Lormand and Ron Paul's nemesis, Phil Graham
I knew there would be yet another reason to like Phil Graham.
Posted on 07/01/2008 2:19:51 PM PDT by mnehrling
According to Ron Paul Henchman and alleged erstwhile ghostwriter Lew Rockwell (broke link, Lew Rockwell not welcome on Free Republic), you can blame Dicky Flatt’s buddy, Phil Gramm: …I was involved in that campaign, when Reagan broke his moronic “11th Commandment” to speak ill of fellow Republican Ron Paul, and such figures as Karl Rove and Paul Weyrich conspired to wage a very nasty campaign against Ron. In true Republican dirty-tricks fashion, Ron’s campaign office was even burglarized and his mailing list and other documents stolen. The power-elite had annointed (sic) the Philster, and would brook no grassroots opposition. Ron, of course, ran a hard and heroic campaign, complete with brilliant antiwar ads.
Wow! Bush’s Brain was controlling the party way back then? It also seems a bit ironic for Rockwell to call Reagan’s 11th Commandment “moronic” then whine about him breaking it. Then Llewellyn all but states it was Rove and Weyrich that broke into Paul’s campaign office, a pretty bold claim. And what war was Paul running anti-war ads against in 1984?
The Rockster was responding to comments made by Spencer J. Hahn on why he can never forgive Gramm for stealing Ron Paul’s chance of serving in the Senate alongside Barry Goldwater: Let us not forget that it was that Democrat turncoat, Phil Gramm, who defeated Ron Paul in the 1984 Republican Senate primary. Had Ron Paul won the primary, he would have won the general election, and become the true conscience of the Senate. I often wonder what would have been if Ron Paul had been in the Senate to filibuster every unconstitutional bill. He almost certainly would have been a presidential candidate (as Gramm was in 1996), and likely would have been taken more seriously by the MSM.
So there you have it, folks. The reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously is because Phil Gramm beat him in the primary in 1984. Oh, and Halliburton.
I thought Libertarians were all about personal responsibility?
Why is Ron Paul not President?
um...cause he’s a freakshow?
Thanks. Saved me the trouble!
If Ron Paul is so insignificant, why is there so much discussion about him? I have read dozens and dozens of articles linked from this site and others that talk about how insignificant he is, and how his supporters don’t matter at all.
Seems like if someone was truly insignificant you wouldn’t have to write a bunch of articles saying that he was.
Issue for issue, I’d take Paul over either two.
I just discovered that the Libertarian Party is blatantly pro-abortion.
I can see why Paul did run under their banner.
Wonder what happened to Barr....I didn’t know he opposes the right to life for babies.
If Rep. Paul was significant, he would have one a primary or caucus, but he didn’t win any.
His mini me Bobby Barr is just as much a flake and his Obama views being anti war, for gay marriage, legalize drugs, and Bobby Barr is on his third marriage.
There are a lot of discussions about head lice too.
I’ll agree that Paul comes off as eccentric, but I don’t think he ever really had a chance at winning. His message is what got people moving. Constitutionalism and limited government (real limited government not the lip service we get from many Republicans) is very appealing and at the very core of conservative values. Besides his anti-war stance, I’m not sure why so many republicans pound him so harshly. And even his anti-war stance has some merit. I don’t completely agree with it, but the fact that the executive declares de facto war without Congress actually declaring war is something to be frightened about. It is a blatant disregard for the Constitutional process, and Congress goes along with it, which is also scary.
The same reason why there is discussion of Robert Downy Jr. drug problems or Brittney Spears- it is a curiosity of pop culture. But in reality, we are just trying to help all the Paultards who complain Paul got no press coverage at all.. Can't have it both ways, can't complain you don't get press coverage, then can't complain the press coverage exposes the parts of you that aren't so pretty.
Barr had acquiesced to his then-wife having an abortion in 1983.
He had also invoked a legal privilege during his 1985 divorce proceeding so he could refuse to answer questions on whether he’d cheated on his second wife with the woman who is now his third.”
Ok then, why all the discussion about someone who didn’t win a primary or caucus? I don’t see tons of articles written about Tancredo, Gilmore or Brownback. In fact I don’t see this much discussion about Thompson and Rudy.
I think the fact that not enough people voted for him just might have had something to do with it.
So are you admitting there is a segment of people that make up his faction?
Sorry, I have to disagree. The people that jumped for the limited government message where a minority. If you visit any of the meet-ups, forums, or look at what happened at their marches, what got people moving was conspiracy theories, fear of neocons and 'zionists' and, as you mentioned, the anti-war message. Most of us who yearn for Constitutionalism and limited government don't look to Paul. As I've said many times before, Ron Paul is to the Constitution just like Fred Phelps is to Christianity.
That question makes no sense. All ‘factions’ have segments of people. You can go to an insane asylum and you will find ‘segments of people’.
well said, sir.
We still have discussions about Paul because his supporters continue talking about him, as if he’s still running for president.
Lormand and Ron Paul's nemesis, Phil Graham
I knew there would be yet another reason to like Phil Graham.
Funny, in Iraq, Paul didn't consider an 'authorization of the use of force' a legitimate declaration of war, however, he did consider it a legitimate declaration of war when he voted yes for almost the exact same wording when dealing with Afghanistan.
I dunno... Cuz he’s a moonbat?
Perhaps I should clarify. As I said in my initial post, I keep reading about how insignificant Paul is. But at the same time a lot of time is spent talking about someone who is supposedly insignificant. So if he is insignificant then why talk about him, or is it that there is a part of the GOP that is concerned for where his supporters may go in this and in future elections.,
Only in the most elementary school educated sense. For Pre-Wilsonian 'conservatives', even Reagan and Goldwater where neocons. Paul himself said that 'Reagan made Jimmy Carter look conservative'. As for the Libertarians, (party, not lower case 'l' principle), even Ayn Rand scolded them when she called them 'hippies of the right', so I guess the latter would fit if the Libertarians wanted Paul back (but after the embezzlement scandal of 1988, I doubt they do.)
did he run in the last election? Cuz...you kinda gotta run to become prez, dontchaknow?
Because it draws out some nuts who have the craziest arguments and theories about everything. We need a good laugh once a week or so.
Anyone who has a microphone in Congress that frequents 911 truther talk shows is not insignificant, but a danger to this Republic.
Because 1.2 million votes wasn’t enough.
I do remember the Bushs in Texas, along with Gingrich and the republican establishment in Washington, being so afraid of Ron Paul getting back in congress in 1996 that they recruited Greg Laughlin to switch from the democratic to the republican party. Paul defeated Laughlin in the run-off republican primary election in 1996 and went on to defeat democrat Charles “Lefty” Morris in November.
Libertarianism is just a hairs difference from Anarchy.
Neither did supposed "front-runner" Rudy Giuliani. Or Fred Thompson.
I didn't vote for Paul, but like someone here already said, issue-for-issue I'd take Paul over McCain and Obama.
Well everyone I knew that was for Ron Paul was not into conspiracy theories and such. Granted that was only a few people and I know I get a lot of crap for trying to defend “Dr. No”, but I see his policies and actions as uncompromisingly in support of Constitutionalism whereas too many republicans say they want limited government and haven’t delievered.
We’ve had a republican president for the past 8 year and at one point republican control of everything. On the border issue, all we have to show for is an under funded fence. Medicare part D was passed. Entitlement spending grew. Education expenditures were up over 100%. We should have hit Afghanistan with EVERYTHING we had if it was true at the time that Osama was there. And now we’re bogged down in nation building, something Bush ran against in 2000. All I’m trying to say is that too many Republicans throw us a few scraps of the Constitution, some lip service, and then they act as bad as the dems.
I’m not saying that Ron Paul is the second coming of Christ in his chariot ready to slay the infidels (that’s what Obama supporters think). I’m just saying he got a lot of people involved in politics and Constitutionalism (myself and a good number of friends included).
And for the record I haven’t met any of his conspiracy theorist followers, so I can only speak for those followers I have met and talked with.
So the Barr is the Libertarian Giuliani.
Great selection, LP.
Thanks, socal
You know what is interesting, every Conspiracy Theorist claims they aren't one, even the Father of the 9/11 Truth movement and Paul's good friend Alex Jones claims not to be one. Same with Paul's old pal Lewellian Rockwell.
I see that you are new here, so you are not aware of the vast discussions here chronicling the kooks and kook positions that Ron Paul has associated himself with.
Search for Ron Paul, or keyword "stenchhippie" and you will see much of the discussion here.
BTW, you do know that Paul’s American Conservative Union lifetime rating is the same as McCain’s, right?
That’s a legitimate point. And I’ve said before the Paul isn’t perfect (I think). We SHOULD have declared war on Afghanistan. I guess his reasoning must have been that we were only there to get rid of the Taliban, but that’s shaky at best since the Taliban ran the government. Anyway, you bring up a good point and I won’t defend Paul there.
As would I.
You sound surprised. This is par for the course. :)
I agree that Giuliani and Thompson didn’t win any primaries or caucuses. They’re less significant than Paul because he’s in Congress.
In terms of winning the nomination or presidency, then yes, he is insignificant.
Didn't need to, Article 1, Section 8 also gives Congress the authorization to 'define and punish offenses against the laws of nations'. Using this authority, you can broaden your war powers to pursue an enemy that isn't associated with a specific nation and crosses borders freely. By using existing treaties (laws of nations) agreed to through the UN as a tool, we are able to get more allies to have legal justification to join us. This isn't, as some say, obeying the UN, we are just using them as a tool and using existing treaties to help us. The Constitution, after all, says very specifically that treaties are to be considered high law of the land.
Houston PING
So then he has this group of supporters, what are those in this branch of the GOP doing to reach out to these people. Seems like mocking them really isn’t going to win them over
The people I’m talking about aren’t conspiracy theorists. I’ve had conversations with them specifically about conspiracies and none of them really find much credibility to any of them. Again, I’m only talking about a small number of people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.