Rep. Ron Paul Isn’t Going Away

New York Observer ^ | August 7, 2007 | Steve Kornacki

[CenTexConfederate]

Rep. Ron Paul Isn’t Going Away *

When he deigned last month to include Ron Paul in his Sunday morning show, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos told the Republican presidential candidate that he’d bet every last cent that Dr. Paul won’t end up in the White House.

He’s right, of course.

But that doesn’t mean that the 71-year-old congressman from Texas isn’t a surprising force in the 2008 race. He commands far more attention—from the media and from his opponents—than his low standing in the polls seems to warrant, has amassed an ideology-defying army of true believers through the Internet, and actually outraised some of his more seriously regarded G.O.P. foes in the most recent reporting period.

For now, Dr. Paul is mired in also-ran territory in national and early-state polls, indistinguishable from, say, Duncan Hunter, another congressman waging a seemingly futile bid. But Mr. Hunter peddles a safe (for a Republican), generic campaign message, one that won’t offend any crucial Republican constituencies but that also prevents him from building any measurable momentum. Dr. Paul, on the other hand, preaches a unique gospel of Constitution-based conservatism—and it’s getting him noticed.

[BlackElk]

Calling Ron Paul a sort of paleoconservative is simply the truth. Paleoconservatism is itself despicable, as well outlined in David Frum's April 7, 2003 National Review article linked at the end of the Wikipedia entry, unless, of course, you regard racism and anti-Semitism as respectable. Ron Paul does not seem to go to quite that point in paleowhateverism but he certainly politically dallies with those who do.

BTW, wikipedia is not where I would go for political definitions. I do think it nice of them to include paleoSobran's little number calling conservatism (which he he mistakenly labels "neo"conservatism) "kosher conservatism." Right there, you can see why Sobran was dumped by National Review lest he further sully the reputation of the flagship magazine of American conservatism. Wikipedia fails to note that the late paleowhatever editorial heartthrob atheist Sam Francis was the editor of the newsletter of the so-called "Conservative Citizens' Councils", the lineal descendant of the White Citizens' Councils of 40 years ago aka the Blow-Dried Klan and that he had been fired by the Washington Times for addressing a neo-nazi national convention.

Peter Steinfels is as trustworthy an historian of conservatism as Karl Marx was of capitalism and for analogous reasons.

Paleowhateverism aka paleo"conservatism" was and is not one bit concerned with opposing communism. The paleopantywaists see a strong US opposition to, say the late communist Slobodan Milosevic as a bad idea like opposing Islamofascism seems like a bad idea to these professional cowards rooted in "blood and soil" ideology which is a polite term for far worse things.

I don't know about "neoconservatives," but actual conservatives are a LOT more socially conservative than is Tom Fleming and Chronicles and the Rockford Institute who got OH SO ANGRY at pro-lifers of Operation Rescue violating the PROPERTY RIGHTS of baby-murdering abortionists. Tom may be individually pro-life but, hey, first things first!!! Ancestor worship and racial exclusiveness are NOT social conservatism.

Ron Paul's brand of paleowhateverism is called insanity and cowardly insanity at that by normal people and his candidacy will be massively rejected accordingly. His supporters will be a source of embarrassment to their descendants. Ron Paul's brand of paleodelusionism mirror's that of the Garrett Garretts and the John Birch Society and the Objectivist followers of the serial adultress who supported Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan because the stumblebum Ford was favorable to baby-killing.

The United States should have all the military hardware and troops that are necessary to fend off any threat from any movement or nation. We ought not to EVER ask: Mommy, may I???? to the United Nations (nor even belong to it) or to refrain from wars that are in our interest and sufficiently provoked (a minimalist standard). I personally do not give a rat's patoot whether Islamofascist countries become democratic or not so long as they do not get in the way of our interests.

[BlackElk]

ANYONE who opposes funding for our troops at war is an antiwar antiAmerican jerk. Whether we ought to enter wars is an entirely different proposition. Once we are in, we are in to the end. Pat Buchanan seems to understand this point as paleoPaulie nd other nutcases do not. Paleofussiness over declarations of war is irrelevant so long as the fighting is ultimately authorized by Congress by a resolution under whatever name.

I am not voting for John McCain but his service apparently merits my respect more than it does yours. "Flight surgeon" covers a lot of territory from treating the sniffles to dealing with injuries. PaleoPaulie is an Ob-Gyn. I don't know what his personal medical practice was as a "flight surgeon." Do you??? I do know that he is now an antiwar antiAmerican peace creep and that he probably won't be getting my primary vote or that of an overwhelming number of Republicans. Two other veterans are in the same category of antiwar antiAmerican jerks: John Kerry and George McGovern.

For the record, I was not very favorable to the Gulf War when it involved only prying Sodamn Insane's paws off Kuwait. It was his moves toward Saudi Arabia's oil that eventually convinced me. Favorable or not, NOTHING would convince me that funding should be refused to troops at war. Anyone who would deny funding to our troops at war IS an antiwar antiAmerican jerk.

PaleoPaulie claims never to have voted for a tax hike. Some of Ronaldus Maximus's budgets contained tax hikes (1986 TEFRA for example). PaleoPaulie can't have it both ways however much he usually tries. Either he voted for a tax hike or more or he did not support the expenditures in those same budgets for military. Reagan would win the Cold War with or without the paleopipsqueak.

When paleoPaulie voted for the use of force in Afghanistan (the right position) he also showed himself up for the rank phony and hypocrite that he is on Iraq with his fraudulent claims of necessity for declarations of war.