Rod Dreher: Ron Paul, if only we listened

The Dallas Morning News ^ | 2008-11-25 | Rod Dreher

[rabscuttle385]

I didn't vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary (I was a Mike Huckabee man), nor did I write him in on Election Day (I penciled in farmer-poet Wendell Berry). But no Texan this year did more good for conservatism and his country than the congressman from the coast.

Lord knows there was no Republican in the 2008 campaign who talked straighter.

Dr. Paul – he's a physician – never had a chance, of course. He is too peculiar in his opinions and doesn't know how to spin like a TV slick. What he had was ideas, integrity and authenticity. On the most critical challenges facing America, Dr. Paul was more right than the well-funded GOP regulars who bigfooted the campaign trail.

[randomhero97]

Don't disagree. Clinton should of never got involved in Somalia, Serbia, etc.

What people around don't seem to mention is that Saudi Arabia is the numero uno terrorist financer in the world. As a matter of fact 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. Why have we not ousted the Saudi royal family?

[arrogantsob]

The first issue was to deal with the King of Terror, Saddam, whose money and facilities were used to support attacks throughout the world INCLUDING the US. His removal by itself has made the world and the US a safer place. Where do you think the instigator of the plot to bring down the Towers in 1993 fled?

Organized Islam still has a chance to reform itself and reject its militants. If it does not it will be destroyed because a couple more 911 attacks will be enough to convince the majority of its danger to the world.

At this point we are working well with moslems in Iraq and Afganistan. If it can continue we will have a handle on the terror problem. If not decades of war and destruction will follow something Ron Paul is oblivious to.

Islamic terror has been successfully thwarted here with the weapons he has. Border issues are a distraction to the war on terror.

What makes you believe that we are weakened by Russia and/or China holding our debt. That makes them subject to losses if they try and manipulate it. People who don’t understand international economics and finance really should not speak about it. They just look foolish and say dumb things like the “...US economy is virtually mortgaged to Russia and China?” The actual fact is far closer to the opposite rather than that silliness.

Only the Left hates Bush as you express. What next “the Bush Crime Family” or “Chimpy”?

[arrogantsob]

Only after I spent a decade closely studying the period of the Founding did I understand that the Address had been totally misrepresented as to what it means, a warning against splitting the Union.

There is an interesting backstory to it as well. Madison originally drafted an Address then he and Jefferson became opponents to Washington (though they claimed it was to Hamilton) so George would not use it and asked Hamilton (his closest ally since 1776) to work his notes up into an Address. Jefferson had become so obnoxious to him that he refused to allow the name be mentioned in his presence the last yrs of his life. Much of the Address was directed at the consequences of their followers and beliefs.

You are right about the value of discussing thing with people who might have a different take. We all love the way we see things but honest people will change if confronted with the truth.

[arrogantsob]

Most Republicans understand 1800 is long gone and won’t be back. Paul doesn’t.

I listened carefully to his statements over the years and realized pretty quick he would be a great danger to National Security.

[arrogantsob]

Bush understood that the best place to protect our nation was Iraq not a border crossing where wetbacks sneak in. That is an entire different issue. Proactive offense is the best defense.

And, Slick, Bush did not destroy the nation as Leftists continually whine. He took on deadly enemies and beat them back so well that they have been able to mount no more internal attacks. Or did he destroy the Twin Towers himself?

The bilge you are passing out demonstrates quite conclusively that you will attrach only a few of the Lunatic Fringe of the Lunatic Fringe also known as Paulists.
But there are always the 2%, the perpetually petulent, unhappy with everyone, capable of electing NO ONE.

I am well aware of the dangers Bush has been faced with something the Left refuses to admit and I can list them by the dozen because I REMEMBER the history of the 90s when this problem was growing. This is deadly to your argument.

Chimpy McBush or the Bush Crime family?

[arrogantsob]

These are the costs of being a Great Power and cannot be avoided. Europe tried to kick the can down the road in the 1930s but wound up paying a much greater price in wealth and lives for that effort.

We have had over 100,000 troops in Europe for decades which are no longer needed there. We have 25,000 in Korea and tens of thousands in other countries. Redeployment of some of these forces are in order.

We can pretend that we have no enemies and allow them to grow stronger and more deadly as Clinton did but will stil have to face the music. My preference is to do it now rather than force our children to face it.

[arrogantsob]

Oh, I agree that when rhetoric meets reality reality eventually wins. Fortunately Iraq is secure and we will not need as many troops there so Zero can pull some out claiming he is fulfilling his promise.

But if another massive terrorist attack hits then what?

Given this electorate it is unlikely that any Hands Off approach to the economy can be undertaken and a balanced budget in a recession is almost impossible. Plus, there are different ways to balance the budget not all good.

[Bokababe]

"Only the Left hates Bush as you express. What next “the Bush Crime Family” or “Chimpy”?"

You actually sound too much like a caricature of "a neocon" to actually be one.

I mean, either you are a sponge for propaganda, a complete loon, or a cartoon character. You really can't be for real, because I cannot believe what I just saw you post!

Saddam, "The King of Terror" ("including the US"), what planet do you live on?

The real "King of Terror". Pick one!

Hint, his name start with "A" and he the Prince of where 11 of the 15, 9/11 hijackers came from. But one problem-- he's got oil, so he shall be called "he who must not be named".

[CyberAnt]

Just voting pro-life DOES NOT MAKE A PERSON A “CONSERVATIVE”.

Why does this seem so hard to understand. There are a lot of democrats who VOTE PRO-LIFE - believe it or not.

[arrogantsob]

Clinton did not get involved in Somolia Bush I did. Media pressure with the Stick Children in the nation’s face for month led to sending forces there in a humanitarian effort.

Saudi Arabia as a nation does not fund terrorists and has been a close and valuable ally since its inception. Bin Laden deliberately selected as many Saudis as he could because of their ease in getting visas and to divide the US and the Kingdom. It didn’t work with me since I immediately understood what he was trying to do.

More likely to depose the Royal Family there is the religious authorities not us. It must thread a fine line.
Indications are that changes are occurring there which are turning against the Islamists.

[arrogantsob]

Neo-con is another Leftist label devoid of meaning. It is allegedly followers of Leo Strauss a political philosopher almost none using the label have even read.

Salman Pak was not in Saudi Arabia. Saddam’s agents were working with Bin Laden since at least 1992 if you are not aware of this you should be too ashamed to even discuss these issues. Saddam’s ambassador to the Philippines was kicked out because of Iraq’s assistance to the al Queda offshot in Mendinao. Saddam’s agent planned the first Twin Tower attack and Saddam was found liable by a US Court for terror activities HERE.

Saudi Arabia has its own set of problems but has never been anywhere close to the danger Saddam was. There have not been hundreds of thousands of Saudi citizens murdered by the King. Nor has the Kingdom attacked its neighbors resulting in millions more deaths.

I am a “sponge” for the truth. I soak it up and much to your dismay can squeeze it out again.

[Bokababe]

"Saudi Arabia as a nation does not fund terrorists and has been a close and valuable ally since its inception. Bin Laden deliberately selected as many Saudis as he could because of their ease in getting visas and to divide the US and the Kingdom. It didn’t work with me since I immediately understood what he was trying to do. More likely to depose the Royal Family there is the religious authorities not us. It must thread a fine line. Indications are that changes are occurring there which are turning against the Islamists."

Where are you from arrogantsob? What country, what State?

[dragnet2]

Not protecting our Nation is exactly what the Left wants, a Paulist policy.

Protecting our nation?

Oh you mean as Bush looked on, and publicly encouraged millions of *unknowns* to enter this country illegally, during war time, as he rationalized these people entering "illlegally" during war, as, "Just hard working folks".

In reality, he had not a clue who these millions were that were entering illegally, as Americans are forced to pay billions for this lawlessness.

If that were not enough, he labels those American volunteers that had a belly full of this government sponsored lawlessness, as "vigilantes". lol...

You might not of realized it slick, but due to these Bush policies of the past 8 years, our entire system, all the way down to our electoral process has been undermined and compromised.

You cannot flood a country with billions in counterfeit cash, or millions of people illegally, with compromising and undermining our system. Protecting our Nation?

His administration has made American citizenship, all but pointless.

While he was protecting our massive nuclear submarine fleets that roam the seven seas from Saddam, our homeland, from our economy to our borders and sovereignty, suffered immensely.

Protecting our nation?

You like him, seem to not have a clue as to the damage done.

Bush understood that the best place to protect our nation was Iraq not a border crossing where wetbacks sneak in.

Bush understood nothing!

You are developing a patter of these moronic statements.

Allow me to continue.

Ya got the equivalent of the population of a major city entering illegally, during wartime, every few months.

This from an extremely corrupt country, during war time, and you say, "Oh, it's OK, these millions are just wetbacks".

LOL!

Bush should have made you his security chief.

Bush was protecting *our* homeland in Iraq?

You're so full of crap. Saddam was no threat to the U.S. Hell, even Rove and Bush has all but admitted that.

Did ya forget about our massive nuclear submarine fleet roaming the seven seas?

If Saddam was such a threat to the U.S. why in hell do our borders resemble a Boston Marathon of millions entering illegally from God knows where?

Why would Bush allow in tens of thousands of Muslims every year legally?

Is Bush not afraid one of his Muslim friends will enter with a vile of bio-nasty? Whats up with that slick?

Even the Bush administration stated they had not a clue who was entering from our southern border. Even Bush's security agencies have said they have discovered people from dozens of different countries entering from Mexico, some with terrorist connections.

It's no secret slick, you can bribe Mexican officials with a little cash, beer and prostitutes. Mexico is one of the most corrupt countries on earth. This is a terrorist dream come true.

Trying to convince everyone that securing Iraq was the key to Americas safety is bunk. No one buys that crap. He'll, even Bush has all but admitted this.

No sale slick.

While Bush was spending 10 billion a month in Iraq, chasing bad guys in bathrobes all over the dusty alleys of Baghdad, he was winking and nodding at tens of thousands of Muslims entering the U.S. legally.

Why is Bush not concerned about his towel head friends entering our homeland?

No longer can you find a taxi driver in this country that isn't a Muslim.

Why was Bush not concerned that one of his Muslim buddies would be carrying a vile of Bio-juice?

This would clearly have been more of a threat than anything Saddam could do.

You're full O crap slick.

Those capable of critical thinking don't buy this, "We're in Iraq to protect America" BS.

You just keep ignoring the obvious, but please, continue to spout off with yesterdays worn out line of BS.

[slnk_rules]

Thank you for your irenic reply. I have not yet had a chance to get to looking at this claim. I hope you won’t mind a reply or two way “after the fact.”

I am somewhat disappointed that your replies do not match your moniker on this one!! (smile) Seriously, thanks for the give and take. It is nice when these things help me LEARN and not just jostle egos with people.

[campaignPete R-CT]

Congrats to those Paulites who joined the GOP and helped elect somebody to something this fall.

Many of us know from experience: supporting candidates who get 9% in the primary or 27% in the general ... it gets old after a while.

There are 50 to 80 GOP House members who completely understand that much of the federal budget is outside the proper role of the federal government. If you are of such mind that absolutely none of them is “constitutionally sound” ... all I can say is that you probably want to just live in your own private Idaho ... no constitution is required. extraConstitutionalism and exobiology are an interdisciplinary study.