One party's fringe is the other's mainstream

The Boston Globe ^ | May 20, 2007 | Jeff Jacoby

[neverdem]

IF NOTHING else, Texas Congressman Ron Paul's presidential candidacy makes it clear that the Republican Party is not a monolith. It has its ideological outliers, and they march to the beat of a very different drummer than George Bush and most GOP candidates do.

With his isolationist opposition to the war in Iraq , Paul is the odd man out in his party. To Republican ears, his claim during last week's South Carolina debate that the United States was attacked on Sept. 11 "because . . . we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years" and that Americans ought to "listen to the people who attacked us" was blasphemous. If Rudy Giuliani hadn't pounced on it, one of the other candidates would have.

Most Republicans regard Paul's idea of America's proper role in the world -- stay at home, avoid alliances, and expend no energy making the world safer or protecting human rights -- as eccentric. Invoking Osama bin Laden as the legitimate voice of the Muslim Middle East is the hallmark of a crank, not a conservative...

--snip--

What if not derangement can explain such fever-swamp nuttiness as the findings of a new Rasmussen poll, which asked whether Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance? Among Democrats, 35 percent believe he did know and another 26 percent weren't sure. Only 39 percent said he didn't. In other words, nearly two out of three Democrats are unwilling to say that Bush wasn't tipped off to 9/11 in advance.

In another poll recently, respondents were asked whether they personally wanted Bush's new security strategy in Iraq to succeed -- not whether they expected it to, but whether they wanted it to. Among Democrats, a stunning 49 percent either hoped that the US plan would fail or couldn't make up their minds.

[neverdem]

© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

I'm surprised they printed this OpEd.

[neverdem]

Here's an example of what I meant on your thread.

These poll numbers are incredible. That's why I made sure to include them.

[MNJohnnie]

Invoking Osama bin Laden as the legitimate voice of the Muslim Middle East is the hallmark of a crank, not a conservative

Yep. An even more pathetic thing to watch is the various Paulites trying to make excuses for him. To agree with Ron Paul you have to pretend that NOTHING at all happened in the world prior to 1992 and that the USA was simply bombing Iraq out of pure whimsy.

[neverdem]

Truly, how hard is that to understand?

How hard is it to understand being OK with slavery, treating females like property and "Death to America"?

BTW, welcome to FReeRepublic.com.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

NEVER FORGET

.

After the Attacks of 9/11...
President BUSH promised...

.

Freedom’s return to:

Communist Vietnam
Communist North Vietnam
Communist Cuba

.

as well as

.

Freedom’s arrival to:

All the countries of the Middle East

.

...as America’s own best self-protection against future terrorist attacks here at home.

.

Signed:..A Witness...
to this written BUSH Promise read aloud to over 1,000 Little Saigon Vietnamese-Americans joyously demonstrating in celebration of Freedom’s arrival to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

“ALOHA RONNIE” Guyer
Veteran-”WE WERE SOLDIERS” Battle of IA DRANG-1965, Landing Zone Falcon

http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set1.htm
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_colleciton.htm

.

NEVER FORGET

.

[tophat9000]

To Republican ears, his claim during last week's South Carolina debate that the United States was attacked on Sept. 11 "because . . . we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years" and that Americans ought to "listen to the people who attacked us" was blasphemous.

Now question... haven't the Dem been saying there was no link of Sept. 11 and Iraq...no Al Q in Iraq ..Osama and Saddam no connection.... yet Paul is saying bombing Iraq for 10 years = Sept. 11.....

So Dem say Bush did a direct link Iraq to Sept. 11 (but he didn't) to lied us in to war ...yet Paul does directly link Iraq to Sept. 11 an Dem's say Paul is telling the "truth"?...Shouldn't the Dem's be saying Paul is trying to lie us to defeat?

[elhombrelibre]

Not all the surrender monkeys are Democrats. Al Qaeda broke the will of a lot of the weak-minded defeatists who seem all too eager to parrot the al Qaeda party line.

[Islander7]

"...Once again for the slow kids. Ron Paul simply pointed out what the terrorist THEMSELVES gave as the reason for 9/11. It’s not even debatable. That’s what they said. Truly, how hard is that to understand?...

Must be pretty hard. I actually agreed with some of Paul's points, but face it, he has no plan or method of dealing with the current situation. Isolation is not an option, compromise is not an option, negotiation is not an option, so that leaves the one language the terrorists understand: brute force.

[Shanty Shaker]

The crowd likes him because of his view on legalization of controlled substances.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

IRAN recently publically stated that:

“It’s now time for the world to start imagining a world without an America in it”

.

Former President CLINTON publically stated after the Attacks of 9/11 that:

“There might not even be an America around in 300 years”

.

And thus THE Battle for the 21st Century has just been enjoined,

...by both our Enemies Without & Within.
.

In response, FoX News Channel President ROGER AILES publically stated:

“GOD help a world without an America in it”

.

Thank you for your CLARITY, Mr. AILES.

Thank you very, very much.

[elhombrelibre]

So they said it. Does that mean he agrees? Does that mean we should honor their desire? He could have quoted bin Laden’s statement that the US’s leaving Somalia after losing soldiers during the Black Hawk down episode proved we didn’t have the will to fight. Instead, he quotes al Qaeda’s opinion on why they attacked us. This is for sure, even the slow people need to understand that al Qaeda can come up with a million reasons to attack anyone who doesn’t accept their idea of their religion. They’re waging war on democracy, civilization, and anyone who doesn’t agree with them. How hard is that to understand?

[neverdem]

The crowd likes him because of his view on legalization of controlled substances.

The war on drugs has been financing the Islamists in Afghanistan at least.

[elhombrelibre]

And the likes of bin Laden and al Qaeda, whom Ron Paul wants to rationalize and be an apologist for, have been murdering non-Muslims since Islam began. So Ron Paul is a philistine and a dilettante if he doesn’t know this; he’s an embarrassment to be in the Republican Party.

[Jacquerie]

Among Democrats, a stunning 49 percent either hoped that the US plan would fail or couldn't make up their minds.

I suspect many of the remaining 51% don't really support their country either.

[FredHunter08]

“Freedom’s return to:

Communist Vietnam
Communist North Vietnam
Communist Cuba

.

as well as

.

Freedom’s arrival to:

All the countries of the Middle East”

When is all this supposed to occur and more importantly, how? You’ll have to separate the Middle East from Islam first. The President can promise all he wishes, but the it’s still just rhetoric.

[FredHunter08]

“I actually agreed with some of Paul’s points, but face it, he has no plan or method of dealing with the current situation.”

His plan to issue letters of marque and reprisal was an interesting one...

” so that leaves the one language the terrorists understand: brute force.”

Something the President really doesn’t want to use.

[Islander7]

” so that leaves the one language the terrorists understand: brute force.”

Something the President really doesn’t want to use...."

BINGO! You win a cigar. This mess should have been wrapped up 2 years ago with Sadr and his crew in having a dirt nap.