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.
At some point, we're going to have to leave the Middle East. You're myopic if you think we should stay there for decades.
They should remain until the job is done no matter how long it takes. No cut and run.
Sorry, the vast majority of American people disagree with you.
Their only motive is their hatred of our God-given freedoms and prosperity.
Paul was talking about their motive for 9/11.
Paul's campaign had nothing to do with the Money Bomb. The $10 million goal was set by the grassroots, and even I predicted that he'd be lucky to crack $3 million.
“Just spare everyone the disingenuous outrage at the front runners’ platforms and records. Hell, at least they have done something. “
Change is a liberal concept that runs contrary to conservatism. While getting things like “No child left behind”, CFR, Medicare drug benefits, Patriot Act, etc passed may be “getting things accomplished”, they are definitely not in any way conservative.
All of Paul's donations came from individual donors across the country. Does he know what their political ideology is? No.
That's correct, because the individuals supporting Paul aren't rank-and-file Republicans, they're mostly independents and new voters angry at the status-quo. You also have the old-right conservatives supporting Paul. It's revealing because it shows how far the GOP base has shrunk.
Paul has no control over that.
You and I both know Paul has never done a thing to secure the border/stop illegal immigration until recently and he doesn't hold a candle to Hunter or Tancredo on this issue. Will you denounce those ads?
His stand on the borders is still better than the four "front-runners" and right now he has more money & support than both Tancredo & Hunter combined. As for denouncing the ads, no, it's all part of politics. It's the same as me complaining that an outside group running ads saying that Hunter is the only pro-2nd Amendment candidate in the race, while ignoring Paul's stand.
You made that up! I don't think you can prove that statement, as you can't prove most of your statements when it comes to Dr. Paul and his supporters.
Thank you for your respectful disagreement. And yes, I will support the eventual nominee.
“His donors are not Republicans “
The frontrunners donors are corporations and lobbyists. I can’t see how that is any better.
At least you know that Paul didn’t peddle influence for his $100 average donation.
Absolutely!
He’s a Kook!
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
Nah. Ron Paul just panders to the neo-nazi hate groups, 9/11 troothers and other conspiracy theorists, and the looney fringe left.
Now that's something a repulican can be proud of!
OK, Cultural Jihad.
“Nah. Ron Paul just panders to the neo-nazi hate groups, 9/11 troothers and other conspiracy theorists, and the looney fringe left....”
You just keep hyping Hizzoner’s strategy briefing notes.
I guess I'm completely out of the loop when it comes to paultard talk, because I have no idea what that means and I'm pretty sure I don't care.
Believe it or not I used to be a big fan of his policies until he started hanging out with 9/11 inside job types. He always impreesed me with his desire for getting government off our backs, and never votes to increase taxes or to increase spending.I can see where a libertarian philosophy would be consistent with not getting into ANY foreign wars. And I was not a fan initially of going into Iraq. But the fact is we had to. And we are there. Just saying “withdraw now” is completely insane. I can’t support a candidate who would advocate this. This is way more crazy than even Hillary’s position. Obama himself says withdrawl at this time is “unrealistic”.
Mona starts with a straw man claim that Ron Paul is an isolationist, and then triumphantly knocks down her fictional strawn man. Apparently, she can’t refute Paul on the facts so she makes stuff up. Paul is a defender of free trade and diplomacy, the precise oppposite of an isolationist.
Okay, then who is your superior alternative?
I don't have one yet. Each candidate on the republican side has serious flaws. The closest to my "ideal" would be Hunter or Thompson, but they don't seem to be going anywhere. I would consider Paul if he said something like: AFTER we've ensured victory in a stable Iraq, we're coming home. I like his domestic policies a lot. At this point in history, the WOT trumps everything. I don't like Rudy domestically, but I know he'd do what it takes to keep us safe from Islamofascism. There is not a single democrat that I'd trust to do that. After Clinton is elected the Jihadis will set off a couple of 9/11s on our soil, and she will do nothing about it. She's already assured her followers that she won't.
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.