CHANGE?

Last night my wife and I watched a re-run of Robin Williams in "Man of the Year." Watching his performance reminded me how brilliant and insightful this comedian is. Williams hits the nail on the head about so many issues in his rapid-fire delivery it is tough to keep up with him. Still, his performance reminds that too often the American political landscape is littered with influence peddling and shameless hypocrisy.

The recent wins of Barrack Obama, and Mike Huckabee in Iowa, along with the record turnout have the analysts pointing to a growing American hunger for change. Yet, the questions remain ‘will things truly change?’ Will the common good trump the special interests? Will America elect a government that will be focused on the issues that affect the lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of everyday Americans?

Interestingly America seems ready to finally discard the Bush/Cheney era politics of fear. The evidence lays in the smack-down of fear monger #1 Rudy Giuliani. The fire-fighter foe scored less than half as well as the self-proclaimed change-agent Ron Paul. Paul took ten percent, and remains within striking distance of the unsettled, and bitterly divided republican field.

Joel Hirshorn has his own take on these recent events and how they relate to Ron Paul in particular:

Change Yes, Ron Paul No
Joel S. Hirschhorn

Ron Paul’s obnoxious supporters like more traditional political activists can spin and delude themselves about election results. But the Iowa caucus results could not be clearer: The vast national desire for political change is manifesting itself through support for both Democratic and Republican change-candidates. Despite Paul being flush with money and having a large number of workers in Iowa, he was solidly rejected as the leading change agent.

Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses. They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.

On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.

On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place. That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points). Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.

In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000. So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa. Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent

Edwards was absolutely correct when he summed things up this way: “The one thing that is clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won.”

With all the hoopla from Paul supporters about younger people being for Paul, that’s not what the Iowa results showed. Younger people seeking change and inspiration flocked to Obama, in particular. There was no demographic in Iowa that overwhelmingly went for Paul. Sure, Paul beat Giuliani, but Paul’s effort in Iowa was much bigger than Giuliani’s.

None of these results will impact Paul’s supporters nationwide. Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote a great article on Alternet.org: “Ron Paul is Scary, But Those Who Cheer Him Are Even Scarier.” He was right when he said: “The scariest thing about GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd-ball racial views. It is that people take him seriously.” But now Iowa has thankfully shown that the vast majority of Americans, especially those seeking political change, reject Paul.

After losing badly in Iowa Paul said: “The other candidates talk about tinkering with the status quo. We don’t want to tinker; we want to change the status quo.” He said that his campaign is on the upswing and gaining support among independents, frustrated Republicans and unhappy Democrats. Just one very big problem: The Iowa results show that all these people are much more likely to vote for other Democratic and Republican change-candidates.

Paul’s supporters claim that he will do much better in New Hampshire where Libertarian Party members hold a number of offices. I don’t think so. Several polls taken before the Iowa results found Paul at just 5 to 9 percent. Will Paul get a big boost from Iowa? I don’t think so. Paul had predicted he could finish in third place in Iowa, and many of his supporters think he will do that in New Hampshire. I don’t think so. Paul will likely finish fifth in New Hampshire, in large part because more independents will go to Obama and McCain.

When Paul first ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, he won just 0.54 percent of the vote. Iowa shows that his second presidential bid will not produce much better results. Paul is definitely not tapping in a major way into the national populist movement, major desire for political change, anti-status quo sentiment, or even the anti-Iraq war issue. Clearly, other Democratic and Republican change-candidates are doing much better. This reality will not affect Paul’s passionate, cult-like followers that are solidified like cement in their belief that Paul can and should be our next president, something that Paul himself probably never really believed.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]


QuestionItNow

Ron Paul Reality Check

Ron Paul Reality Check

Joel S. Hirschhorn

As self-professed champion of the Constitution presidential candidate Ron Paul has missed a monumental opportunity to educate Americans about the criminal behavior of Congress in violating their oath of office. Even more important, he has not taken advantage of his 15 minutes of fame to promote the nation’s first-time use of what the Founders gave us in the Constitution in case the public lost confidence in the federal government - the Article V convention option.

Paul clearly recognizes the many failures of the federal government. Maybe as a member of Congress he just does not have the courage to confess that he too has been part of a long-standing refusal by Congress to obey Article V of the Constitution. Why don’t passionate Paul supporters see his lack of integrity, guts and consistency?

Support for using the Article V convention option should be a litmus test for any presidential candidate, which is reasonable considering that Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt supported it.

First, let’s be clear that Paul has no problem in seeing the need for constitutional amendments. For example, he has been a proponent of an amendment that would not allow children born in the USA from illegal parents to become citizens. Second, he has maintained throughout his career his love and respect for our Constitution. Third, he has carefully refused to publicly state his views on the provision in Article V of the Constitution for the use of a convention of state delegates to make proposed amendments as the alternative to Congress proposing amendments (the only procedure used for 220 years). Fourth, he has made no attempt to pass any law that would modify, clarify or expand the single requirement now in Article V for a convention. How can a champion of the Constitution remain so silent on Congress’ refusal to honor over 500 applications from all 50 states for a convention that more than satisfies the one and only requirement in Article V?

Anyone who studies the history of attempts to get the first Article V convention will learn that it has consistently been opposed by people and groups on the political left and right that are part of the nation’s elitist political status quo establishment. So here is Ron Paul, supposedly an honest non-elitist political maverick that does not fit into the political establishment, yet too cowardly to stand up to the political establishment by backing the use of the Article V convention option. Paul has had virtually no real impact on what Congress has done, yet he does not support the convention option that would circumvent the power of Congress. What does he have to lose?

Of course, if all the passionate supporters of Paul would spend more time investigating all his congressional activities, they would find a lot more to seriously question. A chief example is that he has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending to make constituents in his district happy. Then he hides behind his votes against the spending bills containing his earmark spending items. But those earmarks remain in those spending bills passed by Congress. Tell me, is that really virtuous behavior? His earmarks increase federal activities and spending. Many have been for projects by the Army Corps of Engineers, many to funnel money to the Texas Department of Transportation (including one for repairs to the Galveston Trolley system), and one for Texas A&M University/Galveston Campus to convert the Texas Clipper for educational purposes; maybe this was the $30 million for the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship. And then there was the $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing. This seems like pretty conventional Republican politics. This year Paul has requested about $400 million worth of federal spending for his district – not exactly consistent with Paul’s rhetoric on reducing federal spending and taxing. His duty is to inform his constituents about the wrongness of earmarks, not capitulate to their requests.

There is still time for Paul to search his soul and find the courage to either to support use of the Article V convention as the route to achieving deep political reforms that Congress itself will never have the integrity to propose through constitutional amendments, or to step up and make the case for an amendment that would remove the never-used Article V convention option.

Here is some irony: With our thoroughly corrupt and rigged political system Ron Paul has absolutely zero chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee, regardless of his high level of grassroots support. Odd then that Paul has not supported the one and only route to profoundly changing this awful political system. It is the method our Founders gave us with the Article V convention option. Indeed, his lack of support for using the Article V convention option seems to makes him a part of the political establishment, which is consistent with his recent announcement that if he does not get the Republican nomination he will not run as a third party candidate.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com and is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org.]

QuestionItNow Blogs

An Open Letter to Ron Paul

Why does Ron Paul not speak of Article V?

Open Letter to Congressman Ron Paul

Joel S. Hirschhorn

There are numerous reasons to admire you, as I have for many years. Clearly you are running for president as a Republican, rather than a third party candidate, for the purpose of getting richly deserved media and public attention not available to those outside the two-party duopoly. In last night’s debate among Republican presidential candidates you proudly described yourself as a "champion of the Constitution." However, you are missing a major opportunity to demonstrate your courage and allegiance to our constitutional republic.

You have acknowledged the appropriateness of amending the Constitution. In fact, you introduced legislation for an amendment that would stop giving automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. You said: "Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment."

Personally, I endorse this particular amendment. More important, however, I am disappointed that you have never latched on to the long history of Congress’ failure to honor and obey the part of Article V of the Constitution that gives Americans the right to a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution – an alternative to Congress proposing amendments. Interestingly, the particular amendment that you favor will probably never emerge from Congress, but might have a better chance through an Article V convention.

Why have you failed to acknowledge that Congress has ignored over 500 applications from state legislatures from all 50 states for an Article V convention? As a champion of the Constitution, surely you know that the one and only requirement explicitly stated in Article V is that two-thirds of state legislatures ask for one. And surely you know that Congress has never passed any law that expands or modifies this single explicit constitutional requirement. So, I ask you Congressman Paul: Why have you remained silent on the Article V issue?

If you do not believe that Congress should honor Article V’s provision for a convention, why not say so publicly? If you believe that it should never be used, then why not call for an amendment to delete it from our Constitution?

Please Congressman Paul, as a champion of the Constitution, do not behave like other members of Congress and silently veto a crucial part of the Constitution that the Framers wisely gave us. They anticipated that eventually Americans could lose confidence in the federal government. You clearly have earned the respect and support of millions of Americans because you object to so many policies and actions of the federal government. Thus, you, more than virtually any other member of Congress, should appreciate the wisdom of the Framers in giving us the Article V convention option.

I beg you to speak up and demonstrate just how much of a champion of the Constitution you really are by bringing national attention to the Article V convention issue and supporting its use. As a founder of Friends of the Article V Convention I invite you to play a leading role in giving the United States of America its first Article V convention.

[The author had the pleasure of a private meeting with Congressman Paul about a year ago to discuss his book Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government: www.delusionaldemocracy.com. He serves as National Press Secretary of Friends of the Article V Convention: www.foavc.org.]

Joel S. Hirschhorn

QuestionItNow