Posted on 10/17/2010 9:21:36 AM PDT by Michael van der Galien
Let’s talk about Ron Paul. It’s no secret that the Texas congressman isn’t the most popular guy in this corner of the blogosphere, though despite NewsRealBlog’s many, many posts explaining why, we’re still subjected to wild speculation about our “real” motives—the Paulite hordes routinely diagnose their opponents’ “true” motives as everything from hating limited government to the will of our (imagined) Jewish masters.
Considering that domestic policy—where Paul’s talk of the Constitution lines up pretty well with the rest of the Right—is currently where the electoral action is, now’s a good time to make perfectly clear exactly what’s wrong with Paul. The inane misdirection has gone on long enough; it’s time to set the record straight with Ron Paul’s top eight greatest hits.
8. Founding Faker
A big part of Paul’s appeal among conservatives and libertarians is the public image he’s cultivated as one of the last remaining adherents and spokesmen of the Founding Fathers. That’s a good marketing strategy, but unfortunately, in Paul’s case it’s also bogus—on foreign policy, Ron Paul doesn’t faithfully apply the Founders’ words, he hijacks them for his own ends.
Yes, George Washington warned the country not to needlessly entangle herself in foreign affairs of no concern to America, and John Quincy Adams told us not to simply go abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.” But from these general principles, Paul and his cultists have inferred drastic conclusions that have little to no support in our forefathers’ actual words. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the fact is that they were directly motivated not by imperialism or utopianism, but by America’s national security interests, as counterattacks against the global Islamic movement that struck the US on 9/11.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
When the Republican Party went away from Paul/Taft and got into big government/interventionism, it should have taken a new name.
“Whether or not these wars were wise or just is a question of what the contemporary evidence from the region said, not a proposition directly deducible from the Founders’ writings.”
Good refutation of Ron Paul’s irrational criticism of the War on Terror.
“In Ron Paul’s world, the right to do something also includes the right to never be criticized for it. Of course, this is logically absurd: the Ku Klux Klan has the legal right to buy property, too, but that doesn’t mean I’m obligated to keep quiet when they move in next door. This is why Paul’s brand of non-judgmental libertarianism, which seems increasingly difficult to distinguish from leftism with each Paul post, is ultimately worthless: by demanding personal indifference to morally repugnant acts in addition to legal indifference, it all but ensures evil’s ascendance.”
Another well articulated point.
What a joke. We have not done anything significant to counterattack the "global Islamic movement". We've been holding hands with, and bowing to, it's leadership.
In short, young Mr. Freiburger has become unhinged by his one man anti-Paul crusade.
Agreed. Was it Ron Paul who was attacking Christine O’Donnell, or was it Podhoretz, Frum, Gerson, Brooks, Kristol, Krauthammer, Perino, Rove?
It wasn’t Ron Paul. Ron Paul really is just an old-timey Conservative. Not a neocon. Neat trick those neocons pulled off. Have no traditionally conservative views, have no real supporters, but get Republicans to go along with your policies.
One possible explanation for Ron Paul’s strange behavior is that back in the early seventies he might have read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and thought, wow, what a great book, in particular tactic #4 which says:
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
From there, Ron Paul could have concocted a plan to use our Constitution against us. Although I don’t know it for certain, his publicly observable actions are entirely consistent with such an explanation.
“We have not done anything significant to counterattack the “global Islamic movement”. We’ve been holding hands with, and bowing to, it’s leadership.”
Less so under Bush, but basically, yeah.
Essentially this essay is a neocon’s clumsy hatchet job on an eccentric libertarian’s hobbyhorses.
Like the war between Iran and Iraq in the ‘80s, I don’t much care about either party. An unusually primitive, largely ad hominem attack for a neocon though. Usually their essays strive to appear as objective and rooted purely in reason.
But what else would you expect from somebody who proudly displays Dr. Laura on his blogroll?
“Neat trick those neocons pulled off. Have no traditionally conservative views, have no real supporters, but get Republicans to go along with your policies.”
Yep. For nearly all of the past 22 years.
A few quotes taken out of context can make just about anything appear to be either desirable or undesirable.
Odd article, I thought everyone, well maybe everyone but his supporters, knew Ron Paul was a Rino. But the good news is the end of the essay, Ron Paul’s supporters are a tiny group. He is not going to win the GOP presidential nomination.
And like the lefty Rinos, Ron Paul is ok on somethings. Thus there is room for the Ron Paul’s and Olympia Snows and even Rand Pauls in GOP congressional majorities, just not too many of them.
After watching their attacks on Christine, we know that the neocons are as much an enemy as the Dems.
The neocons should just join together with the Democrats.
And the Republican Party can have Conservative positions again.
Ron Paul is not a RINO. The people attacking Ron Paul are the RINOs - actually the neocons, who were attacking Christine and defending Castle and Coons.
I’d rather have a reasonable foreign policy. Ron Paul’s is too much. But a 100% American foreign policy is the way to go, and not - let’s invade a country and then stay there forever.
Strong, but with no open ended occupations. If you can’t do the job withount an open ended occupation, don’t do it.
I am not a fan of Paul, but this man’s obsession with him and venom against him is profoundly bizarre.
That pretty much sums it up.
Ron Paul says he is a Rino, why not take him at his word?
If Ron Paul is an “abomination” what would be the correct descriptor for the current administration and the rest of congress?
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.