Posted on 12/23/2011 5:30:26 PM PST by mnehring
(The following is a transcript of a Ron Paul article from 1990 in his newsletter, The Ron Paul Survival Report. Links to the scanned copies are here:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2rylfv7.png
http://i44.tinypic.com/wgqgeh.png
David Duke received 44% of the vote in the Senate primary race in Louisiana, 60% of the white vote and 9% of the black vote!. This totaled 100,000 more votes that the current governor when he won.
Duke lost the election, but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment. If the official Republican hadn’t been ordered to drop out, he might have won. Certainly there would have been a run-off.
Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. “Tonight, we concede the election, “ he said. “But we will never concede our fight for equal rights for all Americans.”
To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that. And if he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.
Liberals like Richard Cohen of the Washington Post say he got so many votes because Louisianians were racists and ignorant. Baloney.
David Broder, also of the Post and equally liberal, writing on an entirely different subject, had it right: “No one wants to talk about (race) publicly, but if you ask any campaign consultant or pollster privately, you can confirm the sad reality that a great many working-class and middle-class white Americans are far less hostile to the rich and their tax breaks than they are to the poor and minorities with their welfare and affirmative-action programs.”
Liberal are notoriously blind to see the sociological effects of their own progress. David Duke was hurt by his past. How many more Dukes are waiting in the wings without such as taint?
And he’s calling everyone in sight a racist.
You may want to look up the guy Paul is praising in this article and you'll understand.
You should look up the video on YouTube where he was on the Morton Downy TV program back in the late 80s (or early 90s). He certainly did speak like that, at least then. He practically cursed out Curtis Sliwa's wife and was screaming a lot of one-word epitaphs.
“If you are indeed a Paul supporter, it’s weird that you admit to “having a good laugh” when your candidate’s record threatens to torpedo his campaign.”
Not really. I’m not so blind a supporter of any candidate that I’m going to say that the moon is made of green cheese in order to support them. I already have a messiah, his name is Jesus Christ. I don’t need another one.
As for this thread, what I found so funny and continue to find funny is the unrelenting drumbeat of over-the-top criticism of Ron Paul.
Let me shock you all by criticizing Ron Paul in a way that no-one here has.
There's a pattern in his life which suggests strongly that he's easy to take advantage of. Yes, this is a criticism of him as a Presidential candidate. What would it be like to have a man in the White House that's easy to take advantage of? Wouldn't that mean America was going to be taken advantage of?
Per the previous note, here is a video of Paul around the time of the writing this article (just a few years before). He didn’t have the composed, old guy voice he has now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvVqDEQG8bY
Lots of one word for emphasis sentences in that, lots of ‘baloney’ type outbursts.
paultards suck. That’s my official policy.
Best damned policy I've ever heard. Better'n Allstate's even.
Hank
"You know how there are some thoughts that we have on a daily basis that probably shouldn't be put down on paper or on the interwebs? That was one of them."
Who died and made you the custodian of all that is virtuous? Corbe made an honest post stating a historical fact. Just because there are some who may find it distasteful is not a reason to hide the truth.
You, mnehring are a dishonest dissembler of the truth and have no sense of what is right. You, and people who think like you are the problem in this country.
Duke didn’t win the Republican primary—Louisiana didn’t have party primaries at such time. LA had every candidate, irrespective of party, run on the same ballot in the “jungle primary.” Democrat Edwin Edwards finished first in the jungle primary, with Duke finishing second and Republicsn Buddy Roemer finishing third. Since Edwards didn’t get 50%+1 of the vote, he went into a run-off against Duke, and Edwards trounced Duke 61% to 39%.
I don’t like Ron Paul but let me say that this and other stories are nothing more than the RINO attack machine in full mode to prevent anyone from overtaking Mitt Romney in Iowa on January 3rd.
Its as simple as that.....
RINO ATTACK MACHINE ALERT.....
Maybe its just me..but do you notice how junk seems to suddenly surface whenever someone else other than Romney has a lead in Iowa?
That old wives tale is absolute B.S. I can't locate the link that explains how that erroneous conclusion came from a legitimate study that contained an erroneous calculation.
Just ask any competent Mechanical Engineer for an opinion on that nonsense.
Same with global warming where less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the atmosphere is supposed to have such a huge affect.
Only if you don't have a coat or a snowsuit on...
If everything else is insulated, the heat flow from the head will be more significant.
(But, iirc, the real number is closer to 40%).
Very pleased to see this posting.
Good work, mnehring!!!
MERRY CHRISTmas!!
LOL.
Blessed and Merry CHRISTmas, JeanS!!
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.