Posted on 05/20/2007 5:02:49 PM PDT by Rodney King
Don't Shut Up Paul The stupid GOP effort to silence one of its candidates. By John Dickerson Posted Friday, May 18, 2007, at 5:09 PM ET
Some Republicans are angry at Ron Paul, the libertarian presidential candidate, for his forthright stance at the Republican debate earlier this week. When George W. Bush repeatedly asserts unpopular opinions in the face of withering criticism, it's seen as a sign of strength and resolve. But when Paul asserted unpopular opinions in a debate, his remarks became the grounds for derision and threats. Paul suggested that the United States' actions in the Middle East—and in Iraq in particular—might have motivated Bin Laden and the 9/11 attackers. Rudy Giuliani immediately jumped on Paul, demanding that he withdraw the comment. Now one GOP official is circulating a petition within the party to remove Paul from future debates. This is silly. Here's why:
1) Paul's argument is actually a GOP talking point: (excerpted)
2) The GOP is not supposed to be the party for sniveling ninnies: (excerpted)
3) It's a retreat into the bubble: (excerpted)
4) It's giving away the high ground: (excerpted)
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Of the top 4 (including Fred as a top 4) I could vote for him, and I think he could win, too. I will not vote for Giuliani or McCain. I am unsure on Romney. I actually think he is telling the truth that he was lying before rather than now (on being a conservative..unlike Giuliani who is lying now rather than before), but, that is not a very inspiring reason to vote for someone.
“Ron Who???”
I’m not a Paul fan but - GOP who?
The RNC is selling us out with this amnesty bill, as they did with NCLB, CFR, the Medicare drug bill, and the border fence that isn’t being built.
Republicans should take blood oaths to support Ron Paul’s core ideas: return of limited federal government, upholding the original intent of the Constitution, avoiding international entanglements.
No one is scared of Paul. I do like some of his ideas but he is a fellow traveler with the left which seeks to find a reason to blame America first. That is not to say that we have not made mistakes in foreign policy but most of those mistakes in my opinion have been in demonstrating weakness to the world. Are we to wring our hands about the feelings of an individual like Bin Ladin? The Bin Ladin’s of the world always find a reason. America and Israel are routinely blamed for things that are utterly false if not a misrepresentation of events.
What's that expression? "In a good cause, 'tis called persistence. In a bad one, obstinacy."
The difference is that Pres. Bush is right and Ron Paul is from Jupiter on this issue. Paul is so confused, he's an embarrassment. My instinct is that it makes the GOP look bad, and weakens the other candidates. I could be wrong about that.
I was formerly a big fan of Paul's, dating from long before he ran for Congress; I got his newsletter and talked to him periodically on the phone (I worked for a business magazine).
But at least at this point in Paul's career, foreign policy is not his strength. He may (like Pat) have an out-dated view of the effect of miniaturized technology on modern warfare and terrorism. Ironically, for two guys who claim to be hard-bitten realists, they under-rate the degree to which nut-cases with no prospects will commit evil just because the opportunity presents itself. He is ab-so-lutely clueless about bin Laden, and a hazard to good men's morale when he opens his mouth.
I pray for him, but I won't vote for him, and don't especially want to listen to him.
Oh, I thought this might be about Peter Paul. Instead, it was about an *ssclown.
“Republicans should take blood oaths to support Ron Paul’s core ideas: return of limited federal government, upholding the original intent of the Constitution, avoiding international entanglements.”
Republicans should take blood oaths to support RONALD WILSON REAGANs’ (arguably the GREATEST PRESIDENT of the past 159 YEARS)core ideas: return of limited federal government, upholding the original intent of the Constitution, avoiding international entanglements (yet taking NO CRAP out of tin-horn dictators).
FIXED!
So you also think the CIA and the 9/11 commission sympathize with the enemy for daring to mention blowback?
No. We are getting into the problem where when people debate wars they tend to focus on one, or even two key issues, when in reality wars are very complex. The Phillipeans is an issue of al Qaedas naked agression, supported by friendly islamic bases somewhat nearby. It is interesting to note that Islam usually goes after weak targets. Their going after us was somewhat unusual.
And by the way, we were helping the Afghans to win their independence, so if anything there should have been gratitude.
There also should have been gratitude for our helping the muslims in Kosovo.. but there wasn't. There also should have been gratitude for helping the muslims in Afghanistan when we helped them against the Soviets... but there wasn't. It should be quite clear that you can't make friends with them by doing them favors.
Should the Spanish leave Spain to please al Qaeda?
No. I am not saying that you should please your enemies whatever their demands.. but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware of what their demands are. For example, if the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was because we had troops on the Japanese mainland, then I might have considered their grievences.
Yes, al Qaeda has motives, but we should not change our policies to please them as Ron Paul would.
Well, I actually don't think we should either, but that doesn't mean we should ignore that 50 years of messing around in the middle east has only brought us hatred.
Reagan was elected on a small government platform, but presided over a vast increase of federal spending. Because we were in a cold war with the Soviet Union, we can forgive most of that. Nevertheless, with respect to economics, Reagan did not set a standard that future, small-government presidents should follow.
I disagree. Reagan tried. He failed, but he tried. As opposed to say our fearless leader who is a bigger spender than LBJ was.
Thanks for the flag.
I agree, keep talking. Some people aren’t convinced you’re a kook yet.
This is a common left-wing strategy.
I don't disagree... but, where do the recruits come from? How do these teenagers from egypt decide they hate the US so much that they want to die fighting us?
I believe that if we had minded out own business for the last 50 years that there would not be Egyptian teenagers wanting to die fighting us.
What you say points out the fact that it is not just the president, but mostly congress, that really decides what will happen. Reagan stood for the right things economically, but didn’t go to the mat for them. Arguably, beating the Soviet Union was more important.
Republicans need to be clear about what we want economically, and then work to elect congress to match. Small government, restoration of limited federal government, and control of fiat currency should top the list of priorities.
It’s a little easier to figure why Muslims hate us, it’s because we aren’t Muslims and don’t want to be. Staying out of their country isn’t going to change that. Face it, nothing we can do is going to make them like us. Electing Ron Paul president is not going to do it either.
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.