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?
I’m honestly shocked that this thread has gone almost 140 posts and you haven’t posted the word “paleo” 350 times yet.
Thank you. I always said I was pro-limited government, but I never really was until I examined and got into Ron Paul. I never thought he would win, but he brought important points and concerns to the GOP, a party that has had a lot of control the last 8 years and not done much for conservative values.
There’s no need for an amendment about life. Life is already in the Constitution.
No one’s life can be taken without due process.
As far as I can tell, we agree on Paul and are both fans. The whole "Paultard" thing is a self-denigrating inside joke. To be honest though, most of the anti-Paul freepers these days are good people. The really nasty ones who used to pollute this site were thankfully banned a while back.
Those are some of the reasons and there are more.
Oh haha, well sometimes it’s hard to tell. But hey, as long as there’s respect and not stupid insults in a debate, I’m fine.
Once again, you're wrong. What a shocker. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act
Ronaldus Maximus was once a Democrat. So what!
You know, that argument doesn’t work very well. Even if it does make a good sound bite.
The anti-Paulite’s never let things like “facts” or “reason” slow them down any...
Now you did it. Check out #145...
Well, admittedly, I'm the king of stupid insults but the people I direct them to know me well enough to not take it seriously. FR is really like a big dysfunctional family.
there is no right to an abortion in the US Constitution. It’s simply not there. There is a right to life, both in the 5th amendment and strengthened by the preamble.
The whole issue of judges has to do with activist interpretation.
It’s reality whether some like it or not.
But that doesn’t distract from the fact that the Libertarian Party is anti-life/pro-abortion/pro-choice. Their own plank says so.
I take it you weren’t a big Fred Thompson fan?
If you mean the right to life, then I can only say that I understood Fred to be pro-life. If that were not true, then I would not have supported him.
There's also no Federal power given for them to regulate medical care, abortion, or even State murder statutes.
And your constant misrepresentation of the LP Party plank is pathetic.
I didn’t misrepresent it. I copy/pasted it from Narses’ post #98. That’s directly from the LP website.
He's pro-life, but in the same federalist manor as Paul.
Neither Fred nor Paul are Libertarian Party and beholden to the LP pro-choice plank.
If Fred is pro-life and Barr is not, then it would be an easy choice. If John McCain is pro-life and Barr is not, then there are other considerations. I’m still awaiting McCain’s VP selection.
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.