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.
Actually he has been on Alex Jones’ show more than 3 times.
Uh, I don’t see Paul’s entire response here. I see an appologist for Paul making excuses and attempts to explain what Paul meant, but nope, no Paul quotes on the liberty issue.
Ron Paul was asked a question about Scooter Libby. Instead of discussing that issue he instead threw out some political anti-war pandering nonsense which made Dr. I-am-not-fooling-anyone-but-my-supporters look like a fool.
Spin it anyway you want, but this guy is just not all there. His comments were made for his varied audiences. Not only does he had to pander to the Cato lot, but he has the moveon.org and DU crowds to consider also. You know, his money supporters?
Why you can’t see that is beyond me.
Okay - so where is the basic conservative theory of reducing government in this statement? After all, using the Department of Education as an example, this agency exists for the purpose of writing a check to each state and some territories each month. So, how many people do you need on the payroll to do that? And how many huge federal office buildings do you need to house the people who write those checks?
The author lost me on that one.
Oh, I guess that makes it ok to accept these "unsolicited funds" knowing full well where they came from. Hmmmm
Because it will never ever happen. Not in our lifetime. Not in our children’s lifetime. Not in their children’s lifetime.
That’s reality.
The same place all the anti-American candidates get their money. The far left anti-American Moveon type donors.
You are so very right.
According to official campaign fund raising filings posted at http://www.opensecrets.org/, Ron Paul’s top contributor is well known internet giant Google. Google, with Al Gore on the board of directors, has a long history of progressive political activism, both in the way they censor search results to bury conservative slanted stories, and in their campaign contribution habits, which is solidly Democrat, with the exception of Ron Paul.
Other tech giants like Microsoft and Verizon top his donors list as well.
Among Ron Paul’s top donor zip codes are of course parts of Texas, but also heavily liberal districts in Chicago (60614), San Francisco (94117), more than 80% of which supports Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, and Los Angeles – Long Beach, which is his second largest donor area after Dallas.
What we have here is a candidate trying to win the Republican nomination by raising money from liberals across the political aisle.
This is why his fund-raising is not translating to improved poll positions.
His donors are not Republicans. So no matter how much money he raises, it is not translating into Republican support in the polls. He remains at or below 5% support in every national Republican poll, no matter how much money he raises.
The article quoted above is titled "Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous." Read the rest here.
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."
Once again, it's the exact opposite.
Btw, I've noticed about 98% of your posts are smears on Dr. Paul. Interesting, for you to spend so much time on someone who you guys say has no chance.
Yeah, I'm sure the GOP leadership is quaking in its boots and jealously eying those 4-5% poll numbers. They must be almost as terrified as they were in 1988, when RP pulled down almost one half of one percent of the vote in the general election.
Put in slightly different terms, Ron Paul got 0.47% more of the popular vote than I did. I was a teenager.
It is downright silly to think that leftists would go against everything they believe in, to support someone who would take away what they want the most - socialism.
There are some Democrats who agree with him on the war and will vote for him, yes, Reagan also had some Democrats who crossed over. But the true socialists feel just as threatened by him as the neoconservatives who want to continue the status quo.
Whatever you are talking about... it has nothing to do with the facts in my post, did you mean to reply to someone else?
It must be really, really difficult for you and some others to accept the fact that Paul has support from regular Americans, conservatives, independents, libertarians, and not just some shady characters on the left! Talk about being paranoid! lol You can look at the photos from the rally I posted, he has support from all different types of people, get used to it, because his support is growing.
“With the exception of his position on the war, just about everything else he stands for is completely antithetical to the views of socialists. He wants to abolish a number government departments and handouts, he wants to make the government smaller and he talks about self-reliance.
It is downright silly to think that leftists would go against everything they believe in, to support someone who would take away what they want the most - socialism.”
You confuse their current support now with their possible support when the votes are counted. It’s OK now to spam some internet polls, it’s OK now to give a few bucks, it’s even OK now to show up at a rally or two especially if this sows a bit of dissention in their opponents ranks. But, you are correct, when the votes are too be cast, they will vote the most socialist candidate available having done as much damage at little cost to their GOP challengers.
Hmm, all that was listed last night was camerakid, no matter, I’ve never heard of Mona Cheron, apparently she is some sort of columnist or something.
Nixn did slowly de-escalate the conflict in Vietnam, the South Vietnamese Govt was stadning up for itself with US Support, until the Congress pulled the support for them in 1974.
The Commies promptly broke their traty obiligations and invaded S. Vietnam and we abandoned them when they needed help the most.
“I can’t speak for anyone else, but if I had to guess why some stormfront types support him, it is probably because he wants the foreign aid to Israel to stop. But here’s the important point that the bonehead racists may not realize: He also wants us to stop sending billions to Israel’s enemies, he wants the aid to BOTH sides to stop.”
Could be. But it is more likely that they see the federal government as their enemy. After all, it was the federal agencies such as the FBI and IRS who have been most effective in securing criminal convictions against them for their racist views. Since Paul has promised to close their greatest and most effective enemies, they support Paul.
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.
Sure, that’s why he’s polling so high in the Republican polls.
I’m not paranoid about Ron Paul, not at all. These threads are both an amusement and an embarassment to Free Republic. I read them for amusement and I post when the comments by the paultards become an embarassment to conservatives.
The article you linked to is a joke. Quoting “self-described Republicans” who support Ron Paul is ridiculous. Every looney leftie kook who supports Ron has of course switched their party affiliation to republican and are now “self described Republicans.” It changes nothing. They are still looney leftist nutjobs, they are not Republicans, and they are certainly not conservatives.
You are not going to brow beat any conservative into supporting Ron Paul by insisting that most republicans support him, besides being a ridiculous notion, its simply not true and the polls prove that.
Barabara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi liberal democrats support Ron Paul, and along with the likes of stormfront and 9/11 truthers, they donate money and yes, they can look pretty normal at first glance, right up until they open their mouths. Each, for their own reasons, see Ron Paul as a means to an end, and I have no desire to join their ranks and raise a banner for their cause.
Regardless of how much money he raises from liberal democrats and nutjobs, he is not going to be elected POTUS.
I can understand part of it. Dishonest campaigning and ads. Nevadans for America.org is running radio ads stating Paul Is the ONLY candidate committed to securing our borders and ending illegal immigration. 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?
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.