"Urgh, how do we break this habit, guys?! I mean, quitting smoking was easier than this... and I smoked full-flavored Newport's in a box, dammit! It's not like I was hooked on some girlyass ultra-light!"
Posted on 07/20/2007 4:27:18 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
NEW YORK A feature piece in this coming Sunday's New York Times Magazine on Republican candidate for president, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, portrays his followers as including a wild mix of "wackos" on both ends of the political spectrum. Paul, a libertarian, has been gaining media and public attention of late.
The cover line reads: "A Genuine Radical for President." The headline inside: "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul."
The article closes with the author, Christopher Caldwell, attending a Ron Paul Meetup in Pasadena. The co-host, Connie Ruffley of United Republicans of California, admits she once was a member of the radical right John Birch Society and when she asks for a show of hands "quite a few" attendees reveal that they were or are members, too. She refers to Sen. Dianne Feinstein as "Fine-Swine" and attacks Israel, pleasing some while others "walked out."
Caldwell notes that the head of the Pasadena Meetup Group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headquarters: "We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country....We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next 'Star Trek' convention or whatever."
Asked about the John Birch Society Society by the author, Paul responds, "Is that BAD? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They're generally well-educated and they understand the Constitution. I don't know how many positions they would have that I don't agree with."
The writer concludes that the "antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left" may have "irreconciable" differences. But "their numbers -- and anger -- are of considerable magnitude. Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together."
Among many other things, we learn from the article that Paul had never heard of "The Daily Show" until he was a guest and referred to the magazine GQ as "GTU." It also notes that he was the only congress member to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act and a medal to honor Rosa Parks, among many others tallies, based on principle, not politics. He also is praised by liberal Rep. Barney Frank as "one of the easiest" members to work with because "he bases his positions on the merits of issues."
I’m having trouble too. But I’m getting there. ;OD
Yeeks.
As this angle develops, could you please keep me pinged (future threads, for example). Thanks in advance.
Consider yourself pinged to #99.
First, I guess I don't know what 150 page thread you mean. 150 post? I have been reading along here at FR, if that's what you mean.
I followed the link to the magazine; I looked at what I thought were the parts most likely to harbor wacky view - ie the editorials and some of the other headings. Yeah, I looked. I said what I meant: odd views. Several I diagree with, some far-flung, some pretty much conservative staples (death to taxes, etc). I think I got a sense of the magazine. It's like a punch bowl with a turd in it, or a turd with some sprinkles on it. And I am sorry you are trapped in Seattle.
I’ve already read it.
If they're not, that's true, and I can't tell if they're there or not. Uncopyrighted material is unusual in the print media, if that's the case, he should have better sense.
Relax, Puddleglum, you’re being played here by SJackson. Don’t fall for it. See my previous post. You’ll quickly realize that SJackson is working very hard to dig up all sorts of different ways to play the save-me-from-Ron-Paul’s-death-camps card. But two quick Googles is all it takes to find out the truth. But SJackson has another agenda here, one more important than the truth. SJackson is hoping to play this out, that no one will actually check.
see post 99 on my restraint to rush to judgment. I accept small gifts in lieu of apoligies.
This one, right here. The one to which you were presumably referring, when you posted "I followed your link" in response to it. (You could not conceivably have been referring to any other link, as that's the only one I provided you. Obviously.)
I followed the link to the magazine; I looked at what I thought were the parts most likely to harbor wacky view - ie the editorials and some of the other headings.
I specifically pointed you towards a thread filled with his ardent, die-hard supporters -- and the comments supplied thereupon by same -- not "the editorials and some of the other headings." Politely averting one's gaze from the loathsomeness on display is scarcely the same thing as responding to it. And I am sorry you are trapped in Seattle.
Don't be. I'm establishing a beachhead.
Absolutely not, I don't trust wikipedia or blogs, and I don't have access to the paper version. I noted that above if you'd bothered to read. In fact I provided some non functioning links in case anyone has time to check archives.
Since you refer to AFP as a Nazi publication, it's really more of an introductory piece, I assume you agree he has no business writing there.
Gee, "another freeper" did that, eh? I don't suppose you could tell us who?
If you want ot call me a liar, grow a set, beating around the bush is cowardly.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868638/posts?page=93#93
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868638/posts?page=114#114
But you got in a nice accusation, weighted with plenty of background and some Ron-Paul-sure-seems-like-a-Nazi innuendo but with sufficient room to disavow it later. Nice work.
Again, read the posts. I've questioned the sources, like Wikipedia, which many Freepers rely on as fact.
You're not telling the truth. Frequently that works, but you'd be surprised some people go back and read the posts.
And yes, for his white supremecist/Christian Identity supporters, and it's not his fault he has them, Stormfront would be a better venue than DU for posting
And enjoy posting your banner.
BTW bozo, you need to clarify this "another agenda" stuff if you have the courage.
And you put the death camp stuff where the sun don't shine, as I've noted before the fixation by a few of the Paul supporters here on Jews, the Holocaust and Israel is a bit odd.
Don’t you have a campaign to go get ready for? Or have you even registered yet?
OH, NOES!!!!!
HE'S ON TO US, MAN! RUN, SJ! RUNNNNNNNNNNN -- !!! ;)
I am glad I have never crossed paths with them. Wouldn't call that ignorance, just luck. I may dig deeper so as to know my enemy, but right now that would not benefit your argument. You still have the burden of proof to show what this gives actual insight into real, concrete personal or political beliefs of Ron Paul. I am not going to dig through poop to do your work for you. You raised the accusation, so you dig. Here is what I think might be useful for you to show us before you lob another turd bomb:
What has RP said about this magazine, its publishers, and the orgs you mentioned? Quote, source, date.
How did RP's columns get in the mag? Specific details - did he send thyem in? Were they copied with permission? Without permission?
Until you have facts, you might want to at leaat publically add that you have no proof that RP professes or sympathizes with the magazine's (or publishers' or the orgs you mentioned) positions. Could you do that for us right now? Admit you have no proof (even if you want to add you intend to look for it - I will be open to actual proof if you could find some.
If you believe that the Bilderbergs, Rothchilds, Rockefellers and the trilateralists are secretly running the world and William F. Buckley etal are communists, you might be interested in joining the JBS.
He questioned the Iraq war... the holy grail of the neo-con movement (and by neo-con, I mean all those former liberals who have joined the GOP and FR since it became clear thet the GOP was going to be the majority).
I followed the initial link from the guy who posted the wikipedia excerpt. So I am not being willfully ignorant of your link.
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.