Posted on 01/02/2012 12:19:23 PM PST by Kaslin
I know that every candidate has passionate supporters, but it’s obvious that Ron Paul’s followers are especially passionate to the point of being downright touchy whenever he is strongly criticized. Or am I being unfair in my assessment?
Last week, I received an email via Townhall from an apparent Ron Paul supporter. He wrote, “You want war with Iran send your own [expletive] kids, not mine. Stop sucking up to Isreal [sic]. What a piece of [expletive] this Townhall spews. One can clearly see your [sic] for the Tea Party of Hate. I know becuase [sic] of your hate for Ron Paul.”
Now, the funny thing is that, in several dozen Townhall articles written in 2011, I mentioned Iran a total of twice (in passing, at that), I mentioned the Tea Party twice (in the space of one article, without criticism or endorsement), and most importantly, I never once mentioned the name of Ron Paul. Not once! Yet somehow I am fashioned a Ron Paul hater.
Obviously, this is just one email from an anti-Israel, anti-Tea Party, profanity-using, spelling-challenged reader, and in no way do I judge Ron Paul or the rest of his supporters by one foolish email. Of course not. And yet, there’s something all too familiar about this pro-Paul email, specifically, its unusually rabid tone.
It is an open secret that no one has supporters who are more devoted, loyal, or committed than Ron Paul, and if other candidates had followers as dedicated as his, the current political landscape would look very different.
So is that the answer to my question? Is it simply that Paul’s followers are more passionate than others, implying that they will also be more defensive and even touchy?
Or is this overly simplistic? Perhaps the real issue is that, for years, the media has seemingly failed to give Paul his due, giving other candidates more coverage and attention and even time to respond in public debates. And so Paul’s followers have simply had it with being slighted, becoming especially sensitive to criticism.
Or maybe Paul’s supporters have emulated some of his own style, being more didactic than dynamic and more cantankerous than charismatic? Maybe this is one the reasons they are attracted to him?
Or could it be that as a libertarian, he gives voice to causes and stands up for values that few other candidates believe in or espouse? Although he is a long-time politician, he is also outside the main stream on many key issues, and so, he is not only embraced as a political candidate but also as a champion of the people, an anti-establishment hero to be defended and backed with tenacity and zeal. It’s not every candidate who writes a book on “Revolution” and really means it. (Hey, when he talks about the need for revolutionary change, he’s speaking my language too.)
Or is it something else? Could it be that his positions are so extreme that it leaves his followers vulnerable and defensive? After all, when your candidate downplays the threat of radical Islam (even though its adherents probably surpass the adult population of America in number), when he chooses not to recognize the very real danger of a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran (despite all the blood currently on Iran’s hands), when one of his former senior aides, Eric Dondero, claims that Paul is anti-Israel, how can his supporters not be hyper-sensitive to criticism? (According to Dondero, while Paul is neither a racist nor an anti-Semite, he is “most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. . . . He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.”)
I actually have no axe to grind when it comes to Ron Paul, nor do I have a dog in this fight. Is he really anti-Israel, or is there a solid answer to the charges against him? Are his foreign policies naïve, or does he really understand the nature of anti-American “blowback”? Are some of his radical monetary proposals the very thing we need, or is he arguing for changes that can never occur? Has he been wishy-washy on important social issues like homosexual activism, or does he really espouse conservative morality? And is he a man of trustworthy character, or is he being dishonest when he disavows knowledge of many of his past newsletters?
These are questions for others to answer, and despite the hostile comments that can be expected in response to this article, I am not hostile to Ron Paul. My question has to do with his followers.
Why are they so touchy? Or am I being unfair?
Source, please?
Thank you. It is hard to stand for these things in my own house, but this board is brutal like that. Why did we put our trust in any rulers to start with? I have already been accused on this thread of turning my back on Israel. By a stranger, who knows nothing of my heart or my prayers. I will persevere in my belief, the long and well- documented history of Israel is to rely only on God. When they turn to foreigners, it has lead them astray over and over. I am accustomed to being attacked btw.. just part of the faith.
“Exile him and his supporters! Preferably to Pluto.”
Really? Get rid of people because you disagree them? What an American concept!
Supposing you did get rid of them.... Could the GOP even beat Obama? If you get rid of his supporters, and the tea party and young people that his ideas resonate with, there would be desperate few left to support the GOP nominee. Can they stand to lose 10-20%. Perhaps someone should examine why so many of his ideas are so popular.
“Without explanation”? “Without any evidence”? Not to be rude, but where exactly have you been? Article after article, link after link, post after post has provided mountains of evidence over the years here and certainly a lot more highly concentrated amounts in the last few months have been provided right here on this forum alone.
Estrogen.
Oh yes - quite consistent. One of the things that shows his consistency is on pork barrel spending and the practice of earmarks in that he gets his pork added into the bills, secures the votes for them to make sure they become law and the bacon comes back to his district, but personally votes against it so he can say he opposed the pork.
"My, those bumble bees are touchy! All I did was swat their nest with this fancy stick. What gives?"
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/12/23/4426982-ron-paul-on-meet-the-press
PULL QUOTE (12/23/07): Paul called the American Civil War a mistake, criticized Ronald Reagan as a “failure,” and refused to rule out a third party run.
“Why did we put our trust in any rulers to start with?”
Faithlessness, just as in the days of Samuel.
“He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
Awe- inspiring to realize God’s Word is timeless truth. Just glad I have read the last chapter :).
You left out his endorsement and stump speeches for Adam Kokesh - Code Pink Activist and 9/11 truther, who among other things was the guy who disrupted the acceptance speech at the last GOP convention on live television, went overseas to a military base and encouraged troops to desert their posts, etc.
Oh...sorry...you did include an “etc.” :-)
I see that alot too. Ideas that strip away our constitutional protections are popular here on FR if someone attaches a them to the WOT, WOD, protecting kids or if it benefits a current GOP office holder. So many here wanted to give George Bush nearly unlimited power to fight the WOT here and abroad, because they said we could trust him. The Patriot Act is a fine example. Well Obama is president now and his administration now has those powers. Maybe the next administration will be even worse.
I think the role of our government needs shrunk, not expanded. It needs to be taken seriously, not just just given lip service to resonate with the voters.
..oops I was wrong, he didn’t just call Reagan a failure, he called him a ‘dramatic failure’. At that Paul was very nasty towards Reagan. I take it you’ve never read Paul’s book, “Freedom Under Siege”. This one they never dismissed as ‘ghostwritten’. Here are a few sources for you to dig through that reference these including Paul’s own words.
http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul%E2%80%99s-reagan-revisionism/
http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2011/12/31/ron-paul-against-ronald-reagan/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2719652/posts
http://www.bessettepitney.net/2011/12/ron-paul-v-ronald-reagan.html
(more links to come but I’m being summoned).
I went to our link. It sounds alot more reasonable when you actually read the quote.
“Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world,” Paul continued, responding to the question if America would still have slavery had there not been the Civil War. “The way I’m proposing that it should have been done is do it like the British Empire did — you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans?... I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.”
Paul also criticized Reagan for not reducing the government to a “constitutional size.”
Unfortunately, even here on FR.. there is no way we are returning to the Original Intent. The Patriot Act led them to the sudafed ID requirement.. and it just goes downhill from there. If conservatives on FR are supporting big government, we are truly lost. People cheered when the President said let’s assassinate a US citizen. I know the young man was fighting for the other side, it scares me that we are all too willing to shred The Constitution when it suits our needs. Now we are looking at indefinite detainment of US citizens, in foreign countries, of course. I see no end to it. The Founders were right, a two party system will not work, and governments are easily swayed by corporations.
To top it off, some folks are calling for revolution on both sides. Clearly, they have never risked their lives or lost someone in battle.
Sux is a vacuum.
“Instead of name calling and insults we had many rather robust debates...”
Most of the folks that have been on this forum for a reasonable period of time know all too well the old saying about “arguing with a fool”.
Um, just Libertarians being Libertarians?
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.