Posted on 07/20/2007 4:27:18 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
NEW YORK A feature piece in this coming Sunday's New York Times Magazine on Republican candidate for president, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, portrays his followers as including a wild mix of "wackos" on both ends of the political spectrum. Paul, a libertarian, has been gaining media and public attention of late.
The cover line reads: "A Genuine Radical for President." The headline inside: "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul."
The article closes with the author, Christopher Caldwell, attending a Ron Paul Meetup in Pasadena. The co-host, Connie Ruffley of United Republicans of California, admits she once was a member of the radical right John Birch Society and when she asks for a show of hands "quite a few" attendees reveal that they were or are members, too. She refers to Sen. Dianne Feinstein as "Fine-Swine" and attacks Israel, pleasing some while others "walked out."
Caldwell notes that the head of the Pasadena Meetup Group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headquarters: "We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country....We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next 'Star Trek' convention or whatever."
Asked about the John Birch Society Society by the author, Paul responds, "Is that BAD? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They're generally well-educated and they understand the Constitution. I don't know how many positions they would have that I don't agree with."
The writer concludes that the "antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left" may have "irreconciable" differences. But "their numbers -- and anger -- are of considerable magnitude. Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together."
Among many other things, we learn from the article that Paul had never heard of "The Daily Show" until he was a guest and referred to the magazine GQ as "GTU." It also notes that he was the only congress member to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act and a medal to honor Rosa Parks, among many others tallies, based on principle, not politics. He also is praised by liberal Rep. Barney Frank as "one of the easiest" members to work with because "he bases his positions on the merits of issues."
"I guess 20 times . . ."
Why don't you read the context of the statements instead of cut-paste to fit your argument?
What a waste of bandwidth that could otherwise be used to further the debate rather than rewind the tape so some "johnny come lately" can understand. Go back and read it genius.
I don’t believe you are interested in “furthering the debate”. Name calling seems to be your forte.
I would think that one would be enough, but 3, just on that link alone?
Did you see the other nut-balls he associates with? Does it make you comfortable? Did you see names like Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney and other totally wacked out anti-Americans on Alex Jones' show list?
That is an amazing leap of logic.
“What a weak attempt to sidetrack or divert attention to Ron Paul’s own words, action and company he keeps.”
You were the one who raised the tin foil hat flag regarding the TGI. I was merely curious what you knew. I now know you know nothing about the TGI and have no standing in raising the tin foil hat flag regarding the TGI.
That is a long way from "frequently", "very frequently" and "I guess 20 times".
How many times has he appeared on Stormfront to be interviewed? Exactly zero, I would bet. And yet you have tried to associate him with these racists because some of them agree with a statement he made having nothing to do with race.
That is the wrong question, and a typical dodge I would expect a neocon to make. The correct question is "How did Ronald Reagan identify himself with regards to Libertarians?" However, you have had that answer shoved in your face so many times already that it is no wonder you don't want to go there.
Neocons are NOT conservative. Neocons are war mongerers because they believe in the use of state power to achieve their ends, whether it be domestic or foreign. Neocons are yapping nitwit imbeciles who are appallingly ignorant of what historical conservatives have believed, which BEGINS with the premise that state power is to be eschewed, not grasped and utilized for "good purposes." Neocons are so achingly stupid about the nature and dangers of political power that they would sneer and attack the ideas of the founders of our republic as "cut and run cowards." I have seen them do so on FR. Pull up a quote by Hamilton, clean up the language to make it 20th century and these drooling chimpanzees will attack it as being short sighted or cowardly. Don't tell me it doesn't happen because I have seen it happen with Jefferson, Adams, Washington, JQ Adams and others. They don't hesitate to bash Buckley, who has the balls to call this bunch what they are, a bunch of constitution tramplers, and power hungry elitists. As of yet, I have not figured out whether the Free Republic neocons are duplicitous lying fascists who know what they are not historical conservatives but have hijacked the movement and deliberately lie about it, or they are frighteningly stupid cerebral black holes who think islamofascism is something new (rather than something the west has been continually fighting for 1400 years) and that because the USA was attacked on 9/11, that means "everything has changed".... translated "all this fou fou about liberties, freedom, minding our own business and eschewing nation building has got to go...., because we are at WAR!" Either way, this bunch of liars/dunderheads (pick one or both!) will denounce every single figurehead of conservative thought for the sake of their grand pipe dream, including Reagan, who is blamed for "running" from Lebanon and not "finishing the job."
If you call em out by name, you violate the posting rules on FR, so we just have to call them "neocons."
However, I can comment on this line you posted:
The closer you look at the two, the greater the contrast. That is why we Conservatives don't call ourselves Libertarians.
Yhe historical "Russel Kirk" "William Buckley" "Barry Goldwater" "Ronald Reagan" type leaders of the Conservative Movement, would be defined by the neocons as "libertarians." Could they see what is now purporting to be the "Conservative Movement" would have helped to kill this fascist imposter and then p*ssed on its grave.
"No, I am not a libertarian."
Yet you claim to know libertarian views on border issues and abortion?
Organized libertarians today are running away from the open border platform because they know it is a death nail on any candidate. The classic meaning of libertarianism is to allow open borders, abortion, drugs, and just about anything close to anarchy.
I was a democRAT when I first voted for RR in 80' He didn't believe in whacked out conspiracy theories, and neither do I.
Using Ronald Reagan as an example to compare with Ron Paul is absurd.
It isn't a statement of fact. However, I would not be surprised if Ron Paul was on his show more than 20 times.
Can you focus on just one wacko statement by Ron Paul?
I admit, that calling someone who propagates kook conspiracies as a nut-ball.
My apologies to real nut-balls.
Wouldn't it serve you better to know what Ron Paul says instead of haggling me of my knowledge of an incident that took place in the 60's?
If you did, you may be on the verge of barfing, like most rationally thinking people would.
Hey the guy was just giving the JBS side and many conservatives agree with a lot of their agenda. More so than the Rockefeller Republican agenda which is the same as Democratic Party Socialism. If that so offends you why not you go to the Temple of Rudy site? If a person can not understand the concept our MISTAKES in the M.E. INCLUDING BUSH MENTOR GERALD R FORD's PROHIBITIONS on killing such scum as Saddam when they become a serious threat then maybe you need to look better at history. Bush failed to plan for and realize that if we went after Iraq then Iraq's enemy Iran and other nations would do as the M.E. Islamic culture does and put that war against each other aside and come against us.
How come Ron Paul can understand this and warn us yet the pathetic dolts in the state department with a long established track record of failures nor Bush can? It's cause and effect. Not really blame but understanding why and how come and adjusting national policy to prevent it. That is where Ron Paul is coming from.
The main problem with Bush is his blatant arrogance. No one tells him no and no one can tell him he is wrong. Period! Worse is the people who defend him no matter what and says or does he can not be wrong because he is a Republican. Party First ya know. Thus our screwed up situation in Iraq as well as or border.
Ron Paul has far more intellect and depth on understanding foreign and domestic issues than any man running for POTUS since Reagan. It's closed minded Party Bots Republicans like the former Democratic Party Members LBJ voters who have issue with Ron Paul it seems.
I agree. I read the way you twist up the words of Ron Paul, and I feel like barfing. Same way I feel when reading Strauss. Ever hear of him? Nah, didn't think so. Urp lurp.
How so? You have said repeatedly that the Iraq war is number 1, then you go around supporting politicians who are for big government. Therefore, you are willing to have big government here as long as we win in Iraq.
I refuse to even try and define the definition of "neocon".
Surrender monkeys like yourself attempt to tag names on those you disagree with with neocon or whatever.
I'm just someone who believes in most all of what Ron Paul believes, but just doesn't blame America for the reason Islamist want a world wide caliphate. Unlike Ron Paul, I don't believe that our Government is poised to stage a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident.
Keeping your head in the sand of "libertarianism" is a huge step in allowing the islamist to chop it off. It will be more convienient for them.
I don't know what your problem with "neocons" are, but it could be you just hate jews, like most surrender monkeys repeat.
Ron Paul is a dope smoker?
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.