Posted on 10/14/2009 9:10:18 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
An outburst at an angry South Carolina town hall meeting has exemplified the growing fissure in the Republican Party across the nation. “We're not going to be the party of angry white guys," liberal Republican Senator Lindsay Graham told a Greenville, South Carolina, audience at Furman University where some supporters of Congressman Ron Paul were heckling him.
Ron Paul responded on CNN's Situation Room October 14 that Graham's attack was unfair. “For him to ... say that everybody who is upset with the government and upset with his type of voting record are angry white people or angry men, that is preposterous. That is a real insult.” Rep. Paul termed his rallies “very diverse.”
The controversy highlights the growing fissure among members of the Republican Party nationwide.
Prompted by outbursts from loud, rude, but exceptionally well-informed voters, the liberal and interventionist Graham told the audience he was a pro-life conservative while being taunted with chants “Sotamayor,” reminding him and the other members of the audience about his vote to put pro-abortion liberal Sonia Sotamayor on the Supreme Court. Graham told the audience that he was staying in the Republican Party and “I'm not going to let it get hijacked by Ron Paul. I'm not a libertarian.”
Graham then went on the attack against Rep. Paul, saying that “we're not going to be the Ron Paul party.” Graham then falsely told the audience that “Ron Paul is a fiscal conservative, but he said George Bush was a war criminal.”
Asked on MSNBC's Ed Show about his supporters' boisterous — but unquestionably well-informed — antics at Greenville's Furman University, Rep. Paul noted that he advises his followers to follow the rules of polite society, a practice he personally practices. “I tell them to use the proper decorum.... Even when Bush was president, and I just couldn't stand his foreign policy, I never went after President Bush... and I don't do this with Obama.”
The leftist host of MSNBC's Ed Show, Ed Schultz, was undoubtedly reveling in the fissure among Republicans. “It looks like you are becoming a target of the Republican Party. How do you feel about that?” Rep. Paul stressed that every House Republican has cosponsored his Audit the Fed bill, H.R. 1207: “What about the fact that I have every single Republican on the audit bill in the House of Representatives?” Rep. Paul also has 120 Democratic sponsors for the legislation.
Graham told the Furman University audience that “I'm not going to leave the party; I'm going to grow the party.” But with the notable exception of Rep. Paul's presidential campaign last year, many GOP rallies last year did indeed look like Grand Old Party (with an emphasis on the word “old”) rallies. The neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party represented by Graham represents an aging and shrinking electoral demographic.
Rep. Paul told the Ed Show that “we're the ones who reach the college kids, the young people. How many Republicans really reach the teenagers and the college kids. Those are the people that are gathering at our rallies. And they have to ask why. What are they going to do with the party ... pandering to the old country club Republicans and acting like Democrats and bailout funds and TARP funds? Those kind of things just won't hold up for the Republican Party. That's why the Republican Party has been losing. And we're suggesting that they live up to what they profess to believe in.”
I don't think that either will. Or Olympia Snowe. Or Songbird McCain. Or Mitt Romney, Et Cetera. I think that the rest of us should, and form a Conservative Party.
Your statement implies two things: one, that Paul is not able to do significant good without deferring to "a true conservative," as if he himself is not a true conservative to begin with, but a false one; and two, that somehow libertarian and Constitutionalist conservatives would be willing to just roll over and play dead for "true conservatives."
I'm not playing that game any more.
Either you follow the Constitution--all of it, not just the parts you like--and reduce the size of the Federal government to its Constitutional boundaries, or get out of my way, as I have no use for you.
I am also curious about the charge that Ron Paul is an isolationist. Isolationists usually favor protectionist measures, in addition to non-intervention; Ron Paul, on the other hand, has a rather extensive record of supporting free trade, as well as "peace, commerce, and honest friendship" to foreign States that will reciprocate. In other words, he doesn't sound like an isolationist to me, unless you're using a different definition that nobody but you knows about.
Lindsey needs a makeover.
I Binged the names and Email addresses of some South Carolina newspapers. I submitted a letter to the editor of The Aiken Standard explaining that I periodically contact Graham’s office to remind him that people have not forgotten that he addressed LaRaza, that racist anti-American Mexican group and referred to Americans who did not want amnesty for millions of illegal aliens as bigots. I will work my way through the list of papers next week.
In my letter I described my disgust at seeing Graham almost every time I turn on the tube. I mentioned that Graham is on TV almost as much as Barack Obama. Graham is trying to repair his image. I plan to do every thing I can to prevent that from happening.
I think it might be a good idea if others contacted South Carolina papers and reminded readers of what Graham did. The man is a traitor and the voters of South Carolina need to be reminded of that before election day.
>>>The leftist host of MSNBC’s Ed Show, Ed Schultz, was undoubtedly reveling in the fissure among Republicans. “It looks like you are becoming a target of the Republican Party. How do you feel about that?” Rep. Paul
MSNBC is a natural fit with Ron Paul, the man endorsed for president by Cindy Sheehan. Ed Schultz, Ron Paul, Cindy Sheehan, birds of a feather. And generally certifiable.
“Were not going to be the party of STRAIGHT white men either”
When will my good friends in South Carolina remove this fool, Lindsey, light shoes, Graham from the stage is my ONLY question?
Oh, so now the divisive problem is a cat fight between a fruitcake and a nutbag. Glad to know that.
This debate was not settled in 2000. With PJB and Bush. And we got a OBL, Amnesty, national debt, deficit, etc.
2008, same deal, McCain and Paul. We get OBL redux.
The GOP will not change, conservatives are only used during elections, when it's ‘lesser of evils’ mantra.
It will happen again. 2012 Mitt or some other clown will be the nominee, not Palin.
That's just how the two party monopoly likes it.
I, and I believe a lot of others here consider Paul a fiscal conservative, but a "dove" on foreign policy. His stated unwillingness to defend this country eliminates him from consideration as a president IMHO.
The man is no anti-semite. If you knew anything about him you would know that many of the people that he respects, quotes and credits with helping him form the ideology he represents were jewish. Most notably: Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.
Just because he doesn’t put Israel’s national interests above the US interests does not make him an “anti-semite”.
Most of all, Paul's success influenced McCain to choose Sarah Palin instead of Lieberman or Ridge. Sarah Palin has said nice comments about Paul, so when you diss Paul you're dissing Palin too.
Apparently, you guys don't give a crap if young voters and libertarians keep staying home or voting 3rd party and causing the Republican to lose. Nice attacks on Paul, but all you're doing is just digging conservatism's grave some more.
Here’s but one column about it:
The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
If you Google “Ron Paul anti-semitic” you’ll see thousands of articles...
See my post #34.
nothing in that link shows that Dr. Paul is an anti-semite.
Ok, sure some of his supporters are but that does not make him one. He already addressed the donation issue. It makes no sense to give the money back to racists so they can push their racist agenda. He would rather keep the money and use it to promote liberty.
If that is your basis for considering him an anti-semite, then you are clearly incorrect. As he said, people donate money to my campaign because they agree with me, not because I agree with them.
Please point out where he has every said anything against jewish people.
Huh?! Did you read the article?!!
Did you?!!
I just scanned it again, I don’t see anything in there where Ron Paul did or said anything remotely anti-semetic. In fact the majority of the article is talking about other people that are racist that support him; that doesn’t make him a racist or anti-semetic. Have you ever read his words on the subjects? He rejects all forms of racism as examples of collectivism which is the exact opposite of being a libertarian.
I am also curious about the charge that Ron Paul is an isolationist.
I absolutely agree. Ron Paul is no isolationist; he is quite the opposite. Isolationism is, by definition, a policy of nonparticipation in international relations, be they economic, military, political or otherwise. Ron Paul is clearly not of such a mind, and the continued suggestion that he is demonstrates that those who hate him are severely lacking in either honesty or intelligence. Of course, it is possible that both are wanting.
When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."Ron Paul is different.
Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism.
To whom can this possibly make any sense? What does Ron Paul have to do with David Duke? David Duke is a Nazi holocaust denier, and "Ron Paul is different," and so we know that Ron Paul is an anti-semite? Somebody has to be kidding.
I saw no quotes on this article from Ron Paul that demonstrated that he is anti-semitic. It is all guilt by association, and not even association. Because some number of his supporters are said to be anti-semitic (I wonder how many studies have actually been done demonstrating anything about Ron Paul's supporters, btw) he is then condemned of being one too. I suppose that means that the bigots who lived next door to me a couple of years ago, and who attended a big new mega-church in town, also prove that their pastor is a bigot?
This charge, if based on trash like this article, is no more than scurrilous slander. It says much more about the person saying it than it ever could about Ron Paul.
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.