Ventura says he’ll run for president in 2012 if support is there

Speaking at today’s Rally for the Republic, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura said he would run for president in 2012 if he saw “action, not words” from the revolutionaries in attendance. “We’ll give them a race they’ll never forget,” he said.

After receiving several huge ovations, Ventura came back to the stage to put in a plug for Dean Barkely, the Independence Party’s candidate for U.S. Senate in Minnesota.

Ventura’s Rally speech mostly adhered to a Paulian line, though he did differentiate himself from previous commentators on the issue of immigraiton, mocking their fear of “brown-skinned people.” He also devoted a substantial portion of his speech to asking questions about 9/11.

119 thoughts on “Ventura says he’ll run for president in 2012 if support is there

  1. G.E. Post author

    Were you watching the speech? This is a little different.

    By Barkely in this case, do you mean Charles?

  2. G.E. Post author

    What we need for Ventura’s running mate is for some decentralist Christian Green to emerge on the scene.

  3. G.E. Post author

    Well, it’s a lot easier to say you might do something four years from now… But he seemed very serious. Your skepticism is with good cause, though.

  4. Lance Brown

    Yeah, count me among the skeptical too. However, I suspect there are enough folks out there who are less jaded, and there’s a good chance they will be ready to call his bluff around 2011 or so.

    I thought he gave family as his reason for not running for Senate this time; for me, if he’s using that as his reason, then he’s not leaving a lot to hope for. He and his wife have had plenty of time to decide how they feel about living in the public-life spotlight, and they (collectively)apparently don’t like it. Given the fact that Ventura could conceivably actually win the presidency, his running for the the office could be far more of a committment than your typical garden variety outsider run.

    I’d love to see Jesse run (even though I don’t completely agree with him on every point), but I’ve given up hoping for it. Or I had…

  5. donald raymond lake

    GE came from an aggie college. He can always be counted on for inappropriate steer manure!

    Secular Politics.

    Secular Politics.

    Secular Politics.

    Perot was right, get into unnecessary contriversial issues and you lose a big chunk of your base. Help protect my spirituality, keep your [and McCain’s and Obama’s] religion out of public adminstration.

    GE are you are political activist or an illegal church?

  6. Jared

    G.E. The VP must be a woman too.

    That would complete the progressive alliance. But it won’t work unless Milnes is at the top of the ticket.

  7. Trent Hill

    For the record, I dont think Jesse Ventura could continue the “Revolution”. Ventura is a 9/11 Truther in the true sense of the word, as well as a non-conservative AND non-libertarian, though he certainly has libertarian leanings. He’d have a huge base of support in Minnesota, and a huge supporter base with the 9/11 Truthers…but that only goes so far.

    As far as anyone continueing the Ron Paul Republican legacy (at least at the Presidential level), few are capable–but I think Gary Johnson might be. If Gary Johnson made some significant overtures to the paleoconservative community over the 2-3 years, he could very well pick-up Ron Paul’s mantle.

  8. G.E. Post author

    Err, yeah. Ventura is about 10 million times more famous than either of those two pols. You don’t seem to have your finger on the pulse of the regular joe, Trent. NO ONE will get excited about the candidates you mentioned.

    As for 9/11, Ventura is a “truther” in the true sense of the word — he wants the truth. Yes, it’s not very PC, but there you have it.

  9. Spence

    Ventura actually follows through with it, if you notice. He doesn’t speak out of line one moment and then when it costs him something, pulls the punches to win peoples’ good graces again. Even Ron Paul did that, but that also is due to his character being extremely different and more befuddled.

  10. Spence

    It’ll be interesting to see if the RPR movement will actually answer his call. The idiotic stunts that Paultards polled earlier this cycle won’t fly with him, even if it is sort of hypocritical.

  11. SovereignMN

    Ventura is not a uniter, he’s a diver. He’ll never pick up nationally because he’ll always open his yap and alienate the very people he should be courting.

  12. SovereignMN

    Plus Ventura spends about 90% of his time living off the grid in Mexico. He love his lifestyle too go back to the grind of politics. Sure he’ll come out of the woodwork every now and then, do a few interviews, write a few paragraphs and collect a paycheck…but that’s about it.

  13. Spence

    It worked for him before. The only thing that would prevent his national win would be the scheming CPD and MSM. I’m sure he could raise a lot of money and even pitch some of it himself, but he hasn’t done anything in years, so he’d need to do a few things to raise his profile a bit more.

    Regardless, at the very least, you could expect a strong showing of 20% or more of the vote. There’s a lot more skeptics out there than you think. And Ventura’s moderate background WOULD definitely play a factor.

  14. Mike Theodore

    I say he’d have to spend more time not being a recluse in Mexico. I hate to rain on his parade (I mean, who does?), but he’d have to do alot from now to 2012.

  15. Trent Hill

    “Err, yeah. Ventura is about 10 million times more famous than either of those two pols. You don’t seem to have your finger on the pulse of the regular joe, Trent. NO ONE will get excited about the candidates you mentioned.”

    Gov. Johnson and Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr. both have as much name recognition as Rep. Ron Paul did prior to this presidential run.

  16. G.E. Post author

    Absolutely absurd statement.

    Gary Johnson is nowhere near as well-known as Ron Paul was two years ago. Not even close to being close. Ron Paul was well respected in the underground freedom movement for THIRTY YEARS prior to his second presidential run. He was and is the most prominent political proponent of sound money. He wrote newsletters with thousands of subscribers. He ran for president in 1988, and for Senate in Texas (which has how many times the population of New Mexico?) in 1984. He wrote tons of books, etc. There is absolutely no comparison.

    Goldwater’s name is his father’s and carries with it a lot of baggage.

    Neither of these men have a prayer of drawing a diverse constituency.

  17. G.E. Post author

    Look: I don’t like the way Ventura alienates religious folks. That is a bad thing and will cost him if he chooses to run. But just as many people are alienated by the ridiculous, racist, xenophobic border-nationalism and immigrant scapegoating around which many Ron Paul supporters rallied, even if they gave that issue about 10 times the attention and 1000 times the vitriol that Paul did. And I like that Ventura had the balls to call them out on that today, and to speak the truth on 9/11. He is much, much too statist in some regards, but just like Ron Paul, where I disagree with him, I still respect him for having the courage and integrity to say where he stands.

  18. Trent Hill

    Rep. Goldwater Jr. can draw far more Republicans than Ron Paul because of his dad’s respected name. Meanwhile, he could garner the endorsement of Ron Paul himself—pulling together that coalition that Paul led.

    Gary Johnson is similar, with a home-base of support in New Mexico (which Paul did not have in Texas, a larger states where, as Congressman, he was one of….30?). A home-base of support is an important thing, as it provides a start-off area for fundraising, campaign events, and gauranteed delegates. If there is anything that the Ron Paul Revolution tought us, it is that name-recognition can be bought and worked for.

  19. G.E. Post author

    Neither of these guys are 1/10 as exciting as Ron Paul. They’re both far too statist. They’re not radical. They’re not edgy. You will never see “Gary Johnson Revolution” signs. It’s absurd. Ventura is not right on all the issues — he’s probably not even as good as these guys — but you’re running into the Cargo Cult thing here. Ventura has the right image; these guys don’t.

  20. Trent Hill

    As for Ventura,

    He doesnt just alienate religious folks–he eschews them. He wont attract Constitutionalists,for sure, and likely wont attract many Libertarians. Still—If a constitutionalist doesnt run in the Republican primary in 2012, i’d probably support him–just to watch the two parties kick and scream.

  21. Trent Hill

    GE,

    I agree Johnson and Goldwater dont seem as radical, and their speech isnt as radical. Then again, that is why they would do better in Republican primaries. Good little Republicans fear change and radical things–and Goldwater and Johnson know how to talk to them in their language. Yet even though their language would be subdued, we’d know that they supported our revolution in 2008 and were in close contact with the General: Ron Paul.

  22. G.E. Post author

    You’re right about Ventura’s antipathy for religious folks. However, sad to say, the majority of hardcore religious people are slaves to the GOP. Ventura can attract much more of a “libertarian left” following, nonvoters, people who didn’t even get excited for Ron Paul.

    Ventura is for public schools and campaign-finance “reform” — including public funding of elections, I think. So to say he’s not my ideal candidate, on the issues, would be putting it mildly.

  23. G.E. Post author

    I don’t know enough about Goldwater, Jr., but from what I know about Gary Johnson; sure, he’d be a candidate worth supporting (even if he is much more statist than Ron Paul) IF he had a chance of winning. He’s not the kind of person I’d get excited about from a principled point of view (like Ron Paul or Mary Ruwart). Hell, if the evil Bob Barr actually stood a chance of winning, he’d probably be the second or third least-bad president in history, even given his neocon leanings.

  24. G.E. Post author

    I presume Goldwater, Jr. is pro-abortion like his dad. Am I wrong? If so, that alienates a huge part of the Ron Paul base. Ventura does too, but he makes up for it elsewhere.

  25. Trent Hill

    GE,

    We ought to put together a large group of Ron Paul-type Republicans who try to draft someone like this…Gov. Johnson, Rep. Goldwater, Rep. Jimmy Duncan, Rep. Walter Jones…

    Lets face it–Ron Paul isnt going to run in 2012, we’ll need an alternative.

  26. Trent Hill

    Goldwater Jr. is pro-life I believe, like his father was in the 70’s, and like his Nephew is now.

  27. Spence

    GE has a fairly good point. Ron Paul had over 20 years of credibility, with a consistent record to match. That’s always a plus. I’m aware of Johnson and Goldwater’s sizable presence, but let’s face it, there’s not much to put them on the radar with. Even Ventura. So for this to work, they need to start planning now.

    And yes, it’s true that Ventura does believe in some questionable state loggers, but that has the capacity to change. I read somewhere, he hasn’t connected too much with the libertarian crowd cause even they scare him. Which should tell you something.

    How depressing do you think the LP is then?

  28. Trent Hill

    Tom Woods wouldnt run, and if he did–he’d never even get into debates. You’ve got to be a current or former State-level politician at least.
    You know Prof. Woods is my favorite of the Austrians, but he just couldnt even compete in the presidential contest. Congress?—now thats an interesting thought.

  29. G.E. Post author

    It’s not about winning, Trent. No one worth supporting can possibly win. It’s about spreading ideas so that we can rebuild something worth living under once the regime collapses.

  30. Trent Hill

    GE,

    I didnt say “win”. I said, “he’d never get into the debates”. This was the dominant way that Ron Paul became popular. I was part of the Ron Paul Revolution way back (actually,at the beginning,when the exploratory committee put out the first video) and I remember the Campaign pre-first debate and then I remember what happened to it the day AFTER. It exploded. Ross Perot was polling 6% and then was in the debates and EXPLODED into 34% (before dropping out and scoring 18.9%). The debates are the key,and without the debates or the major news media or a massive internet constituency–we have no way to spread the ideas.

    And as for winning,yes winning certainly IS the best thing. Gary Johnson was elected governor of New Mexico, Ron Paul has been elected to Congress 10 times, Rep. Goldwater was elected 5 times. The good guys CAN win and DO win…but they have to wage smart campaigns. Let us hope that we can add B.J. Lawson and Bob Conley to our list too.

  31. G.E. Post author

    BJ Lawson is a fraudtaxer.

    Gary Johnson might have done some good in NM, but it did nothing for me.

    Ron Paul being elected has done NOTHING except leave a permanent record of the right vote.

  32. G.E. Post author

    I see no value of people getting into the debates if they have a watered-down message, a la Bob Barr.

  33. Trent Hill

    GE,

    You seem to be going over the top to disparage getting elected. Ron Paul gets elected and Ron Paul does good from that position. How many more people have heard of Ron Paul because he ran for President as a sitting Congressman, rather than as a doctor from Texas. He would not have been in the debates, he would have gotten no press. You must come from a position of power in order to get into the debates and into the mainstream press. This is the only way to spread the message. I am not going to claim that we could ever get a majority in Congress, or even a Governor or President who would be great. But we need to have pro-liberty congressmen, governors, and senators in the Presidential race every year. We need to have liberty-alternatives in every gubanatorial race in the country…and that doesnt mean some LPer or CPer who is an auto-mechanic running on a budget of $3000. We need sitting State Senators and such running–all who are pro-liberty. I could easily compose a list of pro-liberty people from every single state in the Union who could run for their open seats for Congress, Senator, or the Governorship.
    Imagine this: Ron Paul runs for President again in 2012. Gary Johnson runs for NM Senate. BJ Lawson, already elected to Congress, helps campaign for Walter Jones for Senate. Don Gorman in New Hampshire runs for governor. State Senator Jerry Ward runs for Governor/Senator/Congressman from Alaska. Rand Paul runs for Congress in Kentucky. Rep. Barry Goldwater runs for Governor in Arizona. Etc etc.

  34. G.E. Post author

    that doesnt mean some LPer or CPer who is an auto-mechanic running on a budget of $3000. We need sitting State Senators and such running

    Wow. You should join the LP. You’d fit right in with the Redpath caucus.

    There ARE NO elected officials, at least not that I know of, that are sufficiently pro-liberty to win my support, with the exception of Ron Paul.

  35. G.E. Post author

    Having good people in office only legitimizes the state and delays its inevitable collapse. That’s why I might vote for McCain, to hasten the demise of the Empire.

    Ridiculous: Howard Phillips and others like him (the JBS guy) talking about “saving” our republic.

    The republic died in 1787.

  36. Spence

    Actually, Trent, Perot dropped out mid-May if I recall correctly, just as he was leading in the polls beforehand. The enthusiasm dropped when he briefly exited (all due to a hoax, go figure), but he reclaimed SOME of his support via the debates.

    But cmon. No one here can seriously compare Bob Barr or anyone else runnin 3rd party this year to the credible effort Perot ran. That’s one of the reasons that everyone took him so seriously.

    If you’ve noticed about every 8 years or so there’s an opening for a third party grab a few percentage points and this year is consistent with that trend.

  37. Trent Hill

    Mind you, you wouldnt want all of those people running in 2012,as our movement could not possibly fund all of those races. But, getting BJ Lawson and Bob Conley into Congress this year virtually ensures that they will be in Congress for many years to come. Gradually,over time, we build up a movement which is a solid voting bloc in Congress, like Ron Paul’s Liberty Committee in Congress, whose past and present congressional members include 22 congressmen.

  38. Trent Hill

    “Wow. You should join the LP. You’d fit right in with the Redpath caucus.

    There ARE NO elected officials, at least not that I know of, that are sufficiently pro-liberty to win my support, with the exception of Ron Paul.”

    GE,

    My point isnt to disparage the auto mechanic from running, or to say he isnt doing something good. But if someone more qualified can do it–they should and would help MORE.
    You said you dont think there is ANY elected official who is sufficiently pro-liberty? Not even state reps or state senators? There are two state Representatives in Idaho who are fans of Ron Paul, whom also read LRC and are Republicans who have flirted with the CP and LP–just like Ron Paul. If you cant find them, you just arent looking hard enough. State Senator Cale Case is another good example, from Wyoming.

  39. G.E. Post author

    I said “not that I know of” and if there are some guys in Idaho, they aren’t having any impact on my life. There certainly are not any at the federal level — and yes, that includes minimum-wage-supporting Walter Jones (isn’t he the fascist “freedom Fries” idiot, too?) and Bill Kaufman-creation Jimmy Duncan.

  40. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Howard Phillips and John McManus did great jobs. Also, let us not forget that Ron Paul himself also said we should “save the Republic” but that it “is teetering on the edge or possibly dead”.

  41. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Walter Jones WAS the freedom fries guy, but is not any longer,as he’s had a very anti-millatarism conversion.

    As for Bill Kauffman, he did not “create” Jimmy Duncan. He is an anti-war conservative-libertarian congressman who endorsed Ron Paul. Ron Paul has repeatedly endorsed him, over and over, and raised money for him–so he is obviously worth something.

    As for the Federal level–fine. Robert Taft was once a Senator. H.R. Gross and Howard Buffet were once Representatives. More could come like them, like BJ Lawson and Bob Conley (yes, I know Lawson supports the FairTax, but he’s good on basically every other issue).

  42. G.E. Post author

    I agree that, by and large, Howard Phillips and the JBS pres. did good jobs. The JBS guy was really good, and the he threw in that 10 Commandments B.S. to ruin it. But he was WAY OFF BASE, historically, in his assertion that the Constitution was some great thing, when, as you know, the Constitution was a coup by the nationalists to give the government more power.

    I think Ron Paul knows that it’s dead. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t say that.

    Ron Paul also shouted out the atheists and agnostics. His message was 100% nondivisive, unlike some others.

  43. Trent Hill

    Oh,and the idea of forming a committee to draft some pro-liberty Republican is pure genius. Someone, whom Paul would support and endorse, must pick up the mantle of the Revolution and run with it.

  44. Trent Hill

    “I think Ron Paul knows that it’s dead. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t say that.”

    So your assertion is that Ron Paul is lying when he says the Republic is worth saving? When he was here in Baton Rouge he spent a good 5 minutes on how we could still save the Republic.

    Nevertheless, wether it is “Saving” or “Ressurecting” the Republic–we’d still have to have spokemen in the important races.

  45. G.E. Post author

    The Republican Party is evil to the core.

    Morons were holding up the “Return the GOP to its roots” signs.

    What? Mercantilism? Nationalism? Murdering your countrymen? Soft money? The draft? The income tax? THESE ARE THE ROOTS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

    A better sign would have been “Return the GOP to the Democratic Party’s roots”

  46. Trent Hill

    “Ron Paul also shouted out the atheists and agnostics. His message was 100% nondivisive, unlike some others.”

    You mean like Ventura, whose implication was that all anti-illegal activists were racists or fearmongerers?

  47. G.E. Post author

    He didn’t say the republic was necessarily worth saving. He said it might have been dead. Obviously, something that is dead cannot be saved. That’s why they say RESTORE the Republic, not “reform” it.

    The idea that the country can be “returned” to constitutional principles is so false, it’s beyond redemption. The Constitution has never effectively limited government, and was never really intended to. Unless the 14th amendment is undone, there’s really no such thing as “states’ rights.” That’s why I thought it was ridiculous for McManus to brag about how he thwarted the “con con” in the 60’s — as if we’re any better off. They don’t need a “con con” to invent B.S. out of thin air.

  48. G.E. Post author

    Yes, like Ventura, but his assertion was true if divisive. I’ve repeatedly criticized him for being divisive, Trent.

  49. Trent Hill

    “Morons were holding up the “Return the GOP to its roots” signs.”

    Those “morons” were holding signs that were manufactured and paid for by the Campaign for Liberty, and thus approved by Ron Paul himself.
    But, I dont want FACTS to get in the way of your erratic vitriol.

    I do agree with you comment about returning the GOP to the Democratic Party’s roots, but that Democratic Party is gone. The GOP that was pro-liberty really only 1/2 existed in the 40s, 50s, and 60s.

  50. G.E. Post author

    But it should be noted that Ventura was RESPONDING to the anticapitalist xenophobia propagated by some of his predecessors. If they can air their views, then certainly he should be allowed to share his — which were quite popular, btw.

  51. Trent Hill

    McManus said that he helped stop the “con con”. You are right that this deosnt mean those same people wont just invent crap out of thin air–but at we have the legal standing and historically-correct position still. Are you saying we should NOT have stood against the con con? McManus is a champion of liberty for killing the con con.

  52. G.E. Post author

    Well, then CFL paid for fraudulent signs.

    At least Howard Phillips spoke the truth about Lincoln — and the crowd was silent in response. That was depressing.

  53. G.E. Post author

    You’re making me argue against guys I generally like (McManus and Phillips) over comparatively minor points in the grand scheme. I thought both of their speeches were great. How’s that?

  54. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Show me some xenophobia. Nowhere that I saw did McManus or Phillips engage in any sort of race-baiting or racism like the kind Ventura implicated them in. And keep in mind that Ron Paul is severely anti-illegal immigration himself. Mind you, I said illegal immiGRATION, not illegal immiGRANT.

  55. Trent Hill

    That is great. McManus and Phillips’ speeches were far better than Ventura’s too, in my opinion. Im glad he was invited, but I wish he would have stuck to areas of agreement.

  56. G.E. Post author

    You’re right: Phillips and McManus did not say anything racist today. But their anti-immigration stances (or at least the stances of the CP platform and the JBS) are rooted in bad economics and xenophobia. The CP and the JBS are both anti-free trade, too. Ron Paul is wrong on this one issue (immigration), but his stance is rooted in economics. In 1988, he said our immigration policy should be “we shouldn’t have an immigration policy.” And I don’t think McManus’s 10 Commandments idolatry was “sticking to areas of agreement” either.

  57. Trent Hill

    GE,

    You’ve made many off-color comments about the JBS and especially the CP, in the past–so forgive me if I ask: How do you know their motives? You claim their stances are rooted in anti-capitalist mentalities and xenophobia, yet you’ve never met the people who made the decisions or heard the arguements in favor of said decisions.

    As for what Paul said n 1988–he said alot then that was more libertarian than his conservative-libertarian current self.

    I did not hear McManus’ 10 commandments “idolatry”, but I imagine it really wasnt as bad as you say.

  58. paulie cannoli

    And keep in mind that Ron Paul is severely anti-illegal immigration himself.

    Nope, I am anti-illegal immigration, since it would be legal. Anyone who wants to keep it illegal is pro-illegal immigration. The government will no more stop illegal immigration than it will stop illegal drugs, illegal sex, illegal guns, gypsy cabs, or unlicensed construction. They will all continue to exist regardless of the regime’s edicts.

    If massively oppressive measures designed to end unlicensed migration across phony regime borders are implemented, it will have very severe effects on both economic and civil liberty. It would also cause an economic depression. This whole idiotic hullabaloo about “illegal immigration” is merely a ploy to deflect people’s attentions away from the establishment’s disastrous military and economic mismanagement, which has been very profitable for a select few at the great expense of the many.

    In such times, scapegoats for the nation’s economic ills are always found, so as to divide and conquer the powerless and keep them fighting each other rather than the ruling class. In Germany it was the Jews, in Russia the landowners and factory owners and shopkeepers; and in the US today it is Latinos, Muslims and Middle Easterners.

    The more things change the more they stay the same.

  59. paulie cannoli

    Of course this phenomenon is nothing new to the US. There have been waves of anti-immigrant xenophobia in the US, such as in the mid 19th century against the Irish and Germans, 50 years later against Jews, Italians, Poles, etc.

    Immigrants, in turn, were manipulated to be anti-black.

    In the meantime, the ruling class – that is, the regime and its crony capitalists – have always played all sides against the middle for fun and profit.

  60. johncjackson

    I guess I’m ignorant/confused over Ron Paul’s current views on immigration and economics.

    Is Paul now an anti-immigrant protectionist Lou Dobbs type of guy?

    I always knew he wasn’t ideal as far as immigration but i always thought it was more because of the whole “gotta eliminate welfare first” line of thinking.

    Now I’m hearing/reading that he is for building a wall, “stopping outsourcing”,etc.

    And apparently remarks by Jesse Ventura, though non controversial to any libertarian, were controversial to a lot of Ron Paul supporters?

    Weird.

    I mean I knew Paul wasn’t “perfectly libertarian” and had supporters among the “far-right” and certain fringe groups. But I always felt like he was mostly OK from a libertarian standpoint and had a lot of libertarian supporters.

    Now I feel like if I went to a Ron Paul event as a libertarian I’d feel really out of place.

  61. Trent Hill

    Paulie,

    Are you suggesting that any anti-illegal immigrant activist, or even most of them, is racist?

    I happen to have a hispanic wife–and she believes in secure borders. Does she hate brown people too?

  62. G.E. Post author

    Trent: WTF, man. I’ve read many issues of The New American and the JBS newspaper. They’re anti-free trade. They’re concerned about the “cultural identity” of the country. Off-color comment? I like the JBS and might join. I’d like to go to their 50th anniversary. They’re really wrong on trade and immigration. They want way more government than I do, but still way, way less than we’re ever likely to get.

    I know there are good CP members, like you and others. But this is from the CP’s immigration plank:

    “We oppose the abuse of the H-1B and L-1 visa provisions of the immigration act which are displacing American workers with foreign.”

    That is pure protectionism.

    Wanting to require people to speak a given language in order to be citizens is bigoted and xenophobic.

  63. Trent Hill

    “Now I’m hearing/reading that he is for building a wall, “stopping outsourcing”,etc.”

    Paul is not for building a wall and is perfectly alright with outsourcing–as any free marketeer would be. Paul’s advocacy against illegal immigration is based only upon securing the border,but he wants to expand immigration quotas or abolish them,but still have a secure border.

  64. johncjackson

    Pauli said “In such times, scapegoats for the nation’s economic ills are always found, so as to divide and conquer the powerless”

    Yeah that’s what makes me uncomfortable about the “Ron Paul Revolution.”

    I have heard Paul himself say we shouldn’t scapegoat immigrants, but he sure seems to be aligning himself a lot with people who are professional “scapegoaters” and the “movement” ( at least superficially) has taken on an anti-immigrant, economically ignorant flavor.

  65. G.E. Post author

    I always knew he wasn’t ideal as far as immigration but i always thought it was more because of the whole “gotta eliminate welfare first” line of thinking.

    Yes, that is Ron Paul’s position.

    His position is NOT Lou Dobbs’s.

    It’s very sad that if you go to RonPaulForums, you will find A LOT of Ron Paul supporters who think Lou Dobbs is a good guy!

  66. G.E. Post author

    Trent – I don’t know your wife, and I’m sure she’s a fine lady. But there are a lot of Hispanic people who are protectionists on immigration. That shouldn’t be surprising. Especially legal immigrants who fought like hell to get here “legally” — they resent others doing it otherwise. But that’s just spiteful.

  67. Trent Hill

    GE,

    You did not provide any documentation about how the JBS or CP are anti-illegal immigration because they are xenophobic,that is the dominant part of what my comment was about. The protectionism is obvious, I admit.

    As for the idea that wanting people to speak a given language in order to be citizens in bigoted—pure idiocy. Although I do not believe in anything like this–I do not believe it is based on bigotry either, but upon homogenity and heritage.

  68. johncjackson

    Well I guess I have to blame the MSM ( as usual) and some misguided supporters. A lot of the coverage of the Rally characterized it as being for supporters of Ron Paul, who oppose immigration, outsourcing, abortion, and the FED.

    I think his actual views are alright. But he certainly aligns himself politically with a lot of anti-immigrant protectionists.

    And yes, at least some of it is motivated by racism. To deny that is denying reality, IMHO.

  69. Trent Hill

    GE,

    My wife is not a protectionist. She is a hardcore free-marketeer, like myself. And she does not “resent” people who come here illegally because she came here legally…she was born here..so where would the resentment come from, she never had to cross the border. Her whole family feels the same. Mind you, she is a Cuban who is adamantly opposed to embargo and travel restrictions imposed on that regime, despite being ardently anti-communist. She’s a thoughtful and consistent libertarian-conservative…yet you think she’s a bigot and xenophobe (against her own race) because she holds a certain political position? Talk about collectivist thinking, some xenophobes want to generalize all blacks as criminals, and you want to generalize all anti-illegal immigration activists as racists.

  70. Trent Hill

    Both GE and johncjackson are keen to guessing what the motivations of certain people are because of their political positions. Anyone who is against illegal immigration is a racist. Ron Paul voted against the Civil Rights Act of ’64, and the liberals assume that means he is racist–they are presumptious bastards—and so are you. =)

  71. Mike Theodore

    I personally wouldn’t classify all anti-illegal immigration activists as racists, yet I do know of a few cases. The main problem is it’s hard to see through the veil of sensible arguments and racism sometimes.

  72. G.E. Post author

    Trent – I give you. You win. Don’t hit JCJ. He’s only reporting what the media said.

    JCJ – The media consider anyone who’s anti-NAFTA, etc., as being anti-free trade (or anti-outsourcing). The sad thing is: Many of Ron Paul supporters ARE anti-free trade and think he is too, but he’s the furthest thing possible from that position.

  73. G.E. Post author

    I think you need to look up “xenophobia.” I think advocating a national language and a language required for citizenship fits the bill. It doesn’t mean you have to think all Mexicanz should be euthanized.

    Comparing opposition to the statist CRA of ’64 to SUPPORT FOR statist immigration laws is not valid. A consistent anti-statist would oppose the CRA and immigration laws.

  74. Trent Hill

    GE,

    I know you werent talking about my wife,but you believe the position in general is one based upon xenophobia,and you cant seem to concieve of any way it WOULDNT be based upon racism.

  75. G.E. Post author

    Penn & Teller, who are big-time pro-immigration and pro-immigrant, did a show about the Minutemen, and even they couldn’t find anything racist or even unlikeable about them (other than they were silly). This does not support my argument, but I’ll throw it out there anyway.

  76. johncjackson

    A lot of the “English Only” types are specifically targeting Spanish speakers ( mostly “Mexicans”) in way that previous immigrants were not and/or having expectations that are very different.

    Mexicans assimilate and learn English at around the same rate as all previous non-English speaking immigrants. There were/are many European immigrants that never learned English and their children or grandchildren were the first to learn. Just like Mexicans.

    I get a particular kick out of some Europeans who are 3rd or 4th generation and STILL can’t speak English that have a big problem with Mexicans speaking Spanish. I especially like the ones who can’t pronounce “with” and consider Cheez Whiz an important part of culture.

    A lot of “English Only” types even go so far as to expect Mexicans to only speak English when they are having private conversations with each other. yet, they have no problem when people speak Italian, Greek,etc.

    They also want assimilation from Hispanics but have no problem with neighborhoods or towns that are completely European, Little Italy,etc.

    Could go on and on.

  77. G.E. Post author

    Trent – Sure. It could be based on protectionism.

    Or on the misguided notion that the state can supply security, and that the borders being open are any kind of legitimate threat.

  78. Trent Hill

    GE,

    A swelling welfare state due to increased illegal immigration is ENTIRELY statist. California has found that out.

  79. Mike Theodore

    G.E.,
    That episode seemed like it was pointed against the anti-immigration mindset, not just the Minutemen. Here’s the thing: you don’t know if those guys are racist or not. They could be, or they could be actually worried about illegal immigration. That segment simply showed that they can’t do anything but watch people run past them.

  80. G.E. Post author

    The welfare state itself is statist. Curtailing immigration in order to make the welfare state more sustainable is VERY statist.

  81. Trent Hill

    johncjackson,

    Im not defending ALL “English Only” types–only a slim few whom I MAYBE arent motivated by xenophobia and shouldnt be generalized the way GE is portraying them.

  82. G.E. Post author

    Okay, you wanna get down and dirty? Chuck Baldwin is so economically illiterate, he thinks that even in the absence of the welfare state — even in a free society — abolishing immigration quotas would lead to billions of people immigrating to the United States. And guess what? Baldwin is one of the more economically sound thinkers of the CP, Trent Hill excluded.

  83. Trent Hill

    “Curtailing immigration in order to make the welfare state more sustainable is VERY statist.”

    So we should seek to ballon the welfare state? And this is somehow LESS statist?

  84. G.E. Post author

    This “is so and so racist/xenophobic” argument needs to end. I’ve conceded defeat. The debate is pointless unless the terms can be defined, and that is itself a debate.

  85. G.E. Post author

    Trent – No, we should seek to abolish the welfare state, not take steps to make it more sustainable. But if we’re left with only the two choices you present, yes, I say balloon away.

  86. Trent Hill

    “Okay, you wanna get down and dirty? Chuck Baldwin is so economically illiterate, he thinks that even in the absence of the welfare state — even in a free society — abolishing immigration quotas would lead to billions of people immigrating to the United States. And guess what? Baldwin is one of the more economically sound thinkers of the CP, Trent Hill excluded.”

    Baldwin is terrible,economically, even for a CPer. There are many free-traders like me at the national events,but once again–GE isnt speaking from personal experience or affilliation,just rumor and conjecture.

  87. G.E. Post author

    Thinking the federal government can do anything efficiently is statist. And that includes enforcing immigration restrictions, which are inherently anti-capitalist. Instead, why not say “illegal immigrants get no welfare”? Jeez. What could be wrong with that? Why not stop forcing hospitals to treat people who have no ability to pay, whether they be immigrants or not? Taking away restrictions is much preferable to adding new ones and expecting government to do something right.

  88. Trent Hill

    “But if we’re left with only the two choices you present, yes, I say balloon away.”

    Therein lies our difference.

  89. G.E. Post author

    There are many free-traders like me at the national events,

    I said what I said about Baldwin based on the fact that his economics are much better than the platform. If there are really so many free traders like you, you haven’t done a very good job at changing that odious plank of the platform. But I say, GOOD FOR YOU. You really seem to be spoiling for a fight tonight, Trent! Let’s have some peace and harmony, friend.

  90. G.E. Post author

    Trent – If so, then our difference lies in a false choice. Because we don’t have just two options, but a third, which I presented in that comment.

  91. G.E. Post author

    The illegal immigration problem — and there are some problems — can be solved with more government or less. Why do you want to pursue the former instead of the latter, Trent? Or do I have you wrong?

  92. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Many. Not a majority. Free traders do exist on the national level–but are still a distinct minority.
    I just like to argue–just like you.

    Here is some good news: I believe we just passed the threshhold for most active thread EVER.

  93. G.E. Post author

    And I used to go for the “Security” issue. I don’t now. But it is irrespective of “immigration” — you could “secure the border” (a big waste of money, imo) and still not stop anyone except criminals from coming in.

  94. Trent Hill

    “The illegal immigration problem — and there are some problems — can be solved with more government or less. Why do you want to pursue the former instead of the latter, Trent? Or do I have you wrong?”

    You have me wrong, but not terribly so–just a confusion on what would grow government. The third option you presented is FAR preferable to either the first or second. I still do believe, like Ron Paul, that secure borders are neccesary–but im no protectionist, and thus dont have any use for restricting immigration once the welfare state is abolished or made to exclude non-citizens.

  95. G.E. Post author

    So, as it is, you think central planners should determine the number of immigrants allowed in the country? Baldwin does. He’s for central economic planning.

  96. G.E. Post author

    How about this for an area of agreement: Worst speech of the day, easily, Grover Norquist. How did that boring neocon get invited?

  97. Fred Church Ortiz

    Quite a few there would agree with your assessments of Norquist, maybe 200 people poured out to have a smoke as he got going.

  98. Lance Brown

    One reason that I tend to think that most people who oppose immigration do so for reasons of xenophobia or racism is because I look to the past. If you look at the issue by looking to the past, the patterns are very clear. Someone already outlined the various waves of immigrants in the past who suffered all the exact same treament and attitude and so on. Same business with them not speaking the language, same bit about how they’ll steal native jobs, yada yada yada. Anti-immigration folks who are primarily focused on the proverbial tidal wave of Mexicans today are, whether they like it or not, part of a long and disgraceful – and more importantly, a racist and xenophobic – tradition in the U.S.

    That, added to the fact that virtually every “argument” against open immigration is based on shoddy logic or transparent fear, and has been undone by the aforementioned generations of foreigners who have graced our shores and improved our country in ways that can’t be calculated, make me question the motives of people who cling so tightly to their borders.

    Even on security, a policy of letting peaceful people enter freely wins. So I do tend to think that people who have a stick up their ass about letting people from out there in here are, if not racist or xenophobic at heart, probably buying into arguments that ARE xenophobic or racist at heart. Because historically, that’s what it’s been about every time.

    But maybe this generation of people who are extremely wary of foreigners are miraculously different from all the past generations of such people. Perhaps they have found a way to be extremely wary of foreigners without being xenophobic.

  99. paulie cannoli

    I happen to have a hispanic wife–and she believes in secure borders. Does she hate brown people too?

    Absolutely true that many immigrants want to pull up the ladder. Not me.

    How exactly is a night watchman state compatible with the idea of a government that goes into every business to check the papers of all their employees, builds a massive wall/police garrison on the border, and/or rounds up and deports over ten million people?

    And towards what goal? So Americans can pick lettuce? Absurd. If Americans wanted to pick lettuce at a reasonable price, the market for immigrant labor would not exist.

    By the way, if it was not for the earlier era of anti-immigrant racism and xenophobia around 100 years ago, there would be no such thing as an illegal immigrant, because the US never had immigration quotas until then. Immigrants were free to come in and work for a better life, as they should be again. So even if you are not racist, what you want is to enforce more laws which were based on racism. Why?

  100. paulie cannoli

    Pauli said “In such times, scapegoats for the nation’s economic ills are always found, so as to divide and conquer the powerless”

    Yeah that’s what makes me uncomfortable about the “Ron Paul Revolution.”

    I have heard Paul himself say we shouldn’t scapegoat immigrants, but he sure seems to be aligning himself a lot with people who are professional “scapegoaters” and the “movement” ( at least superficially) has taken on an anti-immigrant, economically ignorant flavor.

    Correct. BTW That’s paulie with an e.

  101. Trent Hill

    “How exactly is a night watchman state compatible with the idea of a government that goes into every business to check the papers of all their employees, builds a massive wall/police garrison on the border, and/or rounds up and deports over ten million people? ”

    I never claimed it was, nor am I for any of the things you mentioned-but thats a sweet Straw Man you set up.

  102. donald raymond lake

    Gee Paulie, reason, logic, clear examples. No wonder flawed, imperfect, IPR is head and shoulders above the Barr sellouts at TPW!

  103. Gene Trosper

    G.E. // Sep 3, 2008 at 12:21 am

    It’s not about winning, Trent. No one worth supporting can possibly win. It’s about spreading ideas so that we can rebuild something worth living under once the regime collapses.

    I suggest that doing so via a third party won’t accomplish much. Consider that not only does half the eligible population chooses NOT to participate in the electoral process (which implies they don’t pay attention to politics), but that you are saying we “spread the word” via third party politics. Third parties are already marginalized as it is. If you want to spread ideas, then you should find a more efficient vehicle for doing so.

  104. Gene Trosper

    Er…weird formatting in my post directly above this one.

    I used italics (and closed the tag) on G.E’s. post, but my response was italicized as well. My post began with “I suggest that doing so via a third party…”

    Sorry for any confusion I may have caused!

  105. ScreamingEagle

    Jesse may of said it before but it takes us the people to support him to make it happen. In today’s political circus as shown by Obama and McCain and those that fell out of the White Hootch wagon, it takes dinaro to run and without it, you are bull dung in a field. Just maybe if we get behind Jesse in 2009 and start showing support, he will run and bring some much needed honesty back to this country before honesty is just a lost word in a lost country. The choice is ours, a real Change from the 2 party monopoly or more of the same ol’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *