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, Ill 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 Im 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.
Don't overlook it at all. I have complete, utter, absolute, (fill in the blank) contempt for a party that used to advocate limited small government and personal responsibility for the citizens of the respective states. It's been hijacked by interventionist busybodies who believe they know better for the world and everyone in it then we ourselves do. And by God they're going to tell us how to live, by force or over taxation.
What you are overlooking, purposefully of course, is that what many of these 'leftists' hate Junior for (i.e. not enough money for government programs) or any other group is that they're not going to get anything. Whether they realize it or think there would be enough support in Congress to override President Paul I don't know. But they won't get squat.
I OTOH am quite aware what I would get from a Paul administration. Absolutely nothing. And perhaps a little disturbing joy to watch the whining as program after program disappears and the citizens of the respective states realize the feeding trough is closed. For good. Not a single program forwarded, not a promise to help this group or that group, nothing. The only thing I would see is an eventual increase in my paycheck as taxes fall to a minimum since they would not be supporting this behemoth called the US government
FReepers have completely adopted left-wing tactics by responding to garbage as fact.
I think you're smoking crack. Paul just crossed $10 million dollars in fundraising for the 4Q today.
“Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!”- Jim Robinson, Sept, 30, 2007
As to the utter contempt for the GOP, it's a position of pure arrogance when held by those who take the position it, like the nation, has been "hijacked", an act of force. Time for those "Republicans" to leave.
Re-read the Constitution. Eliminating the IRS & education has to originate from Congress. I guarantee you that Paul will work harder to see that they're eliminated than all previous Presidents combined.
Right, he only say he won't do it, but he really will.
And I have EEE's word on it.
Outstanding!
I'll give you this, it is possible he will do something as you suggest, and was just lying to his then current audience, a school, where eliminating the IRS and the Dept of Education wouldn't be popular.
In which case he's simply a liar.
Then why did you respond and continue to respond?
Thanks for the admission. This is something to note when we hear about 'massive' turnout for Paul.
Doesn't need it, he'll have a mandate from voters & there won't be any of this partisanship crap like we have now, meaning that he'll have the support from Democrats.
and at best you'd see the status quo. More likely Congress run wild.
Ain't gonna happen. People who supported Paul means that they're going to take a good look at their Reps and Senators too. Congress doesn't support Paul's agenda = They'll be unemployed next election.
If you want your taxes to fall, consider Thompson.
I'll take the elimination of the IRS with Paul over more tinkering and tax engineering that benefit Thompson's lobbyist and lawyer pals, thank you.
..as I've said.. political Rorschach test.. people are projecting their beliefs on Paul as if that was his stance. In reality, they just want to vote for themselves.
I'm not responding to the article, I'm responding to YOU guys who got nothing better to do than trash one of the greatest statesman of our time.
College voters are aware that Paul opposes the Dept of Education and federal student loans. Guess what, they're still supporting him. Maybe they feel that they should be responsible for paying for their own education like Dr. Paul did (He also banned his children from accepting federal education loans too). What a concept, people becoming more responsible for themselves. Gee, why hasn't any of the other Republican candidates think of this? They were too busy pandering to socon bigwigs for their endorsements rather than talking about the issues that affect young adults.
LOL, you mean like the last 7 years?
If you want your taxes to fall, consider Thompson.
Hold on a sec......(walking to the corner)....Fred, hey Fred, wake up somebody's talking about you!! Yes you can get your round of applause Fred. Thanks but no thanks. Same rhetoric as Junior. Well except Fred wants to continue to bomb third world nations that don't represent a threat to our borders
As to the utter contempt for the GOP, it's a position of pure arrogance when held by those who take the position it, like the nation, has been "hijacked", an act of force. Time for those "Republicans" to leave.
Never said I was a Republican. I'm an old school conservative that happened to recognize for a time the Republicans acted and spoke conservative as well as standing for limited government. Doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Hasn't been for a long time
The 5,000 people who showed up at Paul's rally in Philadelphia. All Truthers, Neo-Nazis, and Code Pinkers, right?
Outstanding, an agreement from one of Paul's most rabid supporters that Paul has no leadership ability.
Kudu's, for once you're right.
As to your contension that he won't need leadership ability due to his "mandate", I'll ignore the mandate till it develops, but the contension that a President of the United States doesn't need leadership ability is absurd. And clear evidence of the anarchic tendencies of many of his supporters.
Ain't gonna happen. People who supported Paul means that they're going to take a good look at their Reps and Senators too. Congress doesn't support Paul's agenda = They'll be unemployed next election.
Right, the corrupt GOP will rally to Paul. Or will it be the corrupt DNC, could be either. However it will be neither, Paul has no Congressional support, as evidenced by his complete inability to accomplish anything legislatively in his career.
That's additional evidence of his lack of leadership skills. And their importance, because while Paul vegitates, people with names like Kennedy, McCain and Feingold have accomplished all sorts of things.
Just what America needs, a leader who can't lead.
I'll take the elimination of the IRS with Paul over more tinkering and tax engineering that benefit Thompson's lobbyist and lawyer pals, thank you.
No, you won't because it's been demonstrated an impossibility on FR numerous occasions, and because Ron Paul, the non leader, says he won't do it.
I'm sure, that's why he said
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 hed focus on the one area a president has more leverage -- foreign policy.
because the students knew he'd really do it, even if he said he did, that he was just joshing around.
Actually he said what he meant, that he'd do the one thing he can do as President, pull the troops out immediately. That's what his campaign is about.
As we've discussed many times, when coupled with the hostility toward "the other", classic cult behaivior.
Well, according to the other post, only 1/3rd of the people that showed up at Vegas rally were really Paul supporters so we can guess that 2/3rds who showed up in Philly were either press or there to watch a train wreck.
The way some Paul supporters describe it to me, that the America First movement was the core of the GOP, it never has. While I think the criticism that the GOP has to return to a small government focus is legitimate, I find the often over the top criticims (don't think I recall you engaging in that) of betrayal, well, over the top, and when coming from non-Republicans worthy of dismissal.
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.