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.
Reagan wasn't stupid enough to try to install a democracy in Lebanon.
People are perpetually insulted, particularly Islam. Islam only has to deal with us in trade to alleviate the situation, but they continue to be insulted and attack us as they have since Jefferson.
If we do not change the culture we are doomed to perpetual war.
No, he relegated that to Eastern Europe. Geez.
Did Jefferson invade and attempt to install a liberal democracy as a solution to the problem?
The fact that we are bloated and pampered makes the "Hard Sell" you refer to all the more essential, if there is to be an "American Future." As for the "debates," Dr. Paul has been doing remarkably well, considering that the format has been one far more suited to those spouting slogans in support of the present Washington mindset. Dr. Paul would do much better, if he had more than 30 or 60 seconds to develop his positions.
Logo:
Being an anarcho-capitalist does not enhance one's credibility.
I've always liked this defense of the philosophy:
"-- The "anarcho-capitalist" claim is actually a modest one: it observes that there is nothing the state can do that cannot be done better through the institutions of contract, free association, and property rights, and that goes for the enforcement of law as well (think of how well the typical subdivision keeps order). No exceptions to the rule. --"
No. but see the post I made prior to this one
I despise slogans and gladhanding but Mr Paul has hardly impressed me as a statesman
Most of you guys need to define what you mean by isolationist? Ron Paul is not isolationist. His wants a non-interventionist foreign policy. An isolationist wants to avoid talking with, and trading with, other nations.
Ron Paul has never advocated that. His foreign policy is grounded in the Conservative tradition. He wants to trade with all nations, and talk with all nations. Whereas the foreign policy of the current Republican administration is isolating us from the world, because of their interventionist policy that favors preemptive strikes, and subsidies to countries that do as they are told. This is not Conservative, it is Neo-Conservative. Neo-conseravatism has its roots in the Democratic Party of the 1960s. The American people need to be told the different alternatives to our foreign policies. To often Neo-Conservatives just dismiss foreign policy ideas that are legitimate, but don’t fit within their ideological framework by labeling them as “isolationist”, or “not mainstream”. This is Un-American and stifles debate.
But good luck convincing the masses that it is their responsibility
Did we invade Eastern Europe and with the establishment of a democracy as a military objective?
He's mistaken about Iraq, but not about our constitutional trip on the road to serfdom.
The tragedy is that we are turning a victory into a defeat, simply because of our confusion. (See Victory.)
William Flax
Oh, how cute. The military objective was to overthrow the Saddam regime.
Good point.
Whether by "crack" troops or by SDI, the principle was the same.
From his statements, apparently Ron Paul considers the US and Red China to be moral equals.
The Constitution is a legal compact, between sovereigns, with very different ideological values. It avoided giving the Federal Government any power to interfere with those ideological differences. My God! man, read it, then you will understanding what is driving Dr. Paul!
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.