NYT: Ron Paul for President... of the 'Wackos'? [Birchers, Israel-Haters, etc.]

Editor and Publisher.com ^ | 07/20/07 | E&P Staff

[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."

[M203M4]

The Birchers were right.

No more douche bags. No more turd sandwiches.

[Mo1]

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."

Well that's very telling

[Mo1]

The more the Slimes concentrates on RuPaul, the less resources they’ll have to after viable conseratives. Let him be a lightning rod if wishes.

They are concentrating Paul and the Birchers as a way to paint republicans as racists & bigots

[cva66snipe]

I remember this one as plain as day. In the mid 1990’s Paul Weyrich had a TV show and among his guest? A man from JBS. A lot of Ron Paul’s platform would appeal to Birchers. I’ve been around a few Birchers when I was growing up. They were hunting buddies of my dads but my dad was not a Bircher. I’ll say this about the ones I knew. They were patriotic and self reliant. They were loyal to friends. My dad knew about one friends escape route on foot out of town and a cache buried along that route. This was 1960’s America. That man he knew was not a fool nor anti-Israel. Some of his predictions and fears are todays realities.

I don’t understand why this is such a big deal because JBS’s heights was in the 1960’s when such issues as the Cold War and Cuban Missile crisis were considered real threats by any man with at least two functional brain cells. Also there was Marxist promoting riots at our colleges and universities. The establishment of Marxism in the U.S. education is now a pretty well document fact. A read of Bill Linds Origins of Political Correctness details it. JBS is the least of this nations problems.

[George W. Bush]

I knew a Bircher once, the dad of a friend from school, now deceased. I think they're all pretty much old now because, as you say, their heyday was the Sixties. I seem to recall the FBI raided some Bircher nuke shelter back in the late Sixties or early Seventies. Got them for unlicensed full-auto weapons and they went to prison. What impressed me was that their shelter was something like 20-30 below ground. So those were some real Birchers. After that, I think the more extreme sort of Birchers kind of folded, at least I hardly ever heard of them again. I only ever met one my own age who happened to work as the top legislative assistant for one of the more liberal legislators in my state. LOL. And she knew about him being JBS too.

[KDD]

Here is one example of a post from 1999:

What’s the difference between George W. Bush and Clinton?

The New Australian
No. 123, 14-20 June 1999 Jim Hill

Once again, the Republican Party is demonstrating how little it understands the leadership vacuum that is plaguing our nation. This time, the craze is over drafting George W. Bush for president in 2000. What began as an effort by the country club, power wing of the Party has now grown to include some factions of issue-oriented conservatives, who have also fallen prey.

The hunger to win the White House in 2000 is so great that many Republicans will accept anyone, just as long as he or she is a “Republican.” Like the sports mentality that has permeated our entire culture, winning in politics has become little more than a temporary gratification with no lasting significance. This drop in standards can be attributed to several things, one of which is the lack of core values among many of the most ardent Party loyalists. Even some of the evangelical Christians of the so-called Religious Right, people who supposedly have a higher commitment to principle than political expediency, have indicated a willingness to follow.

Why am I against joining with other Party members and backing the Bush campaign to capture the White House in 2000? In one simple sentence, George W. Bush, better than any other individual, is an ideal reflection of the Republican Party as it is today. And that is why he should not be taken seriously by anyone committed to principle.

Republicans today, resembling their Democrat opponents, are driven more by the fickle whims of society than by core ideologies. The Republican leadership has not taken a serious stand on any issue since the 1995 budget battle where, ultimately, one concession after another was surrendered to the demands of President Clinton. There was a time when smaller, limited government was the uniting theme in the Republican Party. By their actions in recent years, however, the Republicans have even lost their claim to this principle.

Today, after five years of Republican control of Congress, government has steadily grown larger and become more intrusive. Not a single federal department has been eliminated, downsized, or even had its budget reduced in the slightest, in spite of many campaign promises to the contrary. And Americans suffer even more encroachments upon their liberties as the GOP-led Congress continues to pump steroids into the federal monster with bigger budgets and more federal programs. Today, there is not a single issue on which Republicans can legitimately claim either unity or victory. It should come as no surprise that such a wandering generality has rallied around George W. Bush as the ideal man to be their leader.

One need only examine Bush through his own words to arrive at such a conclusion. Project Vote Smart polls candidates at all levels of government, nationwide, and publishes responses to their comprehensive questionnaire on their web site at www.vote-smart.org. Bush’s 1998 gubernatorial survey reveals a man very much in love with big government and in search of a consistent set of values. (What American president does this sound like?)

In addition to his politically correct responses on abortion, affirmative action, gun control, and state funded health care, Bush reveals his true identity when it comes to education. He states, “My number one priority is improving public education.” Yet, when you run down the list, it’s obvious he believes that only government can perform such a feat. He advocates an increase in state funds for teachers and school construction, state-mandated standards (buzz phrase for state-mandated controls), and bilingual education. Nowhere on this survey does he suggest government loosening its stranglehold on this vital industry and allowing the only proven solution, the free market, to reign.

Still, some conservatives are falling all over themselves to line up in support of this man, much like they did in 1996 with the equally bland candidate, Bob Dole. Is this what has become of freedom? Is this our modern day version of “eternal vigilance?” Suppose a giant dragon was threatening our lives and we desperately wanted to arm a knight to go out and slay the dragon. Would we even consider someone who advocates stealing food from our very own tables to keep the dragon alive? Would we be this desperate to “win”? Unfortunately, our situation is not a fairy tale. The dragon is real. Even worse, so is this year’s anointed knight.

Nevertheless, the question always comes back to me: “Yeah, but had you rather have him, or Al Gore?” The assumption is that it’s better to make a little progress under Bush than none at all under Gore. It’s a good question. And it’s a fair question. But it’s an incorrect assumption and ignores the much deeper issue.

We’re all familiar with the phenomenon of boiling a frog in water. Put a frog in cold water and heat it up slowly; the frog will hold still and allow himself to be boiled to death. Heat the water up rapidly and the frog will sense the difference and jump out. This is what happened in 1994. We “jumped out.” The Contract with America, while not the most ideal legislation, was still a successful campaign, due in large part to resistance to the Clinton administration’s sudden, big government policies.

However, since 1995, the water has been heating up slowly. We have tolerated a steady onslaught of big government programs, often at the hands of the Republicans, who we thought were our allies, and few seem to be aware of the bubbles that are breaking the surface all around us.

As long as we continue this distorted logic of “he’s not as bad as the other guy,” we’ll forever maintain the climate that we have now, where liberals and moderates think they have a fighting chance of obtaining the GOP nomination. So far, history proves that they do. This not only applies in the presidential race but all the way down the ticket. The question is not Al Gore or George W. Bush; the question is whether or not we want to continue this trend.

If all we want is a President in the White House with an “R” beside his name, the polls are telling us that any “R” will do, take your pick. If this is our goal, we can be certain that the water temperature will continue to rise taking us closer to that boiling point. If we want someone who stands for something and has a solid belief system, then the choices are fewer. If we want someone who will help us slay the dragon and bring us closer to the Constitutional government for which our Founders fought, then the answer may not be found in the 2000 election. And it may not be found in either of the two monopoly parties.

Posted on 06/13/1999 20:35:29 PDT by vitolins

snip

And despite the divide at the time between those who favored other candidates the posted exchanges were civil and less weighted with hype...We seemed to know that we didn,t each have a crystal ball to see the future and that the candidate we might trash at some point in the race might very well be the one we would have to support in order to defeat the democrat machine.

The real venom was saved for Clinton and the liberal democratic party. We at least made an effort(not always successfully) not to eat our own.

[KDD]

and where is the line between misconceptions and ignorance about conservatism and a difference of opinion drawn?

I would say at the point that it becomes obvious that a posters conservatism is founded on Rush rants and Hannity platitudes instead of the works of Hume, Locke, Mill, Burke, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Voltaire, Montesqueau and scores of other enlightened classical thinkers who created the period known as enlightenment. William F. Buckley is one of the modern day members of that group. William Kristol and his bunch of neo-con writers like Victor David Hanson are not.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Read the little tracts "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" and "None Dare Call it Treason" for a quick overview of who they are. I read the latter at about 11 years old (some clown gave the book to my dad and it was a rainy Saturday). I dubbed it "None dare call it Reason." Full of innuendo, winks, nods and not so subtle hints about the communist conspiracy (it is EVERYWHERE!).

It is like reading a Donald Wildmon publication, or a really stemwinding article by Joseph Farah.

Short on substance, but sure to stir up the heavy breathers.

[George W. Bush]

a bump for a vintage post by vitolins. Too bad that vitolins is...no longer with us.

I wish we still had so many of the old conservative posters here from the pre-Bush era. So many were banned or resigned over the excesses of the Bush era. I believe this is why we have so few actual FReeping events any more.

I'm not sure that even a Hitlery appearance in a major city to advocate pure Marxism to the Dim hordes could summon a FReep. Well, except for that great D.C. chapter who are about as tough as ever. We just don't have those kind of hardcore FReepers any more. We have become more like a partisan chatroom than an activist forum.

[trisham]

"Wacko" in the original title for this article.

*************

Heavens. How surprising. :)

[KDD]

Much truth in your tagline.

[George W. Bush]

I note this typical smear in the article as well:

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."

Yet another smear.

Ron Paul opposed the Rosa Parks gold congressional medal because he doesn't believe Congress is authorized to waste the taxpayers' money on such things. He also opposed medals for Ronald Reagan and for Pope John Paul II.

He challenged the Congress to join him and pay for the medals out of their own pockets instead, something that would have meant something. Needless to say, they wouldn't spend their own money, only the taxpayers' dollars.

The Campaign Spot on National Review Online

[Notice how the NRO writer initially smeared Ron Paul as usual but a vigilant reader's email forced him to correct himself.]

[publiusF27]

Ron Paul is the sole member of either House of Congress, who has consistently voted in a manner that is always Constitutional, over a period of decades.

Almost always. There was that one time when he was willing to say that a partial birth abortion is actually interstate commerce, just like guns near schools and homegrown wheat, cannabis plants, or machine guns for personal use.

[George W. Bush]

Some great Ron Paul tidbits from the Washington Post. I think I detect just a bit of grudging admiration here:

---

Last year, Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted.

"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?" he asks. "Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"

There have been periods in history when the maverick congressman was not such a rare breed, but this is not one of those periods. Democrats and Republicans have been quite disciplined in recent years -- when party leaders say "jump," the savvy congressman had better inquire how high.

This makes the presence of a politician like Ron Paul something of a refreshing peculiarity. He continually bucks the wishes of Republican leaders -- so much so, Paul recalls, that once while exhorting every other Republican to vote the party line, then-Speaker Newt Gingrich announced that Ron Paul was exempt.

Paul is not always alone in his dissent, but more than anyone else in Congress, he is legendary for it. "When I'm the only no vote," says fiscal conservative Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), "I can usually rest assured he's on a plane somewhere."

---

[trisham]

The HTML Campfire:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1236298/posts

[KDD]

Those of us who abhor the practice called partial birth abortion can accept Ron Pauls reasoning in voting to ban this practice. If I had delivered 4,000 babies I too may have put my reservations aside.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas

He would prefer...

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

So Ron Paul promptly introduced the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2005’...

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 776
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 10, 2005

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2005’.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress—

(1) the Congress declares that—

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof—

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates—

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.’.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.’.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.’.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on such date of enactment.

SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.

[WhiteGuy]

What’s the difference between George W. Bush and Clinton?

George W. Bush, better than any other individual, is an ideal reflection of the Republican Party as it is today.

Thanks for reminding us........

Maybe it's just me, but there are some parallels between bush in '99 and thompson today...........

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Long before this time next year Iraq will be stabilized and most likely some troops will be coming home with a victory and not a surrender to al Qaeda

And you are calling RON PAUL SUPPORTERS nuts? Good God, man!

[Fester Chugabrew]

Innuendo and slander is all there is, to this sort of thing.

How dare you accuse the Old Gray Lady of innuendo and slander!

[George W. Bush]

I hadn't noticed it earlier but NRO did publish a followup on Politico's smear job, the exact same one that lormand tries repeatedly to use here on every RP thread to slander the congressman.

---

What Paul Did Not Say   [David Freddoso]

Politico stands by their blog post on Rep. Ron Paul (R., Tex.). Bad choice, I think. The original blog post, without offering a clear quote from Paul, had stated that the libertarian-leaning Republican had warned in a radio interview of the " U.S. government staging a terrorist attack." According to the original post, Paul "clearly insinuated that the administration would not be above staging an incident to revive flagging support." This gives the impression that Paul is a nut-job who thinks Bush plans to put bombs in a shopping mall. And that's the way Politico.com's readers understood it, if take a few minutes to read their comments.

It's not what Paul said, either. If you listen to the interview, Paul makes no mention of a fake or staged terror attack, nor any accusation of Bush doing such a thing "to revive flagging support." The only mention of a "staged terrorist attack" came from a Cindy Sheehan quote given somewhere near the beginning of a long, rambling multi-part question from a madman with an online radio show. To take Ron Paul's answer after that set-up and shape it into a conspiracy theory is both pejorative and unfair.

As for the "new Gulf of Tonkin provovacation" suggested by Jones at the end of his question, and assented to by Paul, it is true that several paleoconservatives — including Pat Buchanan today — are starting to use similar language, referring to the minor military confrontation that was massively embellished to justify our official escalation of the Vietnam War. But the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not a "staged terrorist attack" either.

Paul is guilty only of stupidly appearing on air with Alex Jones, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who claims to have predicted 9/11 and believes in a global conspiracy to spread cancer viruses through vaccines in order to kill up to 90 pecent of he world population  (hat tip there to Redstate).

---

Again, obviously NRO doesn't approve of appearing on Alex Jones (but also remember that Ron Paul had never even heard of Comedy Central before he appeared on Jon Stewart's show either).

I don't think we'll see Ron Paul on Alex Jones again. Certainly, I would hope not. I don't know any Friends Of Ron here at FreeRepublic who support Alex Jones' wilder theories even if the man can be entertaining at times.