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?
BTW, you do know that Paul’s American Conservative Union lifetime rating is the same as McCain’s, right?
That’s a legitimate point. And I’ve said before the Paul isn’t perfect (I think). We SHOULD have declared war on Afghanistan. I guess his reasoning must have been that we were only there to get rid of the Taliban, but that’s shaky at best since the Taliban ran the government. Anyway, you bring up a good point and I won’t defend Paul there.
As would I.
You sound surprised. This is par for the course. :)
I agree that Giuliani and Thompson didn’t win any primaries or caucuses. They’re less significant than Paul because he’s in Congress.
In terms of winning the nomination or presidency, then yes, he is insignificant.
Didn't need to, Article 1, Section 8 also gives Congress the authorization to 'define and punish offenses against the laws of nations'. Using this authority, you can broaden your war powers to pursue an enemy that isn't associated with a specific nation and crosses borders freely. By using existing treaties (laws of nations) agreed to through the UN as a tool, we are able to get more allies to have legal justification to join us. This isn't, as some say, obeying the UN, we are just using them as a tool and using existing treaties to help us. The Constitution, after all, says very specifically that treaties are to be considered high law of the land.
Houston PING
So then he has this group of supporters, what are those in this branch of the GOP doing to reach out to these people. Seems like mocking them really isn’t going to win them over
The people I’m talking about aren’t conspiracy theorists. I’ve had conversations with them specifically about conspiracies and none of them really find much credibility to any of them. Again, I’m only talking about a small number of people.
Also, wasn’t ol’ Phil Gramm once a democrat?
Again, good point. I’m a little distracted right now with reading thermocouples and heating/cooling devices made by a company called Bemco... it’ monotonous and my head hurts.
Wasn’t our object (in addition to getting Osama) however to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban once they didn’t agree to help?
911 has changed some of us, and some of us are still stuck with our heads in the sand at our own demise.
Here's something that history will definitely support....
George Bush is saving your ass whether you like it or not.
Yep, like so many of us at one time.
Yes I’m aware. I don’t think it means anything though. McCain is by any definition a statist (not nearly as much as Obama, but still) while Ron Paul is claerly not, so a number doesn’t tell the full story. I admire the man for his military service, but not his political. I’m annoyed that we chose him over a broad field of other candidates.
Ron Paul is not president because he is the conservative equivalent of Dennis Kucinich. He is a nutcase.
That assumes that they are united in all issues. The core of Ron Paul's supporters are anti-war kooks. Of this group, most are one issue morons and party interlopers who are only trying to cause chaos in the GOP. The GOP does not need anti-war kooks, because they are bad for the party, and worse for the country that is actively trying to save their asses.
Ron Paul does not even ID himself as a Conservative, but instead peppers himself with the Libertarian label.
However, it is harder for the GOP to attract libertarians with nominees like McCain. The GOPs drift to the center is also not helping. If the GOP is no longer the party of Conservatism, then who the hell needs them anyway?
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.