Posted on 01/01/2012 8:38:01 PM PST by Steelfish
Ron Paul’s Quest To Undo The Party of Lincoln
Michael Gerson January 1
Let us count the ways in which the nomination of Ron Paul would be groundbreaking for the GOP.
No other recent candidate hailing from the party of Lincoln has accused Abraham Lincoln of causing a “senseless” war and ruling with an “iron fist.” Or regarded Ronald Reagan’s presidency a “dramatic failure.” Or proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use.
Or called America the most “aggressive, extended and expansionist” empire in world history. Or promised to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection from South Korea. Or blamed terrorism on American militarism, since “they’re terrorists because we’re occupiers.” Or accused the American government of a Sept. 11 “coverup” and called for an investigation headed by Dennis Kucinich. Or described the killing of Osama bin Laden as “absolutely not necessary.”
Or affirmed that he would not have sent American troops to Europe to end the Holocaust. Or excused Iranian nuclear ambitions as “natural,” while dismissing evidence of those ambitions as “war propaganda.” Or published a newsletter stating that the 1993 World Trade Center attack might have been “a setup by the Israeli Mossad,” and defending former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke and criticizing the “evil of forced integration.”
Each of these is a disqualifying scandal. Taken together, a kind of grandeur creeps in. The ambition of Paul and his supporters is breathtaking. They wish to erase 158 years of Republican Party history in a single political season, substituting a platform that is isolationist, libertarian, conspiratorial and tinged with racism. It won’t happen. But some conservatives seem paradoxically drawn to the radicalism of Paul’s project. They prefer their poison pill covered in glass and washed down with battery acid. It proves their ideological manhood.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
/johnny
Boy, you got that right Johnny.
You wouldn't have believed the attacks on a FReeper pastor I saw the other night on a thread about religion. Hard to believe the attacker wasn't zotted then and there.
/johnny
FURP...
Okay...got it. If there's a reason, personal attacks are allowed on FR.
Thanks for clarifying.
I would not reject Ron Paul out of hand. At the same time I have concerns about walking back federal powers flippantly. Our enemies are real, beginning with Satan, and ending with politicians and media who think this world is all there is; who are willing to lie to the core to empower themselves. Good government that allows people to live and prosper peaceably is what we need. We are blessed wherever it can be found.
At the heart if all political disagreements are assumptions regarding human nature; whether it is naturally inclined toward good or not. Governments are established to reign in the coarser behavior, but in our case it is becoming apparent in certain circles the coarser behavior is promoted and encouraged by those hold power. They need to be held accountable, and it is we the people who must do so with our votes.
The GOP stopped being the party of Lincoln years ago.
It’s now frought with progressives and has very little interest in our Constitution. It’s only marginally better than the Democrats.
I would. He's an Iran-enabling asswipe who thinks America was responsible for 9/11.
/johnny
It’s bewildering how quadrennial gadfly Ron Paul is getting so much attention this time around. I suppose it’s a reflection of the overall weakness of the GOP field. Still, Paul is a loon who will never win the GOP nomination in a million years. It will not happen. Seriously. Sheesh..
(shrug)
Meantime, I guess we’ll have to put up with seeing Ron Paul’s name in thread titles for another month or so.
He's from here in Texas, and has a history.
I don't reject him out of hand, I reject him because I know his history.
And I disagree that all political disagreements are about assumptions of good or evil.
They are about who is in control.
With the guns.
That's politics.
/johnny
No big deal though. It's not up to me.
/johnny
It's Ron Paul's pretension that we can undo 100 years of interventionist foreign policy without disastrous consequences that troubles most of us. We have real enemies that won't quit if we suddenly "go home;" they have every intention of destroying us. Nor am I fond of open borders, particularly as regards Muslims, for they cannot simultaneously desire Sharia and respect the Constitution. Nor is quitting the drug war going to end criminal activity along the border. In fact, there is a real likelihood that a Mexican crime industry suddenly deprived of a cash flow will become very desperate at the expense of public safety. So Paul is wrong on several counts in my judgment, but that does not mean his positions on regulation, spending, or Federalism are that foolish at all.
What part of the post is incorrect?
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.