Posted on 12/20/2011 3:57:27 AM PST by Kaslin
Ron Paul is doing surprisingly well this year in some of the early primary state polls. There's a simple reason for that: Most people in the conservative media have concluded he can't win the nomination, they don't want to get yelled at by his supporters, and so they've laid off of him while most of the other candidates have had to face ferocious criticism. I'd be content to ignore Paul, too, except for the fact that there's an outside chance he could win Iowa, which is of course, perfectly ridiculous. Why is that ridiculous?
Ron Paul is absolutely, unconditionally unelectable. By that, I mean that Barack Obama would have a genuine shot to beat Ron Paul in all 50 states, including Texas and Utah. If Hillary Clinton ran as a third party candidate, Obama would still probably take more than 40 states against Paul. If Obama DIED with 3 months left in the election and his campaign was suspended, he'd PROBABLY STILL beat Paul by a margin larger than the one he had against McCain in 2008.
Now, you may be saying, "How can this be? Paul loves the Constitution! He's fiscally conservative! He raises money! He has dedicated fans! I agree with him on so many things!"
"Let me tell you exactly what Barack Obamas strategy with Ron Paul would be. He would run a devastating negative campaign against Paul that would paint him as a kooky dangerous crank. Incidentally, his look fits right into that meme. Squeaky voice, odd, rambling speech pattern, weird head and arm movements, ill fitting suit..."
Setting aside the fact that Ron Paul already ran for President on the Libertarian ticket in 1988 and only pulled .47% of the vote, he's made a lot of comments that would scare the ever living hell out of most Americans. All Obama would have to do to beat Paul is run ad after ad featuring the things Paul has said and his victory would be guaranteed. Yes, people really don't like Obama and they would agree with Paul about a lot of things, but the American people would rather have a bad President than one they believe is an unstable radical. Read these quotes, imagine all of them being hammered home and twisted for months by the Obama campaign and its allies in the mainstream media, and you'll see why Ron Paul will never be President of the United States.
1) On Leaving the Republican Party in Reagan's Last Year of Office, 1988
I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.
After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government's best friend.
If Ronald Reagan couldn't or wouldn't balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.
I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America's direction.
I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.
2) On the North American Union
According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005. What is a "dialogue"? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union.
3) On the 9/11 Truther Conspiracy
CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001. Im tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?
HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we dont have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy theres not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isnt going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.
4) On Black Americans
If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be....Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
...Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.
(Although many comments like this were published in Ron Paul's newsletter for years, under his name, he claims these quotes were ghostwritten. I take Ron Paul at his word, but do you think the mainstream media or the American public will do the same -- especially since he initially admitted that he wrote these quotes multiple times in 1996 and only later changed his story?)
5) On Abe Lincoln
I dont think he was one of our greatest presidents. I mean, he was determined to fight a bloody civil war, which many have argued could have been avoided. For 1/100 the cost of the war, plus 600 thousand lives, enough money would have been available to buy up all the slaves and free them. So, I dont see that is a good part of our history. Besides, the Civil War was to prove that we had a very, very strong centralized federal government and thats what it did. It rejected the notion that states were a sovereign nation.
6) Ron Paul On the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
7) On Who's at Fault for 9/11
They (Al-Qaeda) attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.
8) On the Taliban, Who Were in Control of Afghanistan and Allied with Al-Qaeda on 9/11
Taliban doesn't mean they want to come here and kill us. The Taliban means they want to kill us over there because all they want to do is get people who occupy their country out of their country just like we would if anybody tried to Occupy us.
9) The CIA/FBI
Interviewer: ...In the last interview we did with a Libertarian candidate for President, he said you that would abolish the CIA, the FBI, and the IRS. Do you hold those same positions?
Ron Paul: Yes, I do -- because you know, most of our history, we didn't have those institutions.
10) On the Border Fence
The people that want big fences and guns, sure, we could secure the border. A barbed wire fence with machine guns, that would do the trick. I dont believe that is what America is all about. Every time you think about this toughness on the border and ID cards and REAL IDs, think its a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and theres capital controls and theres people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in.
11) Social Security and Medicare
WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.
PAUL: Technically, they are. Theres no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesnt say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and thats what we have to reversethat very notion that youre presenting.
WALLACE: Congressman, its not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal too, and we had to reverse that.
12) Legalizing Heroin and Cocaine
Q: You say that the federal government should stay out of people's personal habits, including marijuana, cocaine, even heroin.
A: It's an issue of protecting liberty across the board. If you have the inconsistency, then you're really not defending liberty. We want freedom [including] when it comes to our personal habits.
Q: Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?
A: Yes, in essence, if we leave it to the states. For over 100 years, they WERE legal. You're implying if we legalize heroin tomorrow, everyone's gonna use heroin.
How many people here are going to use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody! "Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don't want to use heroin, so I need these laws!"
Thanks Kaslin.
Paul is a BO dream.
Actually, several of those are brilliant conservative insights. Unfortunately the rest are outhouse rat crazy.
My thoughts exactly. Sometimes Ron Paul borders on genius, sometimes he borders on insanity.
What a kook!
Whereas every other candidate only borders on insanity.
Just sayin'...
For example, do I think that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional? That depends on whether you accept that our court system ultimately determines constitutionality. If so, that and 40 million dead babies since Roe versus Wade are perfectly constitutional. But if you're definition of constitutionality has to do with original intent irrespective of intervening Supreme Court findings of penumbras, you have a different conclusion and a different discussion.
If you're talking about legalizing cocaine, I am for it but I do not think any candidate for it has a ghost of a chance of getting elected. So when we discuss Paul's drug policy, are we talking about it in terms of constitutionality or electability or whether it makes practical sense? I think it makes eminent practical and constitutional sense but very poor electability sense.
If we are talking about his views on why we were attacked on 9/11, and whether we are in danger from a nuclear Iran, I think reality makes him look pretty silly. But when he says that we have not made America safer by our action in Iraq, reality makes him look less silly and, when weighed against the cost, reality makes him look rather wise.
My problem with dealing with Paul bots is that they jump from one criterion to another and we are always jousting with phantoms.
I don’t think any of the other candidates edge so closely to both lines.
I agree with him on legalizing drugs from a different perspective - we need to legalize drugs to take the money, the crime and the corruption out of the drug trade. The Bill Buckley position.
But he is a kook on so many positions.
Just to make sure, who is a kook?
“My problem with dealing with Paul bots is that they jump from one criterion to another and we are always jousting with phantoms.””
If you want to see some good comedy just ask a paulbot how the mighty paul will be able to close down all our foreign bases and get rid of all the federal drug laws.
They like to live in a dream world and I suspect to most of them that dream world is in their moms basement.
Ron Paul is the kook, not you, if that is what you are thinking. Sorry.
Oh okay, that’s who I thought you meant and not the author, and I agree with you
I dont think he was one of our greatest presidents. I mean, he was determined to fight a bloody civil war, which many have argued could have been avoided. For 1/100 the cost of the war, plus 600 thousand lives, enough money would have been available to buy up all the slaves and free them. So, I dont see that is a good part of our history. Besides, the Civil War was to prove that we had a very, very strong centralized federal government and thats what it did. It rejected the notion that states were a sovereign nation.
Lincoln was a liberals wet dream!
The power to coerce the States was withheld during the Constitution Convention. Moreover, the right of secession was reserved by the 9th & 10th Amendments.
"If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation."-- Thomas Jefferson
Right.....because they wouldn't have used some of the money to get more slaves from outside sources.
When the Constitution was adopted and the Union formed, slavery existed in practically all the States; and it is claimed by the Southern people that its disappearance from the Northern and its development in the Southern States is due to climatic conditions and industrial exigencies rather than to the existence or absence of great moral ideas.
As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.
Maybe there is a fine line between genius and lunacy. Paul seems to straddle that line.
The problem is that Paul straddles the line between genius and lunacy, but the other candidates are clearly on the side of lunacy, at least in their domestic policies.
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.