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.
And I am not Catholic.
In fact, I doubt we will be able to leave in the forseeable future. We need to fight the terrorists on their home ground. Iraq's it.
What about the attack in Spain, how many points go to the Spaniards themselves? The attack in the UK? The attack in Bali? What about the Muslims bombing EACHOTHER in Palestine? What about the Muslim extremists beheading Christian aid workers for not submitting to the will of Allah? Or executing Chinese workers for being heathens? You are a complete fool if you think you can rationalize the behavior of these culturally backward short bus rejects. Do not apply western philosophy to cultures that reject it. These are the same people who think that a woman walking down the street in revealing clothing is responsible for her rape. I have no interest in understanding them - I want NOTHING to do with them, and would be content if they all were to jihad amongst themselves and not a single camel rapist was left tomorrow morning.
As I have outlined in this comment (post 4) and this comment (post 15), and this comment (post 29), OBL and his ilk need no underlying cause to hate the western world (these excuses about American interference simply serve as convenient pretext to present to other brands of America haters and broccoli spined). We are 'kafirs' who need to either convert or die; a world-wide caliphate (rebirth of the caliphate followed by its extension) has been their goal for centuries.
What is America guilty of? We are guilty of enriching them (oil) and arming them in the conventional sense (cold war). That makes reprisal more complicated and has endowed them with a mechanism to manipulate us. If you want my foreign policy views (admittedly extreme), see my FR homepage.
Gotta love your high minded debate style.
I gave Ron Paul my ears until I heard him say we should ask Al Qaeda why they are angry at us
To the shores of Tripoli.
Exactly, which is why Ron Paul can never, ever be CIC.
He could do better. Why don't you tell him what he needs to say.
We agree.
This is not the first time we have been called upon to serve.
Oh frabrous joy ~ then there's the part about shutting off oil exports to Japan over their behavior in their war in Japan.
They had 60 days worth of oil ~ they could run their industry or they could invade Indonesia to get more oil.
They invaded Indonesia ~ along the way they disabled our ability to retaliate from the Philippines, or that of the Brits to retaliate from Malaya or Singapore.
The Japanese actually had control of the situation ~ not our meddling. All they had to do was stop chopping off Chinese heads and raping Chinese women.
Along with East Berlin and Russia.
Yeah, that ‘isolationism before WWII’ was really something.
We had Army bases in the Philippines, a blue water Navy in Hawaii, we were shipping arms and other supplies to Great Britain, and we engaged in fire fights with U boats off the Atlantic coast. We embargoed Japan. All during ‘Isolationism’.
Sometimes I think posters here repeat what they hear without studying much history. What would you have done in Depression America? Declare war on Germany for invading France? Poland? Britain? Attack Japan for the Rape of Manchuria?
You are using "idealogical" in a very strange sense. Paul is the chief exponent of strict interpreation of the Constitution--i.e., strict limitations on Federal power. That does not lend itself to ideological pursuits--rather precisely the opposite.
It is precisely because the Administration has gotten into the mire of trying to force ideology on others, that it has gotten into trouble. It is his ideological stubborness, which leaves the President unable to adjust to changing conditions. Paul, on the other hand, by being true to the Constitution, would maximize individual responsibility again--thus bring all of us into the picture--the same concept that makes the market economy work. But that is not based upon ideology, but legality and nature. In place of a Federal Government trying to superintend American education, or Health Care--which are every bit as stupid as the planned Economy, which Reagan tried to rescue us from--we would go back to our true strengths.
In foreign policy, we would again offer friendship to the world, but recognize that the world is not "One"; that we are diverse peoples, with diverse values, diverse natures; that respect begets respect, and meddling begets various things which are not desirable. On the other hand, as a true Jeffersonian, Paul would again "punish the first insult! (Do those attacking Dr. Paul even remember when Jefferson established that as an essential for traditional American foreign policy? Foreign Policy)
William Flax
The constitution isnt idealogical?
That’s a bit harsh. Paul is certainly not an ally of the likes of Rosie and Michael Moore. He’s an old fashioned small government guy who likes to make ‘Constitutional’ arguments for his positions.
You don’t have to agree with him to refrain from smearing the man. I don’t agree with him, but he is no America hater. He’s hardly a threat to the survival of the country.
Then you'd best stay away from an Army war college because they will be studying exactly that. It's usually considered a good idea to know your enemy's motivation.
That is an ideology. And one that I subscribe to on most fronts, but This is 2007 and it is tough to get back to our roots. We are bloated and pampered today. Ron is pushing a hard sell, and not doing a particularly effective job of it in the debates.
He's no threat as he won't win the nomination, but that doesn't mean he can't be ridiculed -- which is not a smear.
When did Dr. Paul advocate appeasement? He did not oppose going after Al Qaida. He is a Jeffersonian. It is basic to traditional Jeffersonian foreign policy, that you "punish the First Insult." That is hardly appeasement.
On the other hand, you cannot extrapolate from punishing an insult to embarking on adventures intended to change other people's cultures. And you certainly cannot extrapolate from the Constitutional duty to declare Wars, if War is indeed necessary.
William Flax
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.