Ron Paul Has Betrayed The GOP! (Former Staff Member on Ron Paul's change after 9/11)

AFK at Townhall ^ | 04/18/2007 | Cary Wesberry

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Is this what my grand party has come to?  Ron Paul is insulting, incompetent, and now I am sure he is an outright nut.  What I am posting here stupefied me after I read it.  I could not believe I was reading about a Republican... in Congress for 20 YEARS NO LESS!  I've posted the statement from Eric Dondero in its entirety; emphasis mine.  I suggest you take the time to read the whole thing.  It is a sad and pathetic story.  Read my previous post on this so-called Republican and after you do that, read this:



________________________________________

My name is Eric Dondero Rittberg.  For 12 years I worked on and off, mostly on, for Ron Paul.  I started on his staff in 1987 during his Libertarian Party Presidential campaign.  I served throughout 87 and 88 as his Personal Travel Aide.  Ron and I campaigned in over 40 states, including Alaska. 

 

In 1992, I organized Ron's Presidential Exploratory Committee.  We operated the effort for about 4 months.  We aborted the effort when Pat Buchanan declared for the GOP primaries.

 

In 1995, Ron agreed to serve as my "boss" as National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus. 

 

In 1996, Ron decided to test the waters for a Congressional Campaign.  I moved to Texas and served as his Campaign Coordinator.  Ron won first in the Primary and then in the General with 51%.

 

In 1997, Ron hired me as his Senior Aide and District Representative.  My job title was to represent the Congressman at all functions throughout the District, to speak in his absence, and to handle all District Scheduling.  I was also in charge of Local Governmental relations. 

 

I served in that capacity til February of 2004. 

 

I can honestly say that the Congressman was more than just my boss, he was also my friend.  We had a good understanding, after years of working together, and were very good Travel mates.  Him and I would literally spend hours in the car traveling from one event to another, during campaigning and for District events.  We would debate everything under the sun, in a friendly and fun sort of way.  Our differences were always over abortion - I am Pro-Choice, he is firmly Pro-Life, and over foreign policy - I am Pro-Defense, he has always been more Non-interventionist.  But we always maintained our friendship. 

 

Then September 11, 2001 hit.  My boss, Ron Paul, all of a sudden changed dramatically.  Whereas before he was a reasonable non-interventionist, he was now rabidly so. 

 

I must say that Ron always knew how to play the game before 2001.  He always campaigned as a die-in-the-wool rock-ribbed Conservative Republican.  Coming from the Libertarian Party there was always suspicions about him on this.  So, he went the extra mile within the District to allay such concerns.

 

He also campaigned as a "Bush Republican."  I recall two specific events when Ron publicly backed Bush for President, quite enthusiastically; Once during a big GOP dinner in Wharton, and another time during a Bush for President fundraising in Corpus Christi.  He also had Bush's photo on the wall at our District Office in Freeport. 

 

I should also note that I personally spoke with Karl Rove twice in 1996.  After Ron won the GOP Nomination, mainline Republicans were unsure as to how to treat him.  We reached out to the Bush people.  After my conversations with Rove, he put out the word to key Houston-area, Austin and Victoria Republicans to back Ron Paul.  All of a sudden like a tidal wave all the GOPers came on board our Campaign.   

 

Though privately, Ron leaned non-intervenionist, publicly he was always Pro-Troops, Pro-Veterans, Pro-Defense and quite Patriotic, particularly in his Campaign style. 

 

He made extra sure to attend as many Veteran's events as possible.  And when he couldn't go, he would always send me, as the only Vet on staff to represent him.  He always made it quite clear that I was to emphasize "my views on foreign policy" more so than his non-interventionist views at such events.  And I did. 

 

But after Sept. 11, things changed.  He became morose.  He became bitter, and quite pessimistic. 

 

I had to literally beg him to support the vote authorizing the President to send Troops to Afghanistan.  I actually threatened to resign if he did not vote that way.  And another key District Staffer, practically threatened to resign, as well.  At the last minute Ron voted in favor of the Authorization.  I suspected he only did it, cause he knew if he hadn't he would cause the Republicans in the District to oppose him, and he wouldn't win reelection. 

 

But 9/11 served as a wake up call for me.  I started questioning how it is that I could work for such a man. 

 

Before it was always just a fun-loving disagreement; debating in the car from event to event to pass the time.

 

Now, I saw he was quite serious, and cared even less for how others, even constituents took his views on foreign policy.

 

Ron and I grew apart.  I served as his Travel Aide less and less in 2002/03. 

 

Finally one day in the Summer of 2003, he called on me to accompany him to an event in Victoria.  He was acting quite strange in the car.  He kept prodding me on foreign policy.  I knew he was trying to get me to debate the War in Iraq with him.  But I kept my cool the whole trip.

 

Finally, when we reached Victoria, I made a slight comeback, that I didn't think his particular view on the War was correct.  He jumped out of the car and lunged at me. Poking his finger into my chest, he looked me in the eye and said, "I will have nobody working for me on my staff who supports the War in Iraq, even you."  I'd only seen this look on Ron maybe once or twice in all my 12 years working for him.  He was clearly quite angry with me. 

 

I knew he was trying to provoke me so that he could have justification to fire me.  But I kept my cool. 

 

For 6 months after than we didn't speak. 

 

Finally, Chief of Staff Tom Lizardo suggested that Ron and I not talking to each other was not helpful to the "atmosphere" in the District offices.  I offered to my friend Tom to resign.  We discussed a date, two months out, and a compensation package and I agreed. 

 

I've been asked by others if my former boss is an Anti-Semite.  My answer is an emphatic NO.  I am half Jewish.  I am familiar with Anti-Semites.  Ron is not one of them.

 

But I would say he's very insensitive to issues concerning Israel and for other concerns of Jewish Americans. 

 

Houston Jews were always suspicious of Ron Paul.  But Ron could always point to me as his "Jewish Staffer."  He would even send me to Synagogues in the District and to Jewish events.  But I do remember one time, when a group of Houston Jewish Young Republicans wanted to lobby the Congressman on some issues.  I begged Ron to meet with them.  He was very hesitant.  He finally agreed.  But the meeting turned out to be a disaster.  The Jewish YRs came all the way from Houston, and all Ron did was berate them in our District Office about how the Israel Lobby was too powerful in Washington, and other issues.  He also got defensive when the Jewish YRs expressed concern over Palestinian violence against Israel. 

 

I ran down the hallway after the meeting chasing the group, and apologized profusely to them. 

 

After 9/11 Ron also became much more upfront in his anti-Israel views.  He'd even criticize Israel in public speeches which would make me cringe. 

 

Ron Paul and I agree on about 95% of all domestic issues.  We disagree on a myriad of foreign policy and defense issues.  Still, he was my boss.  He was paying me, so I was obligated to toe the line.

 

This is not why I think less of him today.

 

Rather, what concerns me most was the fact that for many years he played both sides of the aisle.  In the very Conservative South Texas CD, he was always Mr. Red, White, and Blue.  If he couldn't make a Veterans event, he made damn sure that his one Vet on staff could go, even if it was just 8 VFW guys meeting for a couple hours 3 hours drive away. Ron was very careful to portray himself in the District as Pro-Troops, and even Pro-Defense. 

 

But after 9/11 and most especially after the War in Iraq, he played up his non-interventionist side to a national audience.  This while still keeping the facade of Pro-Troops/Pro-Defense in the District.  As late as last year I got a constituent mailing from RP with 4 pages of nothing but Patriotic/Pro-Troops/Pro-Veterans information from the Congressional office.  I suspect the reason why RP has gone south on foreign policy for the national audience is simple: To gain more dollars from a National fundraising base, and to gain more National media attention from Liberal media sources.   

 

In closing let me just say, that I don't believe his views represent the views of Congressional District 14 any more.  The District, which I live in, is quite considerably more Conservative of foreign policy/defense issues than Ron Paul. 

 

I would endorse Chris Peden, or some other Republican candidate other than Ron Paul for this seat.
________________________________________



Eric Dondero is a US Navy Veteran, former Libertarian Party National Committeeman, Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus and fmr. Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul R-TX.  He is now a national Republican Political Consultant based in Houston, Texas. 

Thanks to Edd Hendee at KSEV in Houston for passing this information along.  Do your country a favor and go donate to Eyes On The Border; something Dr. Ron "Strangelove" Paul surely has not done.

A big "thank you" to the one and only Ace of Spades for linking this up on his fine blog.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Hmm. His declaration to run came about one month after the thread’s article.

Judging from your other posts, this guy sounds like an opportunist.

Thanks for the info.

[jmeagan]

****And you’ll notice that these folks are supporting Paul on their own time, with their own money.*****

Yes, I know. I bought some of his shirts and bumper stickers. I figured part of the price is going into campaign coffers. I also am trying to start a meetup group in my local area, which took a small initial investment. (Actually I can get it back if nothing happens within 30 days.)

****How many supporters are holding seminars at malls or stands at fairs for Giuliani? Obama? Romney? Fact is, is that the anger at Paul is pure sour grapes and jealously. None of their candidates have fired up supporters like Paul has.*********

Well, we have heard it all before from the establishment politicians. I was a talk show warrior prior to 1994 and I was really excited with the republican tsunami in 1994. One of my memorable moments in my political life was my call to the “very” liberal local talk show host the day after that election. Once I figured out how to stop him from hanging up on me, we sparred for over a year on politics. Well, Newt blinked when the government was shut down, mainly because of the “middle of the road” representatives in the party. The last straw for me was when the Repubs controlled every thing after 2000 and didn’t live up to their promises of smaller government and less taxes. RP has made me excited over politics again. In him, I think we have a chance for a real change. I am trying to gear up to be a talk show warrior for RP, but I am not up on a lot of the current issues. I used to watch C-Span all the time and knew about the current issues, and I don’t want the local liberal picking me off on some obscure issue.

I liked almost everything about RP, except for his stance on free trade. I think “free trade” has been destroying the middle class in this country. But then I found out that he is for essentially unlimited “free trade”, but that he would finance the federal government with a “uniform, but not a protectionist tariff” that really put it over the top for me. If the labor unions really looked at his position, every labor union in the country should endorse him.

This is a bit off topic, but I was talking to a young marine today (about 22 yrs old). He is on his second hitch in the marines. He was in for a couple years, got his discharge and tried civilian life for a bit. He actually went back into the marines because he would be financially better off, and he doesn’t mind going back to Iraq (second deployment there) as he will get combat pay et cetera. I asked him what was the general feeling in the marines about Iraq and he told me that most of the older guys were getting out. He is in charge of a platoon and there is only one other guy in the platoon that is older than him. He also said that that guy was for crap as a soldier. Basically he said that the older non coms, who had planned on making a career in the marines, were bailing out. Too many deployments, too much time away from home. He said the basic feeling among the troops was like, “Hey we came here and did the job we were supposed to do, now it is time to get the H*ll out of Dodge.”

[jmeagan]

I went back and reviewed the you tube video you linked to.

******While I understand the points Scheuer and Paul were trying to make, their premise is fundamentally flawed.

If we had pulled up stakes and left Saudi prior to 9/11, that action would have still occurred.*****

That may be true, but earlier events could have cause the reaction. Heck, a lot of Irish people still hate the English people and that goes back to Cromwell and the potato famine. Of course the English people don’t have a high opinion of the Irish. I think it was back in the 80’s when a member of the British royal family called the Irish “a bunch of pigs.”

****Both Scheuer and Paul are stating that the radical Islamists are doing what they are doing b/c of “occupation.” While that may be have some basis in history, it fails to explain why people like Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg were beheaded. It fails to explain the forced conversion of newsmen like Steve Centanni of Fox News.

There is no justification for such acts, just as there was no justification for both attacks on the WTC and other places.******

That may be true in your mind, but when M. Albright said that the death of all the Iraqi children because of our bombings and sanctions was justified for the greater good, that might have upset some people in the middle east.

****Why all the trashing of cars etc. last year by the Muslim youths? What has France occupied lately?****

Why did the blacks in this country torch cities in the 60’s?

*****There are countless other examples and American “occupation” of other countries does not begin to explain it. To insist that and that alone is the reason for Islamist actions is to severely underestimate the enemy. Paul and Scheuer do a disservice to the country by putting that forward as the sole reason.****

They did not insist that and that alone was the cause, but that it was one of the factors.

*****Quite simply, the Islamist position to non-Islamists is “Submit or Die.” They wish to establish a Caliphate. I believe that Zawahiri has stated so.*****

Yeah, well we have seen that before. Think back to Rome before one of the emperors converted to Catholicism, or the crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition, or Nazi Germany against the Jews, or the Turks against the Armenians, or the US against the indians, or the genocide in Africa today, or the slave trade in the 1700’s and early 1800’s, etc. The world is a big place and we can’t right every wrong, so we should stick to those things that affect us directly.

The western hemisphere, with its low population density has not had any of the major wars as we have seen in the eastern hemisphere with its high population density. The eastern hemisphere has been in an almost constant state of war for several thousand years. Why would we want to get mixed up in that situation?

I see nothing wrong with “fortress America”. We keep ourselves strong so that no enemy dare attack us. We live in peace and prosperity and the eastern hemisphere continues its self destructive behavior. In the late 1800’s, and even today, if we had the will, we could easily conquer Mexico and most if not all of South America and Canada, but we choose not too. Europe has defeated radical Islam before. Spain beat them and the were stopped in the Balkans. Our excursion into Bosnia has increased radical Islam in Europe.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Ron Paul has clearly said (on Michael Medved’s radio show in a 45 minute interview, extended from 30 minute) that he believes Clinton’s prosecution of the 1993 WTC attackers was the proper course, treat it as a criminal act, nothing more.

He's an idiot.

Perhaps I should therefore stop wasting time with The Liberty Committee (one of his apparent projects).

[JTN]

I don't have a lot to add to jmeagan's post at #103, so I'm just going to confine this to a couple of points.

There is no justification for such acts, just as there was no justification for both attacks on the WTC and other places.

No one is saying there is, including Dr. Paul.

Why all the trashing of cars etc. last year by the Muslim youths? What has France occupied lately?

As I recall, that didn't have much to do with Islam, although some people tried to portray it that way. I'd have to look up my sources again, though. It's been awhile.

There are countless other examples and American “occupation” of other countries does not begin to explain it. To insist that and that alone is the reason for Islamist actions is to severly underestimate the enemy. Paul and Scheuer do a disservice to the country by putting that forward as the sole reason.

They aren't claiming that's the sole reason. It's just that that was the subject under discussion when Giuliani made his attack, so that's what they responded to.

It's interesting to note that one of the people who agrees with Dr. Paul on this is Paul Wolfowitz. Check it out:

During his interview with Vanity Fair in early May, Wolfowitz cited several payoffs from the war, including removing the need for American forces in Saudi Arabia.

Those troops were sent to protect the desert kingdom against Saddam, whose forces invaded Kuwait in 1990. But their presence in the country that is home to Islam's holiest sites enraged many Muslims, including al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Within two weeks of the fall of Baghdad, the United States announced it was removing most of its 5,000 troops from Saudi Arabia.

"Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government," Wolfowitz said. "It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda."

[George W. Bush]

"Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government," Wolfowitz said. "It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda."

Ohmigod! Another dirty hippie. He might even vote for Ron Paul!

LOL.

Seriously, I don't see how people don't grasp how provocative our presence around these shrines or anything Saudi really is. That's a good quote you found.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Ron Paul is not a patriot.

Ron Paul is a Patriot who has served his country in and out of the military.

The non patriots are those (especially those on this board) who without research or evidence trash the patriotism of people merely because they don't agree with them.

If the shoe fits put it on Cinderella, and quit bitching about how it doesn't bend.

[wideawake]

What he has sais is that a new investigation would show is typical big-government ineptitude and masmanagement, but he does not believe that anybody excect terrorists brought the plane down.

That is emphatically what he did not say.

He was asked point blank if the US was involved in 9/11 and all he said was "I've seen no evidence of that."

Not: "No, absolutely not."

Not: "Of course not, and such claims are irresponsible."

But: "I've seen no evidence."

What a mealymouthed dirtbag Paul is.

[wideawake]

Paul fired him because he beat his wife.

Strong stuff.

It's been public knowledge since June of 2006.

Then surely you can document this.

[wideawake]

Paul fired him because he beat his wife.

Even the most ardent Rittberg haters that I have discovered on the web so far admit that these are rumors.

The Ron Paul supporter who seems to be most vocal about Rittberg's alleged wifebeating is a woman named Carol Moore. She offers as much proof of these allegations as you have - zero. Her "proof" is that she knows that Rittberg's wife is an Asian immigrant and that men who marry Asian immigrants do so because they like to beat up on their wives.

Carol Moore is a left-libertarian activist who had this to say about Ron Paul's 1988 LP campaign after discussing Paul's "outstanding" South Carolina debate performance from a couple of months ago:

"So a few of us formed the still existing Pro-Choice Libertarians and through organizing persistence got him [Ron Paul] to promise not to talk about abortion at all. (See my photo at left from way back when.) We tracked all his clippings (in those pre-news.google days), and except for one slip we caught, he evidently kept his word."

Ron Paul - fake pro-lifer, fake "man of principle."

[No Truce With Kings]

“I don’t see how Ron Paul could lose his Congressional seat.”

He has to survive the primary. I live in his district. I will be voting for his primary opponent. A LOT of other Republicans will, too.

I am hoping that the Democratic Presidential race is still undecided by the time of the primary to reduce the number of democrat crossovers that would vote for Paul in the primary. That — and an ignorance of his policies by district Republicans — are his only hopes for getting past the primary.

[Spiff]

I used to be a huge Ron Paul supporter. I thought he was the best representative in Congress. But this story confirms what I’ve sensed since 9/11 about Ron Paul. He’s gone increasingly nutty. Sad.

[wideawake]

The non patriots are those (especially those on this board) who without research or evidence trash the patriotism of people merely because they don't agree with them.

LOL!

The point of disagreement is the question of whether or not the US is responsible for 9/11.

If someone says that it is, they are not an American patriot.

This is not some slight disagreement unrelated to patriotism.

[jpsb]

If it comes from Edd Hendee, it is suspect. Edd Hendee is a Houston Bushbot out to put an esblishment R into Pauls Galveston seat.

[Badeye]

I didn’t find anything surprising in this, but its nice to have confirmation about Ron Paul’s intentional ‘playing of both sides’.

As I have noted for years in these political forums, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Friday’s, Ron Paul is a Libertarian....unless there is a GOP fundraiser on one of those days to his benefit, then he’s a Republican.

Many have disputed this statement of mine.

Now those that disputed it can take it up with a guy thats known Ron Paul for two decades.

[SJackson]

More nuttiness, but if Paul fired him for beating his wife, that raises the question of why he tolerated a wife beater in a position of trust for a dozen years. Presuming Carol is credibile, I'm sure the Rosie endorsement will win some votes.

Rosie O'Donnell Loves Ron Paul - Eric Dondero Doesn't

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

i was wondering if you were going to show up on any of these threads again in light of the @$$ kicking you took over the supposed "David Duke endoursment" last week.

In light of your depleted credibility on that issue, i don't see why anybody on this board should accept anything that you have to say on the subject of Ron Paul's run for the Republican Nomination.

That said, now we examine the newest piece of drivel to come from your keyboard.

The point of disagreement is the question of whether or not the US is responsible for 9/11.

In light of Ron Paul's vote For the authorisation of force against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, it is apparent that he knows who is responsible for 9/11.

Your paltry attempt to parse the argument so as to make Paul's argument into a case of explaining motivation=justification isn't fooling anyone except the most hardcore Paulitrolls on this board, and those who presume to understand the Middle East, yet can't even explain the differences between Suni and Shiite.

So, do you also question the patriotism of the head of the CIA bin Laudin desk and the 9/11 commission, both of which Paul cited in his response ~among them, a Vietnam war Medal of Honor winner~?

The rest of your argument falls with the false premise that you have presented.

[wideawake]

the @$$ kicking you took over the supposed "David Duke endoursment" last week

Is an asskicking an asskicking if it only takes place in CDL's dreams?

Fact: David Duke's website has trumpteted the supposed virtues of Ron Paul.

Fact: Ron Paul's campaign has yet to repudiate Duke's words of support.

In light of Ron Paul's vote For the authorisation of force against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan

That vote was back in the days before Ron Paul started running with the Alex Jones crowd. It certainly wouldn't be the first time Ron Paul was caught in an obvious contradiction - in fact the vote you reference is doubly an example of contradiction, since Ron Paul has since repudiated authorizations of force as "unconstitutional."

So, do you also question the patriotism of the head of the CIA bin Laudin desk

I don't need to question it - I already know he is a traitor.

and the 9/11 commission, both of which Paul cited in his response ~among them, a Vietnam war Medal of Honor winner~?

Just because Ron Paul quotes someone out of context in order to further his anti-American agenda doesn't mean the quoted source agrees with that agenda.

And someone's status as a non-posthumous MOH winner doesn't guarantee their patriotism. Benedict Arnold would certainly have received one after Ticonderoga or Saratoga had they existed at the time.

[sauropod]

I based my assessment on his speeches.

I, too, serve my country and need no lecturing from you.

[radioman]

Then surely you can document this.

I left it open so that you could do you're own Google and not accuse me of using a biased source. How many links would you like?
.