Posted on 11/17/2007 6:56:56 PM PST by camerakid400
Memo to: Ron Paul supporters
Subject: Your e-mails
Okay, enough is enough. Like every other journalist in America, and who knows, maybe the world or even the universe, I've been deluged with your letters and e-mails. So I've done as you asked and taken a closer look at your candidate. Here is what I've found:
1. Ron Paul is inconsistent. Though he calls himself a man of principle and is apparently admired as such by his ardent fans, his principles seem somewhat elastic. He rails against the Bush administration for its supposed assault on civil liberties, yet when he was asked at one of the debates whether Scooter Libby deserved a pardon, he said no. "He doesn't deserve one because he was instrumental in leading the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn't need to be in." Notice that he didn't say it was because Libby was guilty of committing a crime. No, because Libby argued for a policy with which Paul disagreed, he deserved to serve time in prison. Ron Paul, the libertarian, who presumably values liberty above all, is willing to deprive someone else of his because of a policy disagreement?
2. Ron Paul is historically challenged. He argues that by embracing isolationism, he fits within a Republican tradition stretching back to Eisenhower "who stopped the Korean War" and including Nixon "who stopped the war in Vietnam." Let's recap. Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against China. It was the Eisenhower administration that had a hand in toppling Iran's Mohammad Mossedegh (an intervention that Paul has elsewhere cited as causing the U.S. grief 25 years later when the Islamists took power). Eisenhower also intervened in Guatemala, Cuba (planning for the Bay of Pigs began during his tenure) and Lebanon.
Nixon, an isolationist? Most observers, whatever they may make of detente with the USSR and the opening to China, agree that Nixon was an emphatic internationalist. For the record, he intervened in many countries including Chili, Peru and Cambodia. And he saved Israel by resupplying her during the Yom Kippur war. Neither his successes nor failures grew out of a Paulesque policy of "minding our own business."
3. Ron Paul is unserious. Suggesting that you will eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office is ridiculous. These are bumper stickers, not serious reform proposals.
4. Ron Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists. As syndicated radio host Michael Medved has pointed out, Ron Paul's newspaper column was carried by the American Free Press (a parent publication of the Hitler-praising Barnes Review). Paul may not have been aware of this. But though invited by Medved to disavow any connection, Paul has so far failed to respond.
Paul has appeared on the Alex Jones radio program not once, not twice, but three times. Jones is the sort who believes that black helicopters are coming to impose a police state on America. He is quite concerned about the Bohemian Grove, the Bilderbergers, the federal election system (it's rigged, of course) and so on. Naturally, he believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Ron Paul has even appeared in a Jones film, "Endgame," the point of which is apparently that the Bilderbergers are plotting to control the world. They've already got Europe (through the European Union) and now are on the verge of securing America by means of a North American union that would unite Mexico, the United States and Canada.
Even if Paul says nothing insane in this film, his appearance alone calls his judgment into question. I have not seen "Endgame," but I have heard a tape of Paul on the Jones program just after the 2006 election. Jones asked the congressman whether the victory for the Democrats wasn't a "rejection of neo-fascist imperialism." Paul replied, "Yeah . . . This was a healthy election as far as I'm concerned."
Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of a number of racist, neo-Nazi and conspiracist websites. While Paul cannot be held accountable for the views of cranks and kooks, he can disavow their support and return their checks. He received $500 from Don Black, the proprietor of Stormfront.org and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. He has not yet returned it.
Moreover, Paul seems to be playing a sly game with his conspiracy-minded fans. He does not explicitly endorse the crazier theories out there, but he hints at dark forces in the U.S. government threatening our liberties, he inveighs against the "neo-cons" (shorthand for Jews in some circles) and he gives aid and comfort to the paranoid by appearing on their favorite radio shows.
No, Ron Paul is not my candidate. Not for president. He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians.
I thought about voting for Libertarian Party in 04 but didn’t. One of the reason why I would never vote for the Libertarian Party is cause in what they did in 04 which was trying to change the results in Ohio...
I’m old enough to remember when ‘states rights’ was code for segregation and denying civil rights to blacks and other minorities. When they hear Paul speak out for ‘states rights’, then they believe his election will give them a free ride to re-establish their segregationist and racist policies.
“And allow me to LOL at your asinine statement that a man who has served in congress for over 20 years, and who has consistently voted according to our constitution and to PROTECT our liberties, and wants to protect our country from the intentional destruction of our sovereignty is anti-American.”
Wow, 20 years. So tell us what legislation did he write/sponsor that was successful in passing?
You see 20 years is a long time to accomplish absolutely nothing, and you want to give him a promotion?
Boy I wish you were my employer.
“The more important point I would like to make, though, is that even if Ron Paul were to ascend to the Presidency, it would not at all be a bad thing for liberal social policy. Paul is opposed to the income tax and wants to eliminate host of federal agencies, ranging from the IRS to Homeland Security. He is ardently pro-gun ownership, anti-choice and would definitely veto any bill that would expand health care benefits. Yet, none of these domestic positions he holds would likely have a practical impact on the actual functioning of government were he to take office in 2009. As President, he would hold no authority to unilaterally eliminate federal agencies or cut taxes or benefits. Any changes would have to take place with the approval of Congress.”
http://seacoastconnects.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4172
What is this? Socialists supporting Ron Paul as the “pragmatic choice.”
For shame Ron Paul, for shame.
You mean the biased MSM polls, the ones where they most likely phoned the remnant of the GOP base who support Bush and the war? I think what I posted here is a more accurate reflection of how popular he is.
"They are still looney leftist nutjobs, they are not Republicans, and they are certainly not conservatives."
Sorry, but you're simply wrong. I've spent time on Paul supporters sites and forums, and these people are definitely not lefties. They are VERY pro-constitution, pro-sovereignty, liberty-minded people who care very much about what is happening to this country. There are many conservatives there, independents, libertarians. And as I said before, there are a few Democrats who crossed over, but since what Paul stands for is the opposite of what leftists want, once they realize that, they're gone.
"You are not going to brow beat any conservative into supporting Ron Paul by insisting that most republicans support him,"
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said "most Republican support him." I think the Republicans who support him are the ones who are disillusioned with the GOP, and Bush, and big government RINOs. That number is growing, btw. And just as reminder, Republican and conservative are not the same word.
Regardless of how much money he raises from liberal democrats and nutjobs, he is not going to be elected POTUS.
If that is true, then we're screwed. Because Hillary will get in, and I don't think there will be another chance to elect an honest, liberty-minded constitutionalist to office. Once Hildabeast gets in, put a fork in it.
“If that is true, then we’re screwed. Because Hillary will get in, and I don’t think there will be another chance to elect an honest, liberty-minded constitutionalist to office. Once Hildabeast gets in, put a fork in it.”
Yet you continue to support a lost cause?
Political immaturity at its finest.
Um, I think you read my post wrong. I was not the one who said he will lose, that was Lirona. I merely said that if HILLARY wins, we’re all screwed.
If Ron is such a kook then why distort the truth about him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8
Lol! You sound a little paranoid there buddy!
You are welcome to your opinion of who and what Ron Paul supporters are, I've looked, and formed my own. I've also looked at a lot more pictures then what you posted, and they don't look all that mainstream to me.
Thanks for pointing out that republican doesn't mean conservative, that's why I separated the two in my post.
I hate to bring this up but... last time I looked, this was a conservative site.
Sorry, but I don't believe that Ron Paul is the only one running as a republican who can beat hillary. I think he's the only one running as a republican who can't.
You are not going to brow beat any conservative into supporting Ron Paul by insisting he is the only one who can beat Hillary and really, you shouldn't say things like that because the Rudy campaign has a trademark on that statement.
My son has some friends that are Paul supporters that he is trying to get to see the light. Your post #44 provides an arsenal of info the will really help him!
I can't for the life of me see why any sane person would support this "hater"!
Oh I see, delusional and politically immature it is then.
“... when RP pulled down almost one half of one percent of the vote in the general election. “
Like I said earlier. More than enough that George Bush never would have been elected.
Ditto.
Is this the new code language for kooky Ron Paul supporters?
“Cut and run supporters would never vote for a pro American law and order candidate [Giuliani] no matter who it is. They will vote for the most pro terrorist, anti-American candidate running. That is why it is a good thing if they do stay home.”
By “pro American law and order candidate” you mean fascist right? Giuliani has a long history of demonizing and misusing his authority to attack his opponents and detractors. He considers peoples speech, privacy, property and gun rights obstacles to his “pro American law and order” agenda.
Remember under Bill Clinton when constitutional militias were deemed the number one threat to America? Real threats (like jihadis) were ignored, but separatists who just wanted left alone were deemed a threat to the fabric of american society? Bill Clinton’s administration made criminals out of people who had broken no laws. That mentality still exists. Just scroll up and read.
Any candidate that shows contempt for my rights will never get my vote. No matter how much hollow rhetoric their paid shills spew about them being “pro American law and order” candidates.
He shows his own truth. And note you haven’t addressed ANYTHING the author has said.
“principled conservatives”....”Is this the new code language for kooky Ron Paul supporters?”
Ok then , how about “constitutionally minded conservatives”? Perhaps you would like to expand on why McCain’s CFR legislation was a conservative concept? Romney’s past support for gun control? Giuliani? Where do we even start there? The man is a flaming liberal who holds contempt for our rights.
“No matter how much hollow rhetoric their paid shills spew about them being “pro American law and order” candidates.”
Which pretty much sums up Ron Paul in a nutshell.
Ten terms as Congressman and he has accomplished absolutely nothing. He has no support in Congress, and everything that comes out of his mouth is just pretty empty words.
But apparently that is all it takes to get your support. Just spare everyone the disingenuous outrage at the front runners’ platforms and records. Hell, at least they have done something. It may not embrace your idea of conservatism but they have proven then can get their ideas accomplished. Ron Paul cannot make such claim.
He puts on one hell of a dog and pony show though doesn’t he?
Hell, come to think of it Hillary Clinton has accomplished more in her one term in the Senate than Ron Paul has in his ten terms as Congressman.
Pathetic and sad.
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.