The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul

Townhall.com ^ | June 15, 2007 | John Hawkins

[P-40]

but at least they understand national defense

Paul understands national defense quite well; I just don't agree with a lot of his conclusions. Hunter truly understands national defense and doesn't need cue cards to tell you about it; I agree with quite a lot of his conclusions. The rest of the candidates....I either have not seen enough of them in action to have an opinion of their views on national defense or have determined they are totally clueless even with 'clue' cards.

[Spirochete]

Paul was offering an explanation as to why we were attacked as opposed to, say, Canada, which is basically like the United States except not globe-trotting and playing world police.

Yes, but there's a wide gulf between what he meant and the audience actually heard. I was stunned, and I've always been a Paul admirer.

His handlers need to keep him on a short leash.

[Niteranger68]

Sure, some differences exist. But one thing they are exactly the same on is that Democrats do what is good for the Democratic Party and Republicans do what is good for the Republican Party. That those things are not good for the country or the taxpayer does not factor into the equation in any meaningful way.

Again, it's just not true. You are indicting the whole party because of the actions of some, but not all. The Dems are far more homogeneous against conservative values.

[Abcdefg]

If this is true, I am shocked the major media outlets are not running with these quotes and making him out to be David Duke. Then force the other candidates to distance themselves and aplogize for the GOP.
These allegations are not true and the writer knows it. This is a shameless smear.

[Abcdefg]

Ron Paul is not a conservative

How would you know?

[Designer]

If not filtered thru cynicism and apathy, clear differences exist between D's and R's. Just saying they are the same doesn't make it so. Sure, they are pretty damn close on a few issues, but that only seems to matter to the all-or-nothing conservatives.

Those "clear differences" you see are largely superficial.

The sameness occurs in areas of extreme importance, like our naitonal sovreignty, for instance.

If you look closely at who, exactly are the most powerful people in the country, you see that they largely eschew any outward affiliation with either party. Instead, they all are working toward a common goal; to subsume our country into a socialist one-world government that will be controlled by themselves.

May I ask, RacerF150; why doesn't that matter to you?

[WhiteGuy]

I remain unimpressed.

There are a number of issues that are considered to be “conservative” that Dr. Paul routinely votes against based on the questionable constitutionality of that legislation.

Case in point - the House recently voted to expand the government’s reach as it applies to previously passed gun control legislation. Dr. Paul actively campaigned against it. It was reported that Dr. Paul was the ONLY NO vote.

[P-40]

You are indicting the whole party because of the actions of some, but not all.

I watch a lot of the hearings and from the questions asked of the witnesses there are clear differences between the parties...but when it comes time to vote I see both parties having the same flaw I pointed out. There are some good members in both parties though...but oddly enough they don't seem to get rich in office.

[Allegra]

So long as you are not in Seattle. I think they banned it. :)

So I hear. No popcorn with their lattes. Bummer.

I'm good. I'm in a place where stuff that blows up is kind of the norm. :)

[jpsb]

"Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. "

Proof positive the author is an interventionist, nation building Wilsonian liberal not a conservative. US involvement in WW1 caused WW2 not the isolationism of the 20's/30's.

In 1917 the war was stalemated, neither side could win. Then along came the USA and turned the tide for Britain and France. Had the USA stayed out a peace treaty of some kind or the other would have been worked out. Instead Germany surrendered on the basis of Wilson' 14 points. As soon as Germany laid out it's arms the 14 points were throw out the window and extremely harsh terms were imposed on Germany. Germany was blamed for the war, it's government abolished, lands taken and a huge imdemment placed on it. German resentment of the totally unfair terms that ended WW1 gave rise to Hitler and caused WW2.

[sauropod]

Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party...

I disagree. That would be Kookcinich.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The author doesn't cite specifics, only generalities & strawmen that one would normally see on any given Ron Paul thread by the Paul bashers.

[radioman]

When you’re fighting terrorists abroad
The Bush Republican WOT isn't working.
and liberals at home
Both Democrat and Republican?

Perhaps they want a change of direction ... but there is NO indication they want it from Ron Paul.
He's the only candidate who garners support across party lines. If Ron Paul can't win the election no Republican can.

If someone (like Paul, for instance) is going to screw up American foreign policy ... I’d really rather he didn’t have an (R) beside his name.
But it doesn't bother you that Bush Republicans have given us the biggest foreign policy disaster in our history?

but at least they understand national defense,
I sure haven't seen any indication that they do.

and they’re more likely to win than Paul is
The only one on your list that stands a chance is Giuliani and that's because he's a Democrat.

[Arch-Conservative]

>>> Ron Paul is not a conservative

>> How would you know?

Because no conservative could make many of the statements that he has made. “Fiscally conservative” is not good enough ...

A

[radioman]

Case in point - the House recently voted to expand the government’s reach as it applies to previously passed gun control legislation. Dr. Paul actively campaigned against it. It was reported that Dr. Paul was the ONLY NO vote

That's true, Ron Paul is the only Republican who put his money where his mouth is and voted against the gun grabbers.
.

[Abcdefg]

Because no conservative could make many of the statements that he has made.
What statements do you mean?

[jpsb]

The definition of an American conservative is someone that believes the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Very few in DC believe that, certainly W doesn’t. Paul is one of the few left that actually believes the Constitution means what it says and should be followed. FYI I am not supporting Paul (or anyone else at the moment).

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Just one Keyboard cowboy’s opinion.

Yep, exactly. Too bad FReepers here have bought into this anti-Paul garbage.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Besides that, he’s a Clown.

Ron Paul served in Vietnam and is a doctor who delivered thousands of babies. What the Hell did Bush ever do, besides ride Poppy's coattails and was in a drunken haze until age 40.

[Badeye]

Careful, the ‘Paulies’ have taken to complaining to the mods if you dispute their hero’s bonafides.

And Heaven Help you if you quote his explanation of why terrorists are attacking us....(chuckle)

They throw hissy fits almost as well as the chuckleheads at daily kos.