Posted on 11/20/2007 1:59:19 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Perhaps of some relevance to the passionate comment thread here on whether Ron Paul's rise says something about whether Democrat or Republican, right or left, is where libertarians ought to turn for viable political allies, John Nichols of The Nation says this about Paul today:
When is the Washington press corps going to start treating Ron Paul as seriously as it does Fred Thompson?
The likely answer is "not soon." And that's the most frustrating thing about the way in which the GOP race is being covered by major media. After all, Ron Paul has more to say -- and says it better -- than any of the other Republicans. With a fair shake from the media, he'd be rising even faster in New Hampshire and elsewhere.
Of course, one of the reasons Paul's on the rise now is the fact that he is not the kind of contender who tailors his message or his campaign to meet media expectations.
The Nation's Nichols was interviewed by me for this December 2006 essay on whether or not the Dems could be relied on to end the war in Iraq.
Yet Paultards with Freerepublic accounts freely troll this Conservative forum like it is their personal kook sandbox.
“The Nation (Leftist Magazine) Rah-Rahs Ron Paul”
I imagine that frigid *itch Kristine Vandehoeval creams herself over “Dr. Paul.”
How, then do you define a "real Republican"?
Is a "real Republican" one who obeys blindly the dictates of the party leaders, right or wrong?
Is a "real Republican" one who will vote for someone antithetical to traditional values, even though he must hold his nose while doing so?
I'm ready to hear how you define "real Republican".
Your misguided attempt at insult is silly at best.
BTW: IMO, we are witnessing something of a realignment of politics in this country.
For years, many Americans were unhappy about Republicans, mostly because of the actions of some globalist liberals in the party.
Now we see many folks who are just now realizing the true source of freedom, and are belatedly aligning themselves with the Republican Party through Ron Paul.
Too bad the old-liners do not welcome them along with the correct philosophy of conservativism.
“I’m ready to hear how you define “real Republican”.”
I’m ready to hear how you would answer the following question: Which is the greater threat; The Federal Government or Islamo-Facist Terrorism?
That is a false choice.
We cannot successfully fight Islamo-Facist Terrorism and ever hope to win as long as The Federal Government is continually stabbing us in the back.
In fact, I see the "WOT" as mostly a distraction to conceal the fact that the insiders are actively working toward the eventual destruction of this great country.
“In fact, I see the “WOT” as mostly a distraction to conceal the fact that the insiders are actively working toward the eventual destruction of this great country.”
So you see these ‘insiders’ as a greater threat then Islamo-facist terrorism?
Would these ‘insiders’ be the ‘neo-cons’?
Some are.
So you see these ‘neo-con insiders’ as a greater threat then Islamo-facist terrorism?
I think if Paul was elected, the left would be greatly disappointed in his constitutional, small government approach. Anyone here who equates Paul with Kucinich has their head in the bong water.
Do you deny that the above crowds DO support Ron Paul? Or just saying that they are worth bringing into the Republican party despite the wild conspiracy theories they entertain and the racial supremacist ideologies they espouse?
In your definition, is a neo-con someone new to the conservative movement or a new type of conservative?
The threat is different with each category.
Both are dangerous; the terrorists are dangerous in the obvious, immediate sense of course.
The insiders are dangerous because they have the power and influence to destroy our country, something the terrorists can never accomplish by themselves.
I have no idea. I don't know very many leftists, and the ones I am aquanted with are all going for Hillary or O'Bamma.
"Or just saying that they are worth bringing into the Republican party despite the wild conspiracy theories they entertain and the racial supremacist ideologies they espouse?"
There will always be some people we don't agree with.
You should dig deeper. There are PLENTY of 9-11 truthers for Paulie. And plenty of holocaust denying neo-nazis.
But that is okay if it brings new blood to the GOP, right?
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.