Whither the Ron Paul Voter


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Did you hear about how Ron Paul was snubbed at the Republican National Convention? (snubbed video)

Ron Paul has said he won’t be running for President again, or Congress for that matter. Whatever his imperfections, I will miss the guy, and I’m not alone. The question is what will become of his many followers.

It’s safe to say that Libertarian Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in Rhode Island, and that he’ll pick up some of the votes that Paul would have gotten if he were on it. Other Paul voters will be divvied up between Romney, Obama, Jill Stein, or perhaps most likely not show up to vote. I fear in particular that many of his young supporters will simply opt out.

Ron Paul’s anti-Fed, pro-peace, and pro-legalization stances have garnered him a large and enthusiastic youth following, and it would be unfortunate to lose it from political engagement. It doesn’t help that the other champion of these causes, Dennis Kucinich, has himself been pushed out of Congress. The last real hope for leadership on these taboo policies is Bernie Sanders in the Senate, and he is no spring chicken himself. Who will keep the independent minded voters involved when all their heroes are gone?

Well, I can’t speak for the rest of the races in the country, but I can offer Paul voters some solace here in District 2. On November 6th, there will be a Congressional candidate who will work for Federal Reserve System accountability and reform,  support the legalization of cannabis, work for peace, and call for an audit of the Pentagon. That candidate is me, and if you’re interested in learning more about my platform, I encourage you to visit my website and follow me on facebook and twitter.

Five Remarkable Political Campaign Ads


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

With campaign season soon to be upon us, I thought it might be fun to go over some political advertisements that I find particularly enjoyable. Now, I’m not saying these are the greatest political ads of all time, but they tend to be enjoyable, and most of all, they’re reasonably revealing of the time period that birthed them.

“It’s Up To You” – John F. Kennedy (1960)

One of the things I love about this ad is the jovial bounce of its tune; it’s like that friendly person you know who’s always up-beat. There’s also a hell of a lot of repetition in this ad; by my count “Kennedy” is shouted roughly 30 times in an ad which lasts only a minute. And that’s not including all the time his name appears on screen in animated signage, combined with the theme “A Time For Greatness” or the word “President”. This ad was featured on AMC’s Mad Men and actually, Kennedy’s opponent Richard Nixon completely ripped it off for his 1962 run for California’s Governor (a race he also lost).

“Nixon Now” – Richard Nixon (1972)

You do have to give Nixon credit though; he never gave up. And this ad from 1972 is just mind-boggling in retrospect. The idea of a sitting president during the Cold War, much less a Republican president, showing himself hanging out with Chairman Mao of China and Premier Leonid Brezhnev of the Soviet Union while the phrase “reaching out, across the sea / making friends, where foes used to be,” is sung would be unthinkable in the current day.

Also unthinkable, that Nixon ever ran this campaign ad, which features a sign declaring “Peace: Nixon Does More Than Talk About It” while the Viet Nam War had escalated under Nixon’s rule. It’s especially ironic considering that in less then two years, Nixon would leave office disgraced by Watergate and ushering in an era of cynicism making this ad and the previous Kennedy ad seem like relics from a bygone era.

“Daisy” – Lyndon Johnson (1964)

The “Daisy” ad is considered the mother of all attack ads, but frankly, I think that’s beside the point. To me, it’s just a really interesting ad. There’s a way the girl flubs the count, counting “six” twice and missing “seven” completely. There’s the way the countdown voice sounds both like “zero” and “kill” as it’s obscured by the sound of the nuclear explosion. And then there’s LBJ’s magnificent Texan twang as he intones “these are the stakes: to make a world in which all of God’s children can live or to go into the dark. We must either love each other; or we must die.” It’s a beautifully Manichaean sentiment, we’ll all chose to love each other and we all should.

It also uses Johnson’s theme; “The Stakes Are Too High For You To Stay Home.” Many people have interpreted this ad as saying that if Johnson’s opponent, Republican Barry Goldwater, got his way, there’d be nuclear war. Johnson’s other ads seem more concerned with Goldwater’s opposition to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; though this one uses Republican governors (including Mitt Romney’s father) to argue against Goldwater using Republican words. And he also focused on his War on Poverty.

“Armed Chinese Troops In Texas!” – Ron Paul (2012)

I really enjoy this ad, because it’s a complete castigation of American foreign policy and it’s pretty much right on the money on everything. You can see why Republicans believed Ron Paul was the least trustworthy candidate on foreign policy during presidential primary. Is it overwrought? Yes, but no more then the Kennedy or Nixon ads were enthusiastic. And most importantly, this is taken from an actual speech Paul gave (as should be clear when the narrator’s emphatic voice changes to Paul’s softer, mournful one). There’s an underlying weirdness to Ron Paul’s candidacy; like Johnson did, he utilizes the word “love” to counterpoint the war mentality of his opponents.

This is probably as good a time to talk about why liberals have this flirtation with Ron Paul, and this ad is what makes it clear. However, it should be noted that his domestic policies are pretty much twice as backward as the Ryan Plan.

“Don’t Wake Up With Conservative” – Unofficial Labour Party (2005)

Okay, I’m pretty sure this is a fake one (it’s part of a trio), but it’s still good, in my opinion. This is an unofficial one for the Labour Party in the UK, and it’s good on multiple levels. There’s the general hungover nature of the young woman as she wakes up to discover this Conservative in her bed. There’s his glee at testing foreigners for AIDS or building prisons, and the sort of psychopathic way he keeps saying “four years” whenever the woman protests that she wants him gone. He’s also a posh twit, and has posh twit friends.

Then there’s our hero, Anthony, who comes in with this triumphant music that instantly turns melancholy. When he asks what happened and the woman puts out the protest “what about the war, and all those inquiries?” His response is classic: “Look, that would’ve happened anyway. And a lot of the facts have been twisted by malicious journalists.” It’s a line that would fit in perfectly in America, where blaming the media is often a way to shift attention off of our own failures.

It’s also an ad that says that disgust with a ruling party isn’t really a reason to turn to alternatives you’d hate more. Plenty of European nations who turned to conservative parties following austerity introduced by social democrats are discovering that (Spain, for example). And it’s precisely the choice Americans made in 2010 to get the worst Congress ever. And now in 2012, we’re facing that choice again.

Philadelphia Freedom: Is This The New Swing Vote?

A coalition of seventeen organizations have recently embarked on a revolutionary voter registration drive, and what better place to be revolutionary than Philadelphia?  The Returning Citizens Voter Movement is directed towards formerly incarcerated people, engaging many more people with felony records who never went to prison, and far more people without records who have a family member in the criminal justice system.  Is this an effort that will be replicated around the nation in 2012?

The goal of 10,000 new registrations may seem overly ambitious, but consider that at any given time, Philadelphia has between 200,000 – 400,000 residents who previously served time in prison.  These are people who have the right to vote, and surely some do, but have collectively never been engaged in the political dialogue of their community.  As Maelissa Gamble, founder of The Time Is Now to Make a Change puts it, “People are tired.  They’re saying, ‘somebody should have done this already.’  And they are not seeing the re-entry resources that get talked about all the time.”

Gamble and other community leaders have been tangling not only with getting people assistance in restructuring their lives, but also in successfully tearing down the barriers that keep people from following their good intentions.  Last year Philadelphia “Banned the Box” and eliminated “Have you ever been convicted from a felony?” from job applications in the city.  It is ironic that the same government allocating funds for rehabilitation/re-entry also has laws that create ever-higher hurdles for people trying to build a life in the community.

With the Pennsylvania Republican Primary on April 24th (the same day as New York, Rhode Island, and Delaware) it will be interesting to see how this specific criminal justice-based civic outreach can be bolstered by the media.  Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has a history in Philadelphia, and his views on issues may be well known.  Meanwhile, Texas Senator Ron Paul has been an outspoken critic of the Drug War and the massive use of incarceration in America.  With the Texas and Wisconsin primaries on April 3rd, it is possible that Paul’s campaign will have a bounce that reverberates through three weeks of focus on Pennsylvania (a perennial “swing state”).

All but three of the coalition organizations in the voter registration and awareness campaign are led by formerly incarcerated people.  This is part of a concerted effort by the Formerly Incarcerated and Convicted People’s Movement to register one million people across the country, and Philadelphia is leading the way.  One historical dilemma with a broad movement is the creation of factions and the challenge of coalition-building.  Gamble, formerly incarcerated herself, now finds herself in the middle of a group including the Human Rights Coalition, Proyecto Sol Filadelfia, ACLU, Reconstruction Inc., Educational Advocates Reaching Today’s Hardworking Students (EARTHS), and more.

It is often noted that over four million people are disenfranchised due to criminal records, however it should be also noted that there are tens of millions of people who are eligible to vote- people who have been (or still are) impacted by the criminal justice system.  This is an issue-based group, with no party loyalties.  The group is urban and rural, of all skin tones.  And the voices are beginning to be heard.

Politicians will be knocking on doors of “Likely voters” registered to their parties or as “Independents.”  If one is not registered and exercising their vote, there will be no knock, no pandering, no listening.  The coalition will be setting up registration stations all over the city, from grocery stores to community forums, probation offices to social services locations, they will even be registering people currently awaiting trial in the jails. When thousands of voters demand candidates who will call a cease fire in the Drug War, who will re-direct that money into education, to books rather than bars, the pandering will begin.  It is not likely that the GOP will hold an inner city debate with ordinary residents in the audience (these are made-for-TV controlled events); and it is not likely that Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, or Mitt Romney will come looking to do a “Town Hall” session with urban voters… but wait until 2016.  Rebuild it, and they will come.

Maelissa Gamble can be contacted at (215) 834-5165 and mgamblethetimeisnowtomakeachange@yahoo.com

 

Ron Paul no Friend to the Non-Religious

So last night Ron Paul gave a rousing speech in New Hampshire after he lost the primary there. He went on and on about FREEDOM of course, his supporters apparently unconcerned that Paul’s concept of freedom does not include a woman’s right to choose, many forms of birth control or laws that protect freedom, like the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul’s idea of FREEDOM is strictly a kind of faux free market libertarianism. Rousing the libertarian base, he claims that all problems will be solved by the free market. For instance, if you get really sick, and your health care doesn’t cover a procedure, the free market allows you to find a charity, enter indentured servitude, or die.

Problem solved.

But Paul did something unusual last night. In fact, as Republican candidates go he did something almost unheard of. The candidate obliquely mentioned Atheists and their right not to practice religion. Here’s the link to that part of his speech.

Paul may play the role of a libertarian ideologue, but he’s no fool. He knows that the youth support he enjoys because of his anti-war and anti-war on drugs policies sports the fastest growing non-religious population in the country. His speeches about FREEDOM resonate with that crowd, and indeed he can be a compelling speaker, but is Paul being honest with the crowds about his true beliefs?

In fact, there is plenty of evidence that Ron Paul may be a closeted Christian Fundamentalist of the worst kind. As Alternet reported:

A common misconception about the Ron Paul agenda is that he is a libertarian who just wants to let all humans live as they please. But Ron Paul is no libertarian; if not a Christian Reconstructionist himself, he is truly the best enabler a Reconstructionist could hope to have.

Ron Paul seeks to shrink the federal government to minimal size not because it intrudes in the lives of individuals, but because it stands in the way of allowing the states and localities to enact laws as they see fit — even laws that govern people’s behavior in their bedrooms.

I encourage you to read the article in its entirety, including the bit where Paul spoke to the openly segregationist John Birch Society, and revealed that he is entirely able to speak their language. Paul enjoys the support of such racist groups as Stormfront, as reported by Katha Pollitt at NPR:

No wonder they love him over at Stormfront, a white-supremacist website with neo-Nazi tendencies. In a multiple-choice poll of possible effects of a Paul presidency, the most popular answer by far was “Paul will implement reforms that increase liberty which will indirectly benefit White Nationalists.”

Atheists love it when they get mentioned in the larger political sphere. But we should be careful who we support and why. Religious opponents of atheism love to pull out the lie that Stalin, Mao and Hitler were motivated to murder and genocide by their lack of supernatural belief. Do we really want to reinforce that stereotype by supporting a man with racist, homophobic and misogynistic views, just because he uses the right buzzwords and tosses us the occasional shout out?

Hell no.