Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul's Fair Weather Friends
BC Magazine ^ | 11/29/07 | Dave Nalle

Posted on 11/30/2007 4:33:59 AM PST by davenalle

Much has already been made of the interest shown in the Ron Paul campaign by groups on the reactionary right, from 9/11 'truthers' to white supremacists. Less widely reported but of growing concern to those watching the Paul campaign and wondering if it is going wildly astray is the involvement of far-left groups who are flocking to Paul's banner for reasons which may be genuine or may mask an effort to undermine the entire Republican primary. I like Ron Paul and what he stands for on a great many issues and especially his devotion to the Constitution, but I can't help but worry about the unsavory character his campaign is beginning to develop.

Stories are circulating on GOP email lists of interested Republicans attending Ron Paul meetups around the country and being confronted by openly hostile leftist/progressive/socialists who seem to be supporting Paul, but have no love for regular Republicans who also support the candidate. There are accounts that confrontations have become heated at some of these meetups, particularly the one held in Las Vegas earlier this month. Suspicion particularly focuses on attendees who are believed to be MoveOn.org operatives and why they are so interested in Ron Paul. Is their interest genuine, or is it only part of a campaign to disrupt the Republican primary?

The involvement of MoveOn.org in the Paul campaign can be confirmed on their page at meetup.com where they are shown as co-sponsoring a number of the regional Ron Paul meetups and they have also released a video ad in support of Paul. Paul's campaign has also received positive public response from a variety of prominent leftists, including Cindy Sheehan. One socialist in the Netherlands of all places, makes a compelling argument for why US socialists should support Ron Paul.

Most Republicans see the objectives of MoveOn.org as inherently antithetical to the basic beliefs of the Republican Party. MoveOn.org is an openly anti-Republican, anti-Conservative and anti-Libertarian organization which is openly funded by a wealthy international socialist whose goal is to undermine and control the Democratic Party, and it is largely run by people with past associations with the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America. With its position at the far left of the American Political spectrum and as the main instrument through which George Soros seeks to undermine and control the American political system, it is understandable how Republicans might be concerned about MoveOn.org's interest in and support of Ron Paul.

The key to Paul's popularity on the left lies with his opposition to the Iraq War, but also with the suppor the has from a segment of the traditional Libertarian Party constituency, the left-libertarians or social anarchists. This element of the broad alliance which makes up the Libertarian Party, where Paul was once a prominent figure and presidential candidate, is philosophically compatible with the most extreme parts of the socialist leaning wing of the Democratic Party. As typified by Justin Raimondo, they are the anti-property, anti-war and anti-nationalist element of libertarianism. They differ from typical 'minarchist' libertarians and neolibertarians in their outspoken hostility to the Republican Party and their unwillingness to compromise their extreme principles in the interest of political reality. Strangely they don't have the same hostility towards the Democrats, and many of them see socialists as their natural allies. As the Democratic Party becomes more dominated by socialist factions it becomes more appealing to them. Their enthusiastic support for Paul means that there is a nucleus within his following which is already allied with forces within the farthest left part of the Democratic Party, and they have been drawing on that association to bring more leftist/progressives into Paul's camp.

Paul seems willing to take support from wherever he can get it and doesn't seem particularly concerned that socialists may try to influence his campaign or distort the nomination process in the Republican primaries. Although he has promised that if he fails to get the nomination he will not jump parties and run as a Libertarian, he doesn't seem to care that the newly registered pseudo-Republicans he's creating will leave the party the moment the primary is over, even if one of the more moderate somewhat libertarian candidates wins.

In a recent interview with LibertyWatch Paul makes very clear that he's aware of his appeal to the left. He commented that:

"Right now, liberals are the most enthusiastic about my campaign. If I get a speech on the House floor on foreign policy, I’ll get many hundreds — sometimes thousands — of comments sent to my office. I would say 90 percent of them are from Democrats."
He doesn't seem particularly concerned, and even accepts the idea that these supporters are 'liberals', even though it's pretty clear that they don't believe in most of the same liberal ideas that Paul or other libertarians in the Republican Party support. Paul even acknowledges this:
"liberals are very, very frustrated with their own Democrats. Although they know I have shortcomings from their viewpoint — because I’m for free enterprise and free markets — they love my position on civil liberties and they love my position on war."
He's clearly willing to take support from wherever he can get it, which is understandable, but it does put his loyalty to the Republican party and true libertarian ideals in question, as much as his unwillingness to speak out against the racists, conspiracy fanatics and other extremists who support him does.

It is Paul's anti-war position which seems to drive much of the interest of the left in his campaign, which begs the question of whether their support is genuine, or just based on the single issue of the War in Iraq? Do they support Paul and everything he stands for or do they just see his candidacy as a chance to strike a blow against the evil Republican warmongers in their own primary. What will leftist/progressives who are flocking to register Republican so that they can vote for Paul do if he doesn't get nominated? Would they stick with a candidate like Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson who share many of Paul's positions on issues other than the Iraq War, or will they flee back to the Democratic party once Paul loses the nomination and they've done as much damage to the primary process as they can? Perhaps the most important question for Republicans is whether Paul could hold onto some of their votes in a national election if he were a Vice Presidential candidate?

Paul seems to have decided that whatever advances his campaign is a good idea, no matter where that support comes from or what strings may be attached to it. Distressing though it may be to admit, it looks like ambition is turning Ron Paul into a real politician.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: election; libertarian; moveonorg; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
This article kind of goes hand in hand with S. J. Reidhead's article on white supremacists in the Paul campaign also in BC Magazine earlier this week.

dave

1 posted on 11/30/2007 4:34:00 AM PST by davenalle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SJackson; Allegra; mnehrling; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; George W. Bush; OrthodoxPresbyterian; KDD; ...
The involvement of MoveOn.org in the Paul campaign can be confirmed on their page at meetup.com where they are shown as co-sponsoring a number of the regional Ron Paul meetups

Ron Paul - the MoveOn.org candidate.

2 posted on 11/30/2007 4:36:17 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davenalle

Ron Paul gives the Image that CNN and Democrats want to Portray for all Conservatives.


3 posted on 11/30/2007 4:36:49 AM PST by AmericanMade1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davenalle
This isn’t surprising. The Republican party has purposely opened the door for socialists. The GOP has been so eager over the years to expand it voting base that it has appeased and compromised with the socialist left all for the sake of winning. The result is a slew of candidates who have either espoused at least some socialist ideas and are now trying to flip flop or continue to favor such ideals be they abortion, amnesty for illegals or as members of the CFR. The party is receiving exactly what it wanted.
4 posted on 11/30/2007 4:47:09 AM PST by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! Duncan Hunter is a Cosponsor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

I think Paul’s support is beginning to fall off.


5 posted on 11/30/2007 4:54:26 AM PST by cripplecreek (Only one consistent conservative in this race and his name is Hunter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: davenalle

ACORN staffers (a communist front group) are also signing on to be Paulestinians to help put a monkey wrench in the GOP primaries.


6 posted on 11/30/2007 4:56:56 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Your "dirt" on Fred is about as persuasive as a Nancy Pelosi Veteran's Day Speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davenalle

Now this is a fair and reasoned anti-Paul commentary. Not the BS that we see on FR of “Paul is the ant-Christ”, or how he’s just no damned good.
You worthless Paul haters on this site could learn something from this writer. After seeing the reactions to Dr. Paul on FR, I’m completely in agreement with Bill O’Reilly that the haters on the right are every bit as dangerous as George Soros and moveon.org, if not more so, at least to me. To this point, I’ve felt that the people who basically share my ideas were reasonable and genuine in their concern for America, but my support of Dr. Paul has shown me that the far right is only concerned with power acquisition just as the far left is.


7 posted on 11/30/2007 5:06:59 AM PST by the tongue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davenalle

Ron Paul, Hillary’s hope for a third party win.


8 posted on 11/30/2007 5:18:47 AM PST by bmwcyle (BOMB, BOMB, BOMB,.......BOMB, BOMB IRAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davenalle

I like the tone af the article and can respect the author’s uncomfortableness with the concerns he raises.

It sounds to me like the author is concerned that unless those supporting Paul are in 100%, or even75%-90% agreement, with him on the issues than his candidacy should be suspect.

I don’t think that is a criticism that should hold any water. What candidate could pass that kind of test?

I am convinced that if Paul were elected President he would govern according to the same ideals he has held all throughout his career of public service. If the Lefties want to support Paul because of his stand on the war then good for them. They’ll also be helping to elect a man that will be against everything else they desire in a government.

I don’t have a problem with that.

Racists want to support Paul? Liberals want to support Paul? CTers want to support Paul?

Good, let them because in supporting Paul they are unwittingly supporting the candidate who will do the most to promote policies antithetical to them.


9 posted on 11/30/2007 5:20:35 AM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush; traviskicks

Ping for the lists.


10 posted on 11/30/2007 5:21:06 AM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the tongue

There are things I like about Ron Paul but I’ve been watching politics for far too long to have any illusions that he will win the white house. As things stand now, all he’s doing is helping to insure the worst of both parties will win their nominations.

Even in the wildest fantasy that he actually ended up in the white house he would still be powerless. Both parties would isolate him and render him totally impotent as a president.

Incrementalism got us into the mess we’re in and wildly swinging a baseball bat isn’t going to get us out. It will take someone who can at least work with his own party to get us back on the right path.


11 posted on 11/30/2007 5:23:26 AM PST by cripplecreek (Only one consistent conservative in this race and his name is Hunter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle
Ron Paul, Hillary’s hope for a third party win.

I honestly think he'd be more of a hindrance to Hillary.

Ron Paul appeals to the fringe, which tends to vote left.

12 posted on 11/30/2007 5:54:06 AM PST by Allegra (Greetings from a kinder, gentler Iraq. God bless US and Coalition Forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Ron Paul - the MoveOn.org candidate.

A fine collection of supporters he's drawing together, united by contempt for the GOP, each with their own peculiar individual hatreds. All of which must be overlooked, of course.

13 posted on 11/30/2007 6:00:48 AM PST by SJackson (seems to me it is entirely proper to start a Zionist State around Jerusalem, T Roosevelt, neocon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
The problem with incrementalism is that the one President since FDR who seriously tried to roll back big government, Ronald Reagan, was seriously thwarted by the MSM-Democrat axis and by the need to compromise with the liberals in order to fund the rebuilding of our military. As a result, staunch conservatives like James Watt were abandoned, and, except for the tax cuts, domestic reforms were mostly abandoned.

Ron Paul is doing amazingly well in fundraising, and it is ironic that the very people who decry the conspiracy minded 9-11 Truthers themselves fantasize the machinations of George Soros as Paul's hidden money source. The fact remains that all polls show Paul in single digits, and, more significantly, over half of potential GOP voters in at least one state have a negative opinion of him. His negatives far outweigh those of the two arch-Yankee RINOs in the race, Giuliani and Romney. George Stefanopoulos was right when he told Ron Paul during an interview that he would bet every dollar he had that Paul would lose. (Even a liberal can be correct occasionally!)

However, his campaign has introduced thousands of young people who are inclined leftward to the benefits of laissez faire economics and limited government. These are people who are culturally incompatible with the GOP base and with traditional conservative ideology. Frankly, evangelical Christians, a group to which I belong, have drifted too far toward support of big government and social welfare schemes, baptized as "faith-based initiatives." Republicans in general who were quick to condemn the big government schemes of Clinton stood by as Bush introduced his own statist programs like No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D.

To the extent Paul can shift the domestic agenda of the GOP away from liberalism with a "family friendly" facade and back to its limited government, low tax roots and can attract new converts to laissez faire economics and minimalist governance, he will benefit the conservative cause.

14 posted on 11/30/2007 6:02:46 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: the tongue
You worthless Paul haters on this site could learn something from this writer.

Oh, so you're assessing people's worth now?

We might take your childish insults more seriously if there weren't so many Paul Cultists on FR whose posts read more like something you'd expect to see on DU or DailyKOS.

15 posted on 11/30/2007 6:03:26 AM PST by Allegra (Greetings from a kinder, gentler Iraq. God bless US and Coalition Forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Allegra

I haven’t seen such an entertaining bunch since Lyndon LaRouche was out on bail.


16 posted on 11/30/2007 6:08:05 AM PST by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
In Ron Paul's candidacy we see the resurgence of the Brown-Red Coalition of 1939.

In 1939 American Communists and American supporters of Hitler both united in an antiwar movement.

Nazis and Communists obviously had some fundamental ideological disagreements, but they were united in their desire for the USA to shrink from the world stage and allow murderous ideologies to rage unchecked across Europe and Asia.

Today, MoveOn.org, the 9/11 Truth Movement and the National Alliance unite in support of Ron Paul, ignoring their ideological differences to make common cause against their common enemy: the United States.

17 posted on 11/30/2007 6:09:03 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
I haven’t seen such an entertaining bunch since Lyndon LaRouche was out on bail.

Kind of along the lines of what I'd expect to see at a Star Trek convention.

18 posted on 11/30/2007 6:12:39 AM PST by Allegra (Greetings from a kinder, gentler Iraq. God bless US and Coalition Forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Allegra

Or the Star Wars Cantina.


19 posted on 11/30/2007 6:13:44 AM PST by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
the very people who decry the conspiracy minded 9-11 Truthers themselves fantasize the machinations of George Soros as Paul's hidden money source

It's not hidden at all: George Soros is passionately and openly opposed to the US presence in Iraq.

Ron Paul is also passionately and openly opposed to the US presence in Iraq.

George Soros is the man behind MoveOn.org. That's a matter of public knowledge.

MoveOn.org openly cosponsors Ron Paul meetups on meetup.com. That's also quite public.

It makes sense that people with such openly declared common interests would work together.

This isn't mysterious speculation or conspiracy mongering: it's a quite public and open collaboration.

20 posted on 11/30/2007 6:19:44 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson