Ron Paul's Fair Weather Friends

BC Magazine ^ | 11/29/07 | Dave Nalle

[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.

[mnehring]

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.

One leftist poster over on RonPaulForums & several meetup pages justifies his support for Paul by saying that in order to move the agenda he believes in forward, they have to tear down the 'establishment'... conspiracy seems to unite the left to Paul.

[bmwcyle]

I do not want to test that theory.

[mnehring]

Wow, just a couple of posts before the CFR bogeyman popped his head out.

[tacticalogic]

Politics makes strange bedfellows, if only temporarily.

Claiming RP is aligned with every organization that finds something in his message to their liking isn't any more valid than holding up Rick Warren, et al as proof that evangelicals are Hillary's core constituency.

[davenalle]

That would be ACORN, the group indicted in 11 states for election fraud and so far (I believe) convicted in 4. The group which spearheads Democrat party efforts to register fraudulent voters and buy votes in a number of states.

Dave

[davenalle]

Some good points, but I still don’t get how these ‘culturally incompatible’ people are able to overlook Paul’s stand on abortion, prayer in schools and other issues which are absolutely anathema to them.

I just find it hard to understand people acting completely against every one of their other beliefs just because Paul is anti-war. It makes me suspicious of their motivations.

Dave

[davenalle]

The way I see it, Paul’s best real shot to guide the country in the right direction is to be picked by one of the more mainstream candidates as a running mate.

His value in that role is going to be seriously impacted by whether his support is seen as real and durable, and right now it doesn’t look like he’d draw any real votes from outside the normal GOP base in a general election.

Dave

[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....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.

That's very true, whether 21st century America or simply the GOP they have a common enemy which needs to be torn down. Nowhere near as effective though.

[mnehring]

Some good points, but I still don’t get how these ‘culturally incompatible’ people are able to overlook Paul’s stand on abortion, prayer in schools and other issues which are absolutely anathema to them.

Keep watching here.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=120

They are able to spin Paul's record to be 'all things to all people'.. Abortion and Border Security are two of the best examples.

Border Security- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=23513

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=23722

Abortion- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=26683

It is really funny to watch over there when there is a heated discussion on a topic here because sometimes you can see posters rush over there brainstorming how to 'sell it' or spin it.

[davenalle]

All true, Tiejras, but aside from the war issue, Paul and Soros disagree on just about everything else.

Is the war in Iraq the ONLY thing which matters to Americans?

I submit that it shouldn’t even be first on their list of concerns. It’s already winding down and the cost will decline as we move to a much smaller long-term presence there.

Economic and social issues are going to be more in the forefrunt in the next administration, and Paul and Moveon.org have ZERO common ground in those areas.

So what are they really up to?

Dave

[mnehring]

So what are they really up to?

Not sure if you remember the whole HSW thing from the 2000 and 2004 election, but the left has a stated and practiced strategy of infiltrating the Right and getting us so pissed off at each other over small differences that it causes enough people to sit out that it swings the election.

[SJackson]

Economic and social issues are going to be more in the forefrunt in the next administration, and Paul and Moveon.org have ZERO common ground in those areas....So what are they really up to?

While Paul has a wonderful collection of soundbites on other issues, most or undoeable and there's no planning to back any of them up. So they can be ignored. Paul has acknowledged this on several occasions.

All of his ideas were rooted in the Constitution, Paul said. But he recognizes that some -- like eliminating the IRS, and returning all funding of education to the states -- are unlikely to be achieved as president. So he said he’d focus on the one area a president has more leverage -- foreign policy.

“Very simply, we can come up with a program of saying mind our own business, bring our troops home, have a strong national defense,” he said. “At the same time, be stronger and wealthier, save this money, take care of the people that are needy, follow the Constitution, protect personal liberty, have a prosperous economy.”

Asked later by a student how he would withdraw troops, Paul said the sooner the better, but that it would likely take three to six months. “Just announcing that we were gonna leave, and that we were serious," he said, "I think there would be a de facto peace agreement."

If you want the troops out immediately, from the Persian Gulf, Japan, Korea, Europe as well, he's the man and he'll do it. No other candidate will. Concern about eliminating the IRS or federal aid to education, not a concern at all because he won't do it.

He's a one issue candidate, steeped soundbites to please any group.

[mnehring]

Good post, I was trying to find that quote. It pretty much kills the ‘he is right on everything but the war’ issue if that is the only thing he really is running on.

[davenalle]

Certainly Paul’s position on abortion and several other issues where he just defaults to a states right stance is very well suited to being all things to all people, and it’s basically a cop-out non position.

As for what they’re really up to, this kind of ties in to the recent discussion of democratic plants at the CNN/YouTube debates. That’s an example of what they’re willing to do to screw up the GOP primary, and I think their support of Paul is too.

Now whether they want to discredit him by their presence, or throw off the results in the primary by supporting him is up for debate.

Dave

[SJackson]

I didn't bother to post the article, but note this article re the Bunny Ranch efforts.

Literally Pimping for (Ron) Paul

To those who enter into Hof's establishment and declare that "I'm pimping for Paul," Hof will bequeath the services of two bunnies for the price of one. Or double whatever they choose to partake of there. Some of you know the drill.

Two hookers for the price of one, or double one's services, whatever that is. You can't make this stuff up.

[mnehring]

So he is bribing support with sex? Nice, it isn’t just donating.. I wonder if that is even legal (well, it is Nevada, so everything is probably legal..)

[SJackson]

Too funny not to post.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1932812/posts

[Wallace T.]

Collusion toward a common goal does not necessarily mean a conspiracy. Some of the anti-Communists of the New Deal and post-World War II eras made the error of presuming that when liberals or Christian clergy made common cause with Communists and socialists on issues such as labor unions and civil rights that the former had been infiltrated by the Reds. There was plenty of Communist influence in the labor unions and Hollywood in the 1930s and 1940s, but by no means were the liberals and the clergy pro-Communist, by and large. For all the ranting against Joseph McCarthy, it was others, such as Martin Dies, who were far more responsible for guilt by innuendo. George Soros is a bad apple, but he is neither Satan incarnate nor the second coming of Joe Stalin.

There have been accusations that Soros is laundering funds going to Paul, much as Asian and Asian-American businessmen are accused of laundering funds to Hillary Clinton through low paid workers who donate hundreds of dollars to her campaign. I don't see where he could be forging tens of thousands of names. Given the hostility to the Paul campaign in the GOP establishment, anyone engaged in financial misdeeds would be prosecuted in a New York minute and, if guilty, would do long and hard jail time, definitely not in the sort of minimum security facility that Martha Stewart stayed in. If any money laundering is occurring, the operatives are extremely foolish.

[traviskicks]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

[traviskicks]

“There are accounts that confrontations have become heated at some of these meetups, particularly the one held in Las Vegas earlier this month.”

lol, well i can attest to this meeting as I was at it. About 1/3rd of the people there were Ron Paul supporters, the room was overflowing packed as the regular republican crowd was unused to this many new people. We just missed the election of one of our members as treasurer by a few votes. The election rules were voted down, due to objections by ourselves and others. Unfortunately, there are some Ron Paul supporters who view ‘everything GOP’ with suspicion and even disdain, but I’d say this is a minority. All of the RP supporters there were registered republicans (new or old) and in fact, there were many in the regular crowd who were Ron Paul supporters too. It is amazing the power the ron paul groups can have if they unite and attend some of these local county gop meetings.

Reactions from the ‘old gaurd’ ranged from happiness we were there and participating and hope we would stay around after the election, to equal suspicion. Some folks there run it more as a social club than anything. The fact is both groups want fair elections but hopefully we can overcome this unease and get this accomplished.

I suspect this mixing with Ron Paul groups and the new blood being injected into the republican party is on display all over the country. The Republican party is growing one direction, towards freedom and dying off elsewhere. They would be wise to welcome the RPers into the fold to grow and advance the party and increase freedom and repeal socialism in the united states.

You can view more of what happened in vegas at the las vegas ron paul meetup site, there is much discussion of this on our forum there.