Posted on 05/17/2007 7:08:13 PM PDT by tpaine
The Ron Paul Smear Campaign
Doug Kendall
By now, it is painfully obvious to most people in the freedom movement that Republican presidential hopeful, Ron Paul, has been targeted for elimination—by his own Party. The politically-connected elite within the Republican Party, along with allied organizations and operatives, are working overtime to make sure that Ron Paul is burned at the stake for daring to speak the truth and defy the Good Ol' Boy system.
In all honesty, Dr. Paul should have known that he would be set up in the second debate—after he scored so high in poll after poll, following the first debate—and after he made it clear that he would not tow the neo-con, police-state, Giuliani-style "war" on terror line. Everyone from Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, so-called "conservative" news websites and columnists, and even local talk radio shows have done everything in their power to define Ron Paul as a "nut-job," "dope," and "moron," calling for his removal from the debates because his views are supposedly "dangerous" for the country.
Glenn Beck even went so far as to repeatedly label Ron Paul a "libertarian"—because there is always some kind of negativity associated with it, when Beck uses it—and then used that as a vehicle to beat up on Libertarians, in general, masterfully trying to kill two birds with one stone.
It's very telling, and very sad, watching these elitists attempt to exterminate those who favor increasing freedom by reducing the size and scope of government. The latest and most sickeningly obvious attempt to discredit Ron Paul, called "Big Outrage," is coming from Fox News.
Fox News anchor, John Gibson, recently stated that the second presidential debate got a little "spicy" after "Paul suggested that the US actually had a hand in the terrorist attacks." He even went so far as to attempt to link Paul to the 911 Truth crowd and Rosie O'Donnell—whose picture they flashed, twice, during the five-minute segment, along with the tagline, "ROSIE O'DONNELL STRONGLY BELIEVES IN 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES." Gibson said that the 911 Truth movement has "infected people like Rosie O'Donnell, and one in three Democrats, and many other Americans—evidently, including Congressman Ron Paul." To make matters worse, he brought columnist and Fox News contributor, Michele Malkin, into the segment and said he would have expected to hear something like this from the Democrat debates. In perfect neo-con newsperson style, Malkin stated, "Ron Paul really has no business being on stage as a representative of Republicans," apparently because of the 911 Truth "virus." She then went on to further drive the point about 911 Truthers being mainly democrats, and mentioning something about a mental illness that typically affects people on the Left, called "Bush Derangement Syndrome."
I have lost no love on Democrats, either, but anyone who is even remotely familiar with Ron Paul knows that Malkin's attempt to link Paul to Democrats is laughable. If you look closely, you will see that Ron Paul's statements had nothing to do with the 911 Truth movement, but Fox News is spinning it in that fashion.
In so many words, Paul stated the obvious and basically repeated the findings of the 911 Commission's report:
Meddling in the affairs of others often fosters animosity and a desire for retaliation, and we would never allow other countries to do to us some of the same things that the US is doing to them—and it amazes me to see the scores of people who cannot seem to grasp those facts. The 911 Truth movement seeks to discover whether or not the Bush Administration had foreknowledge about, or actually had a hand in, the September 11th attacks—and that has nothing to do with Ron Paul's statements. 911 Truth deals with conspiracy, but Ron Paul spoke of consequences from our brand of foreign policy—two very different things.
Being an anarcho-capitalist, I do not care for government—small or otherwise—but Ron Paul is a step in the right direction, and he is certainly the most freedom-oriented and fiscally responsible candidate in the Republican stable—and it says a lot about the Republican elites who are using character assassination techniques to discredit and silence him, instead of debating the issue.
Karl Marx would be proud.
During a radio interview, Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) once said, "The hallmark of the Republican Party has always been freedom," but everything I've seen lately further confirms that his statement couldn't be further from the truth. I've always known, but this is just icing on the cake.
I've heard Republicans invite Libertarians to join the Republican Party, to work within a bigger, established Party, but this situation should serve as a warning to Libertarians, and any other freedom-loving types, that you should resist the temptation. Freedom has no place within the Republican Party (or the Democrat Party).
Doug Kendall is the host, scheduler & Webmaster of The Dangerous Doug Kendall Show. Listen to live streaming of the show at www.DangerousDoug.net.
The neocon globalists aren't satisfied that they've managed to slip in a liberal like Rudy as the front running Republican, now they've set their sights on smearing and removing from the debates the most conservative candidate of the bunch because what he says threatens their simplistic worldview. Sad as to how the Republican Party has fallen sway to these big government globalists to the point to where the last small government Constitutionalist is literally chased out of the party by smears and innuendo.
Hey Einstein -- did you see my reply to your fellow cultist tpaine in comment #120? He said the same thing you're saying and I provided a direct quote of Paul's (pbuh) as well as a link to the video in which he says it. Hell, I even gave him the length of time he had to go in the video to get to the correct point where Paul says his quote.
I'll repeat it for you also, cuz I'm a nice guy:
Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there.
Are you still going to try to assert that Paul didn't say that the "U.S.'s actions caused 9-11" when there's video of him saying otherwise?
Great reply.
Typically, no comeback from the bashers.
It's not so much the liberals, in the traditional term.
What has happened is that for the last 5 years, we have had to deal with liberals wanting out troops to die, and our armed forces to lose, so that they can score political points against the GOP.
It has thus become a matter of faith that anyone who questions our role in Iraq must be a liberal who wants our troops to die.
So, along come Ron Paul, who asserts that, well, maybe we should just mind our own business in this world... and people can't even process that perhaps he might not be a liberal who wants our troops to die.
This is evidenced by the absurd idea that he is in fact a liberal, or a democrat.
At a time when the intense debate is about what to do currently with where we are, it is useless to bring up a point such as the one Ron made. If he is trying to advance his good points of better government by using the limits of the Constitution as a strength, keeping the message on point is of the utmost importance.
Knowing that he is a marginal candidate, why did he not advance his principles, in general, rather than going off into such a useless dead end that could be so easily mischaracterized?
You didn't ignore me because you posted a reply to me; what you ignored was the substance of my posts in #120 and #138 just as I knew you would.
I proved you wrong with links to video of Paul in #120 and I proved that you've supported contradictory ideas in #138. You're afraid to answer the substance of those posts, but maybe that's just your "high minded debate style."
Are you sure you're not a Democrat or a Muzzie because you sure avoid the facts like one?
Baloney.
The Jihadists would come after us even if we were not in Iraq and Saddam was still alive and in power.
Jihadism is in their religion the way they interpret it and they hate our freedoms and culture enough to do what they do anyway.
It’s what they do.
Good criticism. - Paul is not known for his logical finesse.
If he is trying to advance his good points of better government by using the limits of the Constitution as a strength, keeping the message on point is of the utmost importance.
I agree with you, and Paul would be wise to expand on his constitutional points.
Knowing that he is a marginal candidate, why did he not advance his principles, in general, rather than going off into such a useless dead end that could be so easily mischaracterized?
Good question, best answered by the '60 second sound bite' format of the debate.
While not a RP supporter, I was hoping he would stick on message and drive home the strict adherence issue. If he had done that, without getting cute with stuff like his usage of the 911 report lanquage, he would have been harder to marginalize and more useful to advancing the issue of constitutional utility.
Sure, he is getting beat up -- he only has himself to blame, IMHO.
No -- my best shot was providing video proof that you were wrong. You're afraid to answer the substance of what I wrote in #120 and #138 so you focus on the word "cultist."
I'll let you have the last frothing word as I'm done with you.
"-- Meddling in the affairs of others often fosters animosity and a desire for retaliation, and we would never allow other countries to do to us some of the same things that the US is doing to them --"
Seems to me the above is a fairly simple concept; - why so many here at FR blow up about it [like Guiliani] is a minor mystery.
Sauropod:
Baloney. The Jihadists would come after us even if we were not in Iraq and Saddam was still alive and in power.
Of course they would. No one [including Paul] is saying otherwise.
Jihadism is in their religion the way they interpret it and they hate our freedoms and culture enough to do what they do anyway. It's what they do.
Do you expect an argument from me?
I'm not defending Paul's misconceptions about Iraq. I'm defending his record as a constitutionalist/patriot.
Check out post 150, by JerseyHighlander:
Paul almost immediately brought forth a bill of Marque and Reprisal that would have allowed anyone in the world to track down and kill the Al Qaeda and Taliban officer corps, for a just reward from the US Treasury.
Google 'Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001'
Thanks for the clarification.
I agree with you that Paul has been (in the past) a constitutionalist and a patriot. I have been a great admirer of his in the past.
The Ron Paul I saw Tuesday and the PMSNBC debate was not that man. ‘Pod.
Rep. Paul has said that he would not take another party’s nomination, that he is only running for the Republican nomination. I wonder if the way he’s been treated might change his mind.
Trying to label Ron Paul as a conspiratorialist is ridiculous. He isn’t saying we did 9/11, as Rosie and otehr loons are. He says that certain things that we do triggered it. That’s a different thing.
Now, I think that the Islamofascists’ resentment of us has more to do with the fact that we’re the world power that they think they should be (they’ll set up the caliphate just as soon as they decide which one of themis to be the caliph) and with the perception of our culture from movies, TV, music, and the like, which makes our culture look even more decadent than it already is. They probably fear for their daughters.
Nonetheless, they’d hate us for those reasons even if we completely withdrew from the Middle East.
Trying to label Ron Paul as a conspiratorialist is ridiculous. He isn’t saying we did 9/11, as Rosie and otehr loons are. He says that certain things that we do triggered it. That’s a different thing.
Now, I think that the Islamofascists’ resentment of us has more to do with the fact that we’re the world power that they think they should be (they’ll set up the caliphate just as soon as they decide which one of them is to be the caliph) and with the perception of our culture from movies, TV, music, and the like, which makes our culture look even more decadent than it already is. They probably fear for their daughters.
Nonetheless, they’d hate us for those reasons even if we completely withdrew from the Middle East.
No, and he wouldn't stand in a debate and say we needed to "understand" the "Soviet Anger."
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.