Posted on 11/10/2007 5:54:16 AM PST by shove_it
Edited on 11/10/2007 6:24:02 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
LGF reader Shiplord Kirel alerts us to some very interesting excerpts at Free Republic from the old Ron Paul newsletter, being posted by a Freeper over the objections of the site’s Paulians. The excerpts are from the mid 80s to the late 90s:
Ron Paul supported the PLO terrorists (1985) Ron Paul: Israel bought Jesse Helms (1985) Ron Paul: Traitor had direct line to President Reagan (1992, refers to commie business collaborator Armand Hammer) RON PAUL ON DEFENSE SPENDING (1992, sounds like Ramsey Clark) Ron Paul: Clinton didn’t cut defense enough (1993) Ron Paul: US “military is mowing civilians down in the streets” (1993, refers to Somalia) RON PAUL ACCUSED U.S. TROOPS OF WAR CRIMES IN DESERT STORM (1991, this one repeats Ramsey Clark’s allegations almost verbatim)
Can you help LSUfan? I don’t have the tech savy. See these two threads.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1923890/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1923902/posts
here’s a link to the scanned documents...
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc289/LSUfanFR/?mediafilter=images
Not entirely. As the same sort of time-traveling politically-correct gotcha that causes Huckleberry Finn to be banned in some schools, well, maybe, though if these statements don't quite cross the line, they certainly walk right up to it and send a Bronx cheer across.
But the point is that Ron Paul is running for the most challenging and ambitious executive position in the world, presiding over a massive bureaucracy. However much he may wish to shrink it, that's the job description, and it requires a highly competent executive.
This newsletter episode speaks to Ron Paul's executive abilities, in that an organization for which he was responsible was apparently putting out a newsletter under his name, and Mr. Paul had managed neither to do his homework, nor imprint his personality on his own organization, nor have checks and balances in place to catch mistakes, so that his own newsletter insulted his friends under his own name, and made disparaging racial remarks that he apparently does not endorse. If such a small organization has such problems when run by Ron Paul, what may we expect if we put him in charge of the Executive branch, as he is asking us to consider?
That is a very fair criticism. The President does need to be a highly competent executive and allowing someone else to release information in your name without checking it is a major mistake (although one that I doubt Paul would ever make again). And, while on one had, it can be seen as a competence issue, on the other hand it also speaks to Paul's lack of narcissism -- can't think of many other candidates who would have ever made that same kind of mistake in allowing their image to be managed by anyone other than a highly professional handler.
Whatever else he might be, Paul not "a plant". He is one of the few (if any) in DC who has been completely consistent on the issues for his entire career of more than 20 years. He is sincere, of that there is little doubt.
If I sound like I admire the man and what he stands for, I do. I agree with his position on virtually every issue. My reservations about him are, however, big ones and here are just a few:
1. If Ron Paul was elected, how would he ever plan to get support for the massive change that he is running on, from Congress?
2. If Ron Paul was elected, how could he possibly make all the changes he has suggested -- ie "return to the gold standard", "elimination of the IRS", "elimination of the Federal Reserve", etc.-- without causing a complete economic collapse and utter chaos in this country?
3. Ron Paul is suggesting that he could reverse over 70 years of creeping federalism and creeping socialism in a four year period and without the support of any significant group in Congress. That is insane!
While most voters are politically naive in thinking that electing any president can change all that ills us, I am not. And I realize that it took over 70 years to get us to this point, it would take a long painful while for us to turn us back.
Meanwhile, there will always be more of the "Hillary-feel-good-now" types to tell us that what ails us can be solved by more government intervention at home and abroad, to take advantage of America when America is going through painful times.
But, just because it is painful, doesn't mean that we don't need to return to the Constitution and what it stands for. Because if we don't, we really will be a ship without a rudder, and any candidate can tell us what we want to hear and then do what they want when they get elected. And if we allow that, then we really will deserve what we get!
Ron Paul (like Ross Perot before him --"What candidate was talking about "deficit reduction" and NAFTA, before Perot brought it up? No one. Then Clinton co-opted it.) has brought some interesting and controversial ideas to the table and to the debate. Frankly, I think that it is about time for other other Republican candidates to quit ignoring Paul's message because if they do, they will do so at their own peril.
Wild thing, I think you move anybodybutme, but I wanna know for sure...
You make a very good point. If we somehow wind up with President Paul, I hope he takes more of an interest in the job than he took in his newsletter. He seems to be doing an OK job running his campaign.
Remember the robot C-3PO of "Star Wars" fame? For EX EX EX, how about E-3PO'd..........?
And, yes, there are things (other than Ron Paul) I am in agreement with that E-3PO'd has posted.........
:}
With two unquestionable, all around conservatives in this race (Hunter and Tancredo) and a less consistent, but still conservative Thompson, not to mention Huckabee, who is at least a strong social conservative, Paul holds little appeal to most conservatives. There are some libertarians (though not all) who are pro-Paul plus some paleoconservatives of the Council of Concerned Citizens/John Birch Society type who are also so inclined, but their numerical impact in the GOP is negligible.
At this point, Ron Paul may already be something of a "useful idiot" for Hillary due to his taking votes away from Obama and Edwards. He has stated that he will not go the third party route in next year's Presidential race. If Paul does not do well in New Hampshire or some of the early states in the Mountain West, where the "mind your own business" mentality is strong, he will have little popular leverage to pursue a third party run and his money sources will dry up. Pat Buchanan showed the futility of a third party run in 2000, where he polled barely better than the Presidential candidates of the Libertarian or Constitution parties. In that year, the spoiler, Ralph Nader, was on the political left. Had he not run, assuming those voters would have been gone to the Democrats, Al Gore would have been sworn in on Janaury 20, 2001.
The big problem lies in the fact that Ron Paul has aligned himself, and now his presidential campaign, with very objectionable persons and groups.........so, his comments on Blacks (and others) take on new meaning, a meaning that will be his political death knell..........
Is is so amazing to see how many rabid koolaide drinkers and wingnuts in secure the borders groups like Save Our State and No More Invasion were drones for Ron Paul’s thinking. Non-Paul supporters post there at you’re own peril because it seems the lynch mob mentality and mindless RP prima donnas have no taste for others Consitutional Freedom of Speech. I smelled a rat with Ron Paul from the start with his 1930’s views on international and domestic issues. Welcome RP to post 9-11 complex world. He needs a wayback machine to be seen as rational.
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.