism, and ultra conservative laissez faire limited government". Gee, I think he just wants the federal government to follow the Constitution. Is that what you think following the Constitution is?
I think anyone who actually thinks Ron Paul is racist is buying into the tabloid-level sensationalist journalism regarding Ron Paul's essays done over 20 years ago (What's ironic is many, although not all, of the people who demonize Ron Paul on those essays are the same ones who say Jeremiah Wright isn't racist or even bigoted. Double standards galore). It's almost impossibly for a libertarian of any kind be racist - I mean, wouldn't a racist be FOR the Patriot Act, the Drug War, the War on Terrorism? These are issues Paul is vehemently against, to the point they are his campaign issue from the beginning. Earl, calling someone's views as "fringe" - and as we see below, going so far to call them kool aid drinkers - wreaks of arrogannce, it's classless and immature. It's like cliques at high school who call other people outside their clique as "freaks." They look at people who make these comments about them and see why it's better to vote third party, because it's better for swing voters not to buy into that "clique" mentality.
I love how supporting a message of freedom, liberty, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution is considered a kool-aid drinking fringe cult. What a bunch of nut-jobs those founding fathers were, we are lucky we survived their crazy revolution!
Many white Americans--whether intentional or not--are, at best, guilty of ignorance, at worse, revisionist history. The founders were elitist, racist white men whose strict interpretation of the Constitution resulted in the exclusion of people of color and all women from full participation in an ostensibly free society. If you are white in general but especially male (not all white people), you only see the beauty in a strict interpretation, not its unjust and oppressive nature.
Those who understand that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that is flexible yet stable are correct. Strict liability would be against the best interest of most, if not all, Americans, in some form or fashion. For instance, women, regardless of color, would still be relegated to jobs and social roles thought proper for women (e.g., raising children). Overt bigotry would be present today as it was hundreds of years ago or as recent as 50 years ago. Domestic terrorism in the form of the hate groups that would be able to reign, again--without serious threat of prosecution for violent crimes against people of color and ethnic minorities. There would still be separate seating on public transportation, restaurants, and theaters and so on. How is that consistent with a message of freedom?
Most problematic with Paul supporters is that they ignore, or maybe agree with, his racist rhetoric and writings (oh, I am sorry: his association with the organization or person who wrote the letters on his letterhead).
I am a true American and am appalled by racism or injustice and I have always spoken out when I have seen it practiced as did my grand-father and my great-uncle who were admired by the African American community in my home town.
I n some places today slavery and woman's inequality still exists. For instance , Muslim countries do not treat women as equals and some African countries participate an appalling practice called female genital mutilation.
At the time the Constitution was written slavery existed in many places in the world and women where not afforded equal almost everywhere. The founding fathes gave women the same rights they were afforded everywhere else in the world at that time and I agree women were not treated as equals. But, it was the aspirations of the founding fathers which brought about the end of slavery and women's rights.
This post is grossly misguided and all together wrong. The constitution is not breathing, it was written with very specific intentions. Try reading it, and you will find that those topics not listed in the constitution are to be left to the states. That means things like abortion, gay marriage, universal health care. What would happen if someone decides to "interpret" the constitution to detriment of others ? Haven't the last eight years taught you anything about how this happens? To get further insight into RP's views and political philosophy read his book. it is cheap and a quick read. Or go to http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
You are very wrong. The facts are that you do not understand the constitution. It is not a living document. Your comments are your(s) to make but do not make the assumption that anybody else believes you know what you are talking about.
What the hell does, "Strict liability would be against the best interest of most," in what context? You are as full of yourself as the bald man that wrote this piece of business #2.
I worked down the street from Stanford University and used to sit at the book store listen to self appointed elitist Pablum spewing no-nothing Professors talk like this. You know the state of DEAD BROKE California.
I am a man of color and I tell you your words are hollow and false.
You need to take a closer look at the Paul movement. It is very different. In my new home state of Nevada, these KOOLAIDE drinkers are kicking the crap out the GOP leadership. DO you KNOW what this means????
They (Paul people) have :
POWER
MONEY
WILL
INVOLVEMENT
and they are PISSED OFF.
Go ahead and go back to sweating over your laptop on the proper role of government and Elite mistreatment of the many and the morally vacuous behavior of the Rich.
These people Paul are EVERYWHERE (Discount them at your folly) and they mean business and they will CHANGE things.
I usually disagree with you Earl or question your motives on many of your pieces but I agree with you here. The Paul supporters have drank the Kool-Aid. He is a repository of various views from isolationism to outdated economic views, racism to strict constructionism which his supporters flock to because of its seeming intellectual consistency and the fact its a pleasing harbor to conspiracy theorists who can now say "I knew there were others who think like me." Few will split off and many will write him in or support Barr. If Paul formed a third party, it would fare better than either the Green Party or the Libertarian Party because Paul has built up a following. As much as I hate Sean Hannity (and believe he deserves to be stalked) the Paul supporters following him to his hotel in the winter reminded me of the thugs Hitler relied on in the late 20's and early 30's although I don't believe those guys are Nazis (or even remotely as bad).
Well written, and insightful cheforacle.
so, you guys get your propoganda from Fox news as well??? I thought it was just the republicans, but I guess not. Fox hated Ron and for good reason. Fox is the mouthpeice of the neocons. They couldn't attack ron because he has no skeletons in his closet, so they could only attack his supporters.
At least he has supporters which outnumber by more than double the closest candidate of any party as far as foot soldiers and feet on the ground supporters. Because there was a nationwide blackout in the mainstream press of Ron, no one who has not gone to the internet knows his positions and thus follow the controlled propoganda from the mainstream press... frankly, I am surprised you guys are about as knowledgeable as the those on the blind faith, do as they are told, right. Too bad.
Also, the GOP in most states broke state and federal laws during various state conventions to keep Ron out, why is that if he is so unpopular with regular people??? Why did they have to bother taking that risk.... Oh, thats right, there is currently no quorum available on the FEC in order to investigate what they did to Ron. I know, I was a delegate. I saw it with my own eyes. Say what you want about the system, but if you condone this kind of behavior because you don't like the candidate, then your no better than the Bushites.
If you think people laugh at your skiing skills then think again. A man was a...
The Anchorage Daily News reports that Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol Palin's...
Scroll down for video and a slideshow WASHINGTON
As January 20 grows larger in the window, I've been thinking more often about the...
Barack Obama is not the only one being inaugurated on...
I want to play poker with Harry Reid. Really I do. Rather than call for a...
Are nude animal rights protests old hat? We got word of a...
UPDATE: On Tuesday's "The View"...
Lest you think the appointment of dreamboat doctor Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General was going to...
Greta Van Susteren has taken to her blog, GretaWire, to again hit CNN — this...
An article in next month's Atlantic asks, "Is porn...
**Scroll down for video** CHICAGO
The Internet is awash with rumors over the cause of the tragic death of actor John Travolta's...
Loading comments…
Posted June 24, 2008 | 10:20 AM (EST)