Posted on 07/01/2008 2:19:51 PM PDT by mnehring
According to Ron Paul Henchman and alleged erstwhile ghostwriter Lew Rockwell (broke link, Lew Rockwell not welcome on Free Republic), you can blame Dicky Flatt’s buddy, Phil Gramm: …I was involved in that campaign, when Reagan broke his moronic “11th Commandment” to speak ill of fellow Republican Ron Paul, and such figures as Karl Rove and Paul Weyrich conspired to wage a very nasty campaign against Ron. In true Republican dirty-tricks fashion, Ron’s campaign office was even burglarized and his mailing list and other documents stolen. The power-elite had annointed (sic) the Philster, and would brook no grassroots opposition. Ron, of course, ran a hard and heroic campaign, complete with brilliant antiwar ads.
Wow! Bush’s Brain was controlling the party way back then? It also seems a bit ironic for Rockwell to call Reagan’s 11th Commandment “moronic” then whine about him breaking it. Then Llewellyn all but states it was Rove and Weyrich that broke into Paul’s campaign office, a pretty bold claim. And what war was Paul running anti-war ads against in 1984?
The Rockster was responding to comments made by Spencer J. Hahn on why he can never forgive Gramm for stealing Ron Paul’s chance of serving in the Senate alongside Barry Goldwater: Let us not forget that it was that Democrat turncoat, Phil Gramm, who defeated Ron Paul in the 1984 Republican Senate primary. Had Ron Paul won the primary, he would have won the general election, and become the true conscience of the Senate. I often wonder what would have been if Ron Paul had been in the Senate to filibuster every unconstitutional bill. He almost certainly would have been a presidential candidate (as Gramm was in 1996), and likely would have been taken more seriously by the MSM.
So there you have it, folks. The reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously is because Phil Gramm beat him in the primary in 1984. Oh, and Halliburton.
I thought Libertarians were all about personal responsibility?
Haha, I've actually always liked Graham, because he's not an idiot on the 2nd Amendment, an issue, which, to your chagrin, has probably caused him to be more of an ally than an enemy of Ron Paul overall. I've always had the impression that both of them have their priorities straight.
Anyhow, I would have smacked y'all down on this thread, but I've been a stranger to FR the last few days because I've been welcoming my very first niece into this world (born Monday morning). I'll Freepmail you guys some pictures as soon as I get the good ones in the morning. After that, lets re-visit this thread. There's a ton I want to bring up, but the last three days have been a sleepless, exciting, and downright draining experience. I'm going to bed for now.
Because some of his supporters on here are kind of fun to watch when they get all wound up? ;-)
I agree. The Libertines do not.
The folks at Lone Star Times have long had bees up their collectives about Ron Paul.
Gramm supported the Assault weapons ban (source: GOA http://www.gunowners.org/fs9510.htm)
* On November 19, 1993, Sen. Gramm voted for the Crime Bill which contained the Feinstein ban on semi-automatic firearms and the limitation on magazine capacity.
* On August 19, 1994, Gramm argued that if enough money were cut from the pork in the Crime Bill, and that if mandatory minimum sentences were included, the Crime Bill should be supported — even though the gun ban would remain in the bill. Gramm said,
Take out the $8 billion in pork, take out the get-out-of-jail provision, and let us pass this crime bill. . . . So my plea to the administration is, “Look, don’t do a job twice; do it right the first time and let us go ahead and pass this bill.” (Source: Congressional Record, August 19, 1994.)
* On August 12, Gramm made similar comments, saying that:
I and others are going to move to take the pork out, take the get-out-of-jail-free provision out, and put the get-tough provisions back in. With those changes made, the bill will pass, and then the President can give America a real crime bill. (Source: Congressional Record, August 12, 1994.)
NOTE: This “real crime bill” which Gramm was supporting would still contain the ban on more than 180 semi-automatic firearms and the limitation on magazine capacity.
“Actually, it does have the authority.”
Do you believe that the federal government has this authority?
“More from the Libertine Party:”
Who appointed this man as ambassador to Romania?
http://www.amconmag.com/2004/2004_05_24/article1.html
Or this man as global aids coordinator?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-11-gop-gay-identity-crisis_x.htm
See Matthew 7:15-26
It’s already doing it.
OK, forget those kind words I had for Gramm. He can eat a bag of d!#ks as far as I'm concerned.
OK, I’ve had a chance to read this and maybe it’s early, but this makes no sense at all. Some douche on Lew Rockwell made some dumb comment and now Ron Paul is the bad guy because of it? I swear to God, “blogs” are the worst thing to happen to political discourse. Between guilt-by-association crap like this and this “Obama is not an American citizen” nonsense, I’ve about given up on these retards.
Same here. It's finally gotten to the point where I'm going to vote for McCain ONLY if he chooses Jindal or Sanford as his running mate. As much as I like those two, I'm still going to feel like a two-bit whore pulling the lever. I really wish Americans were not so stupid and nominated at least somewhat good candidates.
Ron Paul is a member of Libertarians for Life, genius.
Since I know that Barr is running for the LP and not Paul, and that is obvious from my post #7, then that line is a typo. It should read "NOT" running under their banner.
Another bitter Giuliani fan coming out of the woodwork to bash Ron Paul. What a shocker.
A dopey middle-age chick who "blogs" is hardly "media coverage".
There are still several Thompson threads on FR each week. Jellybean still has her very handy ping list going. As for Rudy, the reason you don't see much on him here because most of his liberal supporters were wiped out in the big FR enema of '07.
So yeah, your comments are a bit of a distortion...
Kicking the issue back to the States for them to decide whether to codify prophylactic abortion into their murder statutes is exactly the Constitutional stance to take absent getting an Amendment passed.
And I must say, those are about the douchiest looking pair of glasses on Gramm that I’ve ever seen.
Uhhh, no. a "neocon" is someone who favors a tough foreign policy but is a liberal domestically. Reagan was a straight-up conservative, not a neocon.
It has never happened before, but anything is possible I guess.
Congrats on your first niece.
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.