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?
Why is Ron Paul not President?
um...cause he’s a freakshow?
Thanks. Saved me the trouble!
If Ron Paul is so insignificant, why is there so much discussion about him? I have read dozens and dozens of articles linked from this site and others that talk about how insignificant he is, and how his supporters don’t matter at all.
Seems like if someone was truly insignificant you wouldn’t have to write a bunch of articles saying that he was.
Issue for issue, I’d take Paul over either two.
I just discovered that the Libertarian Party is blatantly pro-abortion.
I can see why Paul did run under their banner.
Wonder what happened to Barr....I didn’t know he opposes the right to life for babies.
If Rep. Paul was significant, he would have one a primary or caucus, but he didn’t win any.
His mini me Bobby Barr is just as much a flake and his Obama views being anti war, for gay marriage, legalize drugs, and Bobby Barr is on his third marriage.
There are a lot of discussions about head lice too.
I’ll agree that Paul comes off as eccentric, but I don’t think he ever really had a chance at winning. His message is what got people moving. Constitutionalism and limited government (real limited government not the lip service we get from many Republicans) is very appealing and at the very core of conservative values. Besides his anti-war stance, I’m not sure why so many republicans pound him so harshly. And even his anti-war stance has some merit. I don’t completely agree with it, but the fact that the executive declares de facto war without Congress actually declaring war is something to be frightened about. It is a blatant disregard for the Constitutional process, and Congress goes along with it, which is also scary.
The same reason why there is discussion of Robert Downy Jr. drug problems or Brittney Spears- it is a curiosity of pop culture. But in reality, we are just trying to help all the Paultards who complain Paul got no press coverage at all.. Can't have it both ways, can't complain you don't get press coverage, then can't complain the press coverage exposes the parts of you that aren't so pretty.
Barr had acquiesced to his then-wife having an abortion in 1983.
He had also invoked a legal privilege during his 1985 divorce proceeding so he could refuse to answer questions on whether he’d cheated on his second wife with the woman who is now his third.”
Ok then, why all the discussion about someone who didn’t win a primary or caucus? I don’t see tons of articles written about Tancredo, Gilmore or Brownback. In fact I don’t see this much discussion about Thompson and Rudy.
I think the fact that not enough people voted for him just might have had something to do with it.
So are you admitting there is a segment of people that make up his faction?
Sorry, I have to disagree. The people that jumped for the limited government message where a minority. If you visit any of the meet-ups, forums, or look at what happened at their marches, what got people moving was conspiracy theories, fear of neocons and 'zionists' and, as you mentioned, the anti-war message. Most of us who yearn for Constitutionalism and limited government don't look to Paul. As I've said many times before, Ron Paul is to the Constitution just like Fred Phelps is to Christianity.
That question makes no sense. All ‘factions’ have segments of people. You can go to an insane asylum and you will find ‘segments of people’.
well said, sir.
We still have discussions about Paul because his supporters continue talking about him, as if he’s still running for president.
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.