Posted on 05/13/2011 4:08:45 PM PDT by Sioux-san
In 2007, the Ron Paul presidential campaign commissioned a short position piece from me concerning the congressman and Israel. In discussion with Dr. Paul's then-campaign managers, I had ventured that to forge ahead as a viable candidate, Rep. Paul would need to convince the enormously powerful Christian right that he was not hostile to Israel. For America's evangelicals – and not the puny AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) often invoked derisively by libertarians – are Israel's most powerful political lobbyists.
The truth is that libertarians consider Israel a bit of a vexation. As a principled libertarian and an unapologetic Zionist, I have strived to navigate these shoals without resorting to special pleading.
Fast forward four years. Rep. Ron Paul is now the GOP’s best bet against Obama in 2012. (Preliminary polls show the congressman from Texas trailing the president "by only seven points.") And the good doctor has been making waves – good vibrations, really – with the following declaration: "I think Israel has to do what's in its best interest. It shouldn't have to ask us for permission." The occasion was the first Republican presidential debate. Juan Williams of Fox News asked the can-opening question. Williams wanted to know what President Paul would do if Israel struck Iran. I was pleased, if not surprised, to hear Dr. Paul voice his concern for the Jewish state's sovereignty. Israel was beholden to the U.S. and its conflicting interests. Due to its dependence on American military aid, posited Paul, Israel was not always able to act independently and self-interestedly.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
A better question would be: Is Ron Paul good for Texas?
The simple answer: no. -But certainly not worse than what we have now.
That’s actually my biggest concern about Ron Paul.
Israel is a perpetual target of economic warfare and if we shut them out, we’ve joined the enemy.
NO
Ron Paul is good for Israel like chopping off your head is a way to treat a hangnail.
I would say yes. He would turn them loose on the Muzzies. Now they are a caged Pit Bull with a Muzzle.
NO, Ron Paul is a bigot.
Ron Paul is not good for anyone. He should take his pot smoking, peacenik, truther brigades to the Libertarian party where he belongs. Most of these paulbots are not going to vote for the actual winner of the Republican nomination anyway so we don’t need them.
Wow?
I did not realize that Ron Paul was running to be the President of Israel.
That guy has guts !
thank goodness - I hope I have someone as good as John McCain or Bob Dole in 2012.
Both Dole and McCain were awful, yet sadly, still vastly preferable to Ron Paul. Paul actually manages to be THAT bad.
Wow! What a mean face on the broad in the 2nd photo. Reminds me of my 5th grade nun...shudder...
Not after his "killing bin Laden was absolutely was not necessary" comment, followed by his assertion that killing him in Pakistan without the Pakis' permission was a "violation of international law." Who but leftwing lunatics holds such views?
Even before expressing such idiocy he had NO chance. RP's foot-mouth-disease is much more advanced than even Biden's, and he has another year of being in front of microphones on a daily basis. Some doozies are coming, of that we can be sure.
My ONLY priority is the USA. Israel is not in the equation. Israel and Ireland are just other countries. I’ll vote for anyone that is good for the USA long term. As a vet this belief is not even remotely negotiable.
Did you even read Mercer’s column? Her point precisely, RP’s as well - by getting out of the unconstitutional foreign aid business with all other nations, America is better off and so are these nations. I am not a Ron Paul fan, but the field looks very dismal, and I am trying understand his positions. The rest are a bunch of wafflers who will say anything to get the nomination and then run us into the ground, too.
.jpg)
Now THAT’S chutzpah!
I wonder if RP considered Reagan’s attempt to kill Kaddafi back in ‘86 “unjustified” and “against international law?” Probably not — he was relatively sane back then. Relatively.
At this point in the American death throes, I don’t give a rat’s ass about Israel or any other country. I only am concerned about the United States!
We had better put our priorities in order and fix our home first, then worry about the neighbors.
Believe me, if we succumb to Marxism, Socialism, Communism and the general destruction of our American heritage, there will be no other countries coming to our aid and defense.
Think America first, everyone else second.
Dr. Paul may have said that to Juan Williams at the debate, but in a different time Dr. Paul said Israel attacking Iran would be a bad thing because the red chinese would then dump our dollars(?).
I wish Dr. Paul was as Miss. Mercer says he is. I admire his monetary stance and the attempt to bring our monetary system into something in accordance with the Constitution. But his appeasement is something I cannot take. The Constitution is certainly a near perfect document, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out; however, it is a governing document not a military strategy document. I don't think Dr. Paul gets that.
If one wants advice on monetary system (gold and silver as legal tender in payment of debts), punishing treason, taxation; etc., one goes to the Constitution. It was once the law of our land. If one wants military strategy, one bones up on Sun Tze (sp) -- not Neville Chamberlain or Alex Jones!
“In 1988 Ron Paul was nominated by the Libertarian Party for president and ran against the Reagan agenda, at one point telling the Dallas Morning News, Reagan was a “dramatic failure” as President. Paul also said,:
“I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration”, Reagan was “a failure, yes, in, in many ways”.
Transcript of Paul acknowledging that remark on Meet the Press 12-23-2007:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/ns/meet_the_press/t/meet-press-transcript-dec/
Isn’t that what Paul is saying?
That is what gets me about him. He excites me when he talks about abolishing the Internal Revenue and going to the gold standard but he's not realitic when he talks about Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, I have not heard his opinion on Libya. It is easy to spout out rhetoric when you are not in charge, but once you are, you realize that the United States has obligations and treaties that trump idealism.
And realism trumps imagined nostalgia. The Barbary Pirate wars was undeclared. Even back then, Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson realized that something had to be done instead of just paying tribute to these savages.
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.
