Why are Ron Paul Detractors so Frightened? (American Chronicle)

American Chronicle ^ | 9/26/07 | Szandor Blestman

[traviskicks]

The other day I was driving past a very busy Intersection in my neck of the woods and I noticed a Ron Paul Revolution sign had gone up. There were a couple more on the toll way that some farmer had put up. These were put there on private property by people that most likely were not paid to do so. That’s the way Ron Paul supporters are. They don’t have to be asked to do something for their candidate. They don’t have to be told to go out and campaign. They simply do what they can, or what they think needs to be done. Most are extremely enthusiastic about Ron Paul, and some would say they are too enthusiastic. Perhaps they are right and in some cases Ron Paul supporters get a little overbearing in their zeal, but that is to be expected. After all, when was the last time we saw an honest politician in this country? When was the last time a politician spoke of adhering to the constitution? Oh sure, they’ve always been there, lurking on the outside of the establishment, staring through the windows of the halls of power at two major parties like bums passing a mansion and longing for just a taste of the good life as the Democrats and Republicans pass laws making it harder and harder for them to ever get elected. This is the first time in a long time a major party candidate has come out with a message of hope and freedom and of smaller, limited, less intrusive government. It is a message that he backs up with his voting record. It is this message that has gotten his supporters so excited. Many of Ron Paul’s supporters might not have supported anyone in this campaign had Ron Paul decided not to run. No other candidate, either Republican or Democrat, espouses the principles Ron Paul supports. All the other candidates support big government programs and proclaim big government is the answer to everything that ails our society. Those of us who realize this is not true and who simply want to be left to decide for ourselves what paths we will take in our lives have found a champion in Ron Paul. His candidacy has given many of us someone to vote for rather than someone to vote against. His candidacy has given many of us something to vote for other than the lesser of two evils.

Yet the enthusiasm and excitement expressed by Ron Paul’s supporters seems to have spawned a community of fellows vehemently opposed to Ron Paul. As I go through posts and read through blogs, it seems to me that many of these people are frightened by something. There’s something about their insistence, their passion about the "evil" of Ron Paul and the seemingly supernatural power of his “few” supporters to be able to hijack opinion polls, phone polls, and dominate Internet blogs, there’s something about the demeanor of these folks that suggests to my mind that they are terrified. There’s something even more disturbing about the way the mass media ignores or portrays him. All this has caused me to wonder, what are these Ron Paul detractors so frightened of? I have spent some time in the blogosphere in an effort to ascertain the answer to this question and to assuage their fear. Of course, I don’t expect to be able to convince everyone that there is nothing to fear from a Ron Paul victory, there are people who no matter how hard you argue, no matter how much reason you apply to the argument, will simply refuse to listen. They will not give up their beliefs. I hope to reach those who are on the fence, who are intrigued by Ron Paul’s ideas but are worried about all the negative rhetoric spewed forth by those afraid of real change.

One of the first things I notice about Ron Paul detractors is how often they call Ron Paul and his supporters names. To be fair, I’ve also seen Ron Paul supporters calling his detractors names, which I also think is wrong. As Ron Paul supporters, we should be able to recognize name calling for the juvenile practice it is and avoid that tactic. I know that’s hard to do when the mud starts flying. I realize that when someone insults you it is a natural tendency to insult them back, but we need to remember that name calling accomplishes nothing and serves only to inflame the emotions of those involved. We should let Ron Paul’s detractors show their true colors with their cutesy, middle school barbs like Paultards and Ronbots. Let them label us “crazy”, “conspiracy theorists” and whatever else they want to label us as. So what? Take a deep breath and let the name calling roll off your shoulders. It is more important to get Ron Paul’s message of personal responsibility and smaller, less intrusive government out there. It is time for us to grow up. It is time for us to reclaim out freedoms, to demand them back, and in the process get our lives back, free from government intervention.

Still, some Ron Paul detractors do talk about the issues. They have addressed their fears and stated why they are against Ron Paul. I’d like to address some of these. One of the big ones is that he’s against abortion. This is true, Ron Paul is against abortion. More specifically, he believes it should not be a constitutional issue and that the individual states should be able to decide abortion laws. He is, after all, an ob/gyn and as such has his own personal opinion on the miracle of life. Still, this is an issue where he and I actually disagree. I see abortion as a decision that should be left to the woman and her doctor and perhaps her family. Government should not be involved. But all this is beside the point. In my opinion, this country has far, far more important issues to worry about. And those who worry about women losing the right to an abortion, fear not. President Bush is also against abortions and he was not able to make them illegal in this country even with a Republican congress and a supreme court leaning his way.

Some detractors have expressed fear that Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is not so. Sure, he wants to bring our troops home from around the world. This is something he would actually have the power to do, should he become president. He wants to end our wars of aggression and bring the troops back home to protect our borders. Isn’t that what the military is for? Do we have to police the world? I don’t believe we should. I say it’s time we stopped trying to dictate to the world how to run their countries and remove the threat of force our military poses. I say it's time we stopped nation building. Just because he wants to bring the soldiers home does not mean he is an isolationist. He would still want to do business with the rest of the world. The difference is, he would not be doing business at the point of a gun, rather we would all be interacting on a voluntary basis. Sure, competition would increase, but fear not. I have faith in the American people. I think we can take on competition and come out ahead. We don’t need to force our will upon others in order to remain on top of the heap. We can lead by example and show the world that free markets are the way to improve the quality of everyone’s life. I believe that left to our own devices our ideas and innovations will help improve the world for all mankind.

I read one detractor claim that Ron Paul is racist. When I see the label “racist” used, I instantly question the author’s motive. When one uses such a name it seems to be an attempt to evoke emotion in the reader and cause one to instantly ostracize the subject on the basis that this person has an opinion that is so onerous as to be socially unacceptable. Now, I don’t know Ron Paul personally, so I can’t say for certain whether he is or isn’t a racist, but I can say that I seriously doubt it. Apparently, the claim that he is a racist came from some sort of newsletter that he sent out where one of his people made an unseemly comment that some interpreted as racist. Ron Paul apologized for the comment and fired the offending staffer. I would bet that just about everyone has said something at some point in time that could be considered racist. This does not make the person racist. As it is, Ron Paul has himself addressed this issue. Some of his thoughts on racism can be found here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

I believe that fear is unfounded.

Some detractors have expressed fear that Ron Paul’s stance on taxes and the Federal Reserve will lead to economic collapse. First off, why should a privately owned organization have a monopoly on our money when the constitution explicitly gives the House of Representatives the power “To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.” Why should our tax dollars go to pay the interest on trillions of dollars in loans when congress can order the creation of treasury notes interest free? Personally, I’m tired of seeing the value of the dollar shrink to nothing and I’d rather have a steady, stable currency that keeps its value as we had for hundreds of years before this fiat banking system took hold around the world. There might be a short period of adjustment in the economy if Ron Paul was able to implement such a change, but sound fiscal policy and the power of free, open markets would soon right the ship. Then there are those who would ask “What about the poor?” when income taxes are done away with. Well, not having to pay taxes will certainly give you more money in your pocket. You could give the extra money you’d have to some worthy charity that helps the poor. Private enterprises taking care of charity can certainly do a better job than any government organization or plan for wealth redistribution. Again, I have faith in the American people. We are, after all, perhaps the most generous nation in the world. You should not fear changing our money system, for sometimes change is for the best and often times it comes whether you plan it or not. It’s best if that change can be controlled rather than suddenly thrust upon us.

I could go on, but I think I’ve covered the basics. Try to remember, we are in the process of selecting a president here, not a dictator or a decider. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is for a smaller government with the voting record to prove it. All the other candidates are for increasing the size of government and government’s power and control over you. Ron Paul is against the war in Iraq, and any war of aggression. He is in favor of bringing our troops home to protect our borders. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against the Military Commissions Act. He does not believe we should engage in entangling alliances. He believes we should maintain our national sovereignty. And, should the citizens of the United States elect him as our next president, we would be sending a clear message to our politicians that we understand what freedom is and what it means and that we want to keep our freedoms and liberties rather than letting them die under the oppressive boots of a police state. We would also be sending a message that we appreciate honesty and openness in government and we will no longer tolerate the corruption that has plagued our government for decades now. Ron Paul should frighten no one, except maybe the establishment which has been feeding at the pig trough of political power for far too long.

[x]

I don't think it's frightened, so much as disgusted and angry.

For me it has to do with lewrockwell.com and the Mises Institute and the slippery and dishonest way those people have of arguing.

Lew Rockwell was on Ron Paul's staff years ago and he's become a big supporter of Paul's campaign.

I don't trust him or his anarchist pals any further than I could throw them.

They live in a fantasy world, and it's a good bet that Ron Paul's there as well.

[Larry Lucido]

Assuming a fact not in evidence (as the author does) is an indication one doesn’t have much of an argument to start with.

[hschliemann]

The scary part about a Ron paul presidency is that ron paul’s foreign policy is, frankly, stupid and frightening.

Scary?Frightening?LMAO.You should check the first page of the thread,where anti-Paulies are scoffing at the notion they're afraid.

and here's one for the books;

The scary part about a Ron paul presidency is that ron paul’s foreign policy is, frankly, stupid and frightening.

Nice clear thinking there.The scary part of rp's foreign policy is that it's frightening!LOL

They not only want to lose, they want to lose completely and in the most embarrassing way possible.

Yeah,that descibes me(not)Talk about hyperbole.Just keep repeating that,maybe by the time the election rolls around you'll actually believe it.

This is the most important battle of the post-cold-war era...

Your opinion masquerading as fact.In my opinion,the most important battle we face is RIGHT HERE in our own country.

...

[billbears]

I would wonder if Paul would use Executive Orders to do this because he has been so outspoken against Executive Orders in the past as undermining the separation of powers- taking actions that should be legislated by Congress.

He has. But take this into account. The Executive Orders of the past have centralized power within the Executive Branch. These would actually release power from the Executive Branch, from the federal government as a whole and return much back to the states.

You pose the ‘inspirational type approach’ to Congress changing based on the figurehead of Paul, but what or how exactly will he do this? You are looking at at least two years before the next major election after (if) he is elected (in theory), but the seats up for grabs there in the House wouldn’t be enough to swing, it would actually be at his four year point. What would happen between day one and year four

If he holds to his values, he vetoes the bills as traviskicks suggested and requires Congress to overrule his veto. Let's say the budget goes up at $500 billion (just a number out of the air). Paul vetoes it. If things are usual in Congress there is enough discontent that budget is going to need to be cut even to get the 2/3 majority to overrule the President. So it's cut 5% down to $475 billion. The President vetoes it again, but this time it's overridden. It still passes, he hasn't traded his values, and he's cut 5% of the budget with two vetoes.

Now for the next two years of course the Democrats will be beating 'it's for the children' drum but the President by his actions (and I imagine speeches that would seem like school to some) he's getting out his message as well as revitalizing a long dead arm of the Republican party, the limited government conservatives. Get those into Congress and now you've got an even bigger hurdle for Congress to overcome to overrule a veto, meaning even more budget cuts.

Yes this is an 'inspirational approach' I'll grant you that. But at this point, I'm willing to give it a shot. Nothing else has worked. Clearly the 'incrementalism' claim by some a few years ago definitely didn't work. Note this is hypothetical but when looking at how a future action is to occur it has to be hypothetical doesn't it?

[mjp]

All the other candidates support big government programs and proclaim big government is the answer to everything that ails our society. Those of us who realize this is not true and who simply want to be left to decide for ourselves what paths we will take in our lives have found a champion in Ron Paul.

That big government is wrong is correct, but Ron Paul is committing malpractice because he doesn't understand the purpose of government (to secure and protect the rights of citizens from external and internal threats) and he doesn't understand the nature of the disease of Islam ( to expand thru the use of force which is a violation of rights. How can a doctor cure the patient if he ignorant of the disease?

[mnehring]

Scary?Frightening?LMAO.You should check the first page of the thread,where anti-Paulies are scoffing at the notion they're afraid.

Here is what I am afraid of. We get down to the primaries and Paul is still in the race along with several second and third tier candidates, Ron Paul draws enough Conservative votes out in the primaries away from whomever the Conservative front runner is (let's say 5% as that is his best poll showing.) and this hands the nomination to the uberRINO Rudy. Right now, we have Rasmussen and other polls showing that Thompson is generally within 5 points of Rudy (plus or minus). This means that a third tier symbolic nominee like Paul could change the momentum away from the more Conservative candidate and back to the pop culture vote for Rudy.

[SJackson]

If he holds to his values, he vetoes the bills as traviskicks suggested and requires Congress to overrule his veto. Let's say the budget goes up at $500 billion (just a number out of the air). Paul vetoes it. If things are usual in Congress there is enough discontent that budget is going to need to be cut even to get the 2/3 majority to overrule the President. So it's cut 5% down to $475 billion. The President vetoes it again, but this time it's overridden. It still passes, he hasn't traded his values, and he's cut 5% of the budget with two vetoes.

This is out of thin air stuff.

You're positing that a primary candidate of 1% to 5% support in the Republican Party will become President and voila, when he vetos a spending bill, Congress, who is likely agait him by 95 to 1 will say, gee, we can override, but let's cut spending by 5% for the good fellow from Texas.

And again and again and smaller government and again and smaller government again.

Alice in Wonderland stuff.

Let Paul stand up, reject the lunatic support he relies on today, and make his case.

We'll see where he goes.

[billbears]

You're positing that a primary candidate of 1% to 5% support in the Republican Party will become President and voila, when he vetos a spending bill, Congress, who is likely agait him by 95 to 1 will say, gee, we can override, but let's cut spending by 5% for the good fellow from Texas. And again and again and smaller government and again and smaller government again. Alice in Wonderland stuff. Let Paul stand up, reject the lunatic support he relies on today, and make his case.

Seriously!! Let's just keep doing the same thing over and over. I mean hell it's worked so well so far right?

I said it was hypothetical as it hasn't even been tried in this generation. Too many politicians have gone along to get along. And limited government conservatives are tired of it. I'm not going to vote for a candidate that gives nice platitudes without specifics on what he's going to work to cut. Income taxes and superfluous departments are specifics.

As for 'Alice in Wonderland' stuff, IIRC Reagan wasn't well liked by the party faithful in his day either.

[ex-snook]

"Scary?Frightening?LMAO.You should check the first page of the thread,where anti-Paulies are scoffing at the notion they're afraid."

Sure they're afraid. Who wouldn't be afraid of a candidate who thinks the USA should have a non-interventionist, constitutional foreign policy, a strong national defense and stay out of other country's internal affairs and nation building. A candidate like that would end all foreign aid gravy trains.

Plus it drives them out of their mind that the more they smear Paul the higher he gets. That ruins their favorite technique of sophomoric comments and funny faces. What makes it worse is the majority of Americans agree with him on this.

[Howie66]

Oh my goodness!! *lol*

[Hostage]

Ron Paul is a fine candidate. However, he in not the only candidate that stands for limited government. A case for Fred Thompson can be made that he would be more suited because he has the legal insight on how to accomplish a return to federalism.

We must decentralize the federal government. Issues such as abortion, school choice, gay marriage, and so many others have no place at the federal level.

A return to federalism will limit government involvement in the lives of Americans at the level it was originally intended to be involved in. The question then is who is the better leader in this quest. Ron Paul could be a great grassroots leader in this but certainly Fred Thompson would know how to orient the entire government in this, because in the end it’s the lawyers that need to be tweaked. Once they are onboard, all the rest follows suit.

Ron Paul is a great messenger for basic reform and will need to rely on the American people to help overcome resistance inside the beltway. Fred Thompson is a great communicator who can command respect inside the beltway while simultaneously getting the support of the American people.

I think Ron Paul and Fred Thompson share many of the same goals. Both are appealing.

I do think Ron Paul would create an environment for reform of the Tax Code and of the Federal Reserve system and its relationship with the Unites States whereas Fred Thompson would likely focus only on the Tax Code initially. This is what I like about Ron Paul. He realizes the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax are two heads of the same beast. You can’t slay the beast without cutting off both its heads.

In my view, the United States should federalize the Federal Reserve so that all its members are federal employees. And the United States should never pay interest on federal notes that it creates. This action coupled with elimination of the IRS and repeal of the 16th Amendment would be a central focus under Ron Paul. But as President would he be able to put together a coalition to accomplish these things?

Fred Thompson surely could put together such a coalition to eliminiate the IRS and repeal the 16th. He would likely listen to arguments for federalizing the Federal Reserve.

Here’s a lineup I see:

Fred Thompson, President
Newt Gingrich, Vice President
John McCain, Secretary of State
Ron Paul, Secretary of the Treasury
Duncan Hunter, Secretary of the Interior
......(Homeland Security and Interior consolidated)
David Petraeus, Secretary of Defense
Mark Levin, Department of Justice
Christopher Cox, Secretary of American Affairs
......(Commerce-Labor once again united and consolidated with Energy,
.......Transportation, Agriculture, Health & Human Services and Housing &
.......Urban Development)
William G. Boykin, Department of Veteran Affairs
Vacant, Department of Education (to be abolished)
Vacant, Department of Homeland Security (Consolidated with the Interior)
Vacant, Department of Labor (Consolidated with American Affairs)
Vacant, Department of Energy (Consolidated with American Affairs)
Vacant, Department of Transportation (Consolidated with American Affairs)
Vacant, Department of Agricuture (Consolidated with American Affairs)
Vacant, Department of Health and Human Services (Consolidated with American Affairs)
Vacant, Department of Housing and Urban Development (Consolidated with American Affairs)

14 Cabinets rolled into 6; consolidation and decentralization, elimination of the IRS and federalization of the Federal Reserve under the Department of Treasury.

Fred and Ron have their work cut out for them.

[mnehring]

You forgot Donald Rumsfield- Press Sectary.

[hschliemann]

What Constitutional authority President Paul would have to eliminate the CIA, DEA, NSA, FBI, NEA, FDA, FTC, IRS, and all the other things he says he will eliminate. Wouldn̢۪t that have to originate in Congress?

You're argument is hollow but I'll attempt an answer anyway.The reason I say it's hollow is that EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE gives their opinion on a range of issues,not just the ones over which the executive has any control."Why do we care how X feels about this,when it is congress that makes the laws."That goes for all candidates.You might just as well ask,"Why do we care what Romney thinks about abortion,what can the president do?Doesn't that have to originate with congress?"(I think we would all agree it does NOT originate with the courts).

To begin with,if elected he would run the Unitary Executive branch.If you aren't familiar with the Unitary Executive debate,there's much on-line Google is your friend.

The Supreme Court's embrace of the “unitary executive” would sound the death knell for independent regulatory agencies as they have existed since the Great Depression, when they were structured with shared control between the Congress and the President. Putting the agencies under the President’s thumb would tip the balance of Washington power to the White House and invite abuses by letting the Executive turn on and off enforcement investigations.

During the Reagan administration in 1983, (now Chief Justice)Roberts said it was time to “reconsider the existence” of independent regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, and to “take action to bring them back within the Executive Branch.”

I don't think this has been resolved yet to anyone's satifaction,but it's out there. The founders wanted to ensure that congress couldn't exercise undue influence with the executive,so besides the Senate confirming the heads of departments,the president is free to run these departments as he sees fit.I don't know any reason that on his first day in office he couldn't just dismiss every employee of the departments you've cited.Any of the organizations under the executive branch would come under his jurisdiction,along with the ability to hire and fire as he sees fit(would that our government allow private companies to do the same without fear of legal repercussions).

Secondly,supposing that this argument doesn't convince the Supreme Court,all of these agencies need funding to exist.Let's give Dr. No a chance with the veto pen.I'd love to see a president veto all the garbage that comes to his desk.It's funny that he introduced a bill to make sure that congressmen had adequate time to read legislation before they voted on it(the nerve of him!).The damn medical prescription bill and the patriot act would still be in the process of being digested.LOL!

I don't know that he's called for the elimination of all the bureaus you've cited,but I trust him to do what's right,and I don't trust many politicians.I for one wouldn't shed any tears at the demise of the NEA,DEA and IRS.One thing I'm sure of is that he is not in this for himself.

If he leaves Congress, who is left to sponsor a bill to do these things?

This is a sorry argument.One congressman,who typically gets 2 (if that)sponsors for these bills can only express his opinion.As president,he would see that 2/3 of each house would have to agree to pass odiuos legislation.

[LexBaird]

Why do Ron Paul supporters think that disagreeing with their candidate means that people are “frightened” of him?

The same reason any critique of Thompson is met with choruses of "Fear the Fred!" It avoids having to actually address the criticism by passing it off as unworthy envy or panic.

[hschliemann]

Perhaps we should consider a balanced ticket...... Paul/Kochinich

To each his own...I would prefer Paul/Tancredo.Better ring to it than Hunter/Thompson,that left-wing gonzo journalist.

[hschliemann]

Frightened????

NO,more like scared sh!tl*ss.Scared that Paul will run an independent campaign,maybe with Tancredo,and give the election over to a democrat.And you know what,you have reason to be scared.

[Hostage]

Nobody I have seen who supports either Fred Thompson or Ron Paul has failed to address criticism of their candidates. In fact I have seen many such supporters reveal such criticism to be frivolous.

Fact is that at the grassroots level Ron Paul is a phenomenon and at the primary level Fred Thompson is widening his lead.

All the former ‘tiered’ candidate supporters get cross-eyed when they see the success of Ron Paul and Fred Thompson so they start making stuff up to criticize them with. When their arguments are shown again and again to be weak, they ignore the rebuttals and keep on repeating the same tripe arguments. For example, you will hear them say Fred Thompson was prochoice when he never was. Their evidence is weak, nonconclusive and out of context. It doesn’t matter to them. So why do they persist? Because they fear their guy/gal will lose.

So yes, it’s about fear and fright. It’s not about avoiding the issues.

[WWTD]

And yet, by calling us “Paulbots”, you show that you are too mean-spirited to rise above petty insults.

[WWTD]

Another hater who can do nothing but call Ron Paul supporters insulting names.

[WWTD]

Almost every post on FR that disagrees with Paul and his supporters ignores the substance of what he stands for. Instead, Paul and his supporters are slandered repeatedly.

Case in point - a claim has been made here on FR, with the authority of some blog that no one has ever heard of, that a neo-Nazi organization supports Paul. Ever since then, several of the Paul haters have smeared Paul and all of his supporters as neo-Nazis. No substance, just pure ignorant hatred.