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."

[Rodney King]

Ron Paul is for smaller government...blah blah. That sentiment is shared by all here.

Yet, you support candidates who are not for smaller government.

Take this junk somewhere else.

This is not your website, and you will have zero influence over what I choose to post here.

[KDD]

Today’s American conservatives are intellectual heirs to the American revolution. Today’s American liberals have been Europeanized and are intellectual heirs to Marx and Engels who greatly admired the French revolution.

You are right.

Required reading...

Reflections on the Revolution in France
by Edmund Burke 1790

[Rodney King]

A great post.

[Diago]

According to its political correspondent Richard Burke, speaking to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, “Three-quarters of the people who decide what goes on the front page (of the Times) are ‘not-so-closeted’ homosexuals.”

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2002/05/08/anti-catholicism_at_the_new_york_times

[Abcdefg]

"I keep trying to remind myself to be nicer, try to see others viewpoints more, try to avoid making those 'gotcha' remarks that I don't like being on the receiving end of myself."

But . . . but, I read that us "Paulistinians" are vicious, dispicable wackjobs!;^)

[ChessExpert]

Thanks for the reply and thanks especially to the link to Mr. Conservative, Edmund Burke.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

I say that as a frequent visitor of the Religion forum, the most deathmatch-ridden place on FR. :)

The religion forums are like a narcoleptics anonymous meeting compared to the immigration threads

[ChessExpert]

Thanks for the thoughtful post. By the way, no one can question the patriotism of the JBS. I think that is saying something when the patriotism of some, for example the patriotism of many news organizations, is doubtful.

[trisham]

The religion forums are like a narcoleptics anonymous meeting compared to the immigration threads

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

I stand corrected. You are correct, although I have seen a few Religion threads that could give the immigration threads a run for the money.

[ChessExpert]

The New York Times knows wacko. I believe they are still on record as denying Joseph Stalin’s Ukrainian Holocaust. Holocaust denial by the New York Times. How wacko is that?

[GlennD]

KDD,
That s a worthy post from the past. I would say vitolins was prophetic.

Here we are, 8 years later, and one of the Repub front-runners is pro abortion, pro homosexual, anti gun, and pro taxes and for increased government and control. Once again, we are being told, we need somebody like that to avoid Hitlery and need to support a “winner.”

I’ve watched ball games wherein the only reason I had to root for one side was the color of their uniforms. That seems to be what I see on FR lately.

Like I said earlier on this thread, I haven’t been here, posting or even lurking for 2-3 years, and I find it incomprehensible to discover a man who not only claims, but has demonstrated by a voting record for neigh on 30 years, that he wants to follow the Constitution is called anti-American. I guess I have to ask, just what does “American” mean to folks here?

I asked earlier, just what is it about Ron Paul that scares folks on this forum? Is it scary to live without nanny state? Is freedom something to fear? Is governance of laws rather than the whim of political prostitutes something to be shunned? I’m waiting for some answers.

Calling names is great fun, but it doesn’t get us anywhere. It is always instructive to realize that when anyone tosses an argument aside, because the other guy is a nut of kook, it means there is no argument. It is saying disputation is no necessary part of a debate; merely assume your opponent is wrong and go on to explain why he made such a serious mental error. That may work for liberals, but not for anyone who thinks. -Glenn

[rideharddiefast]

Which of the collection of socialists, fascists and big-government candidates running on the Republican side would be your choice?

Any of the Republicans, even McCrazy, would be better than a white flag waving, anti-American, coward like Ron Paul.

[Ditter]

The scary part about Ron Paul is the part that you Paulettes seem to ignore. He doesn’t seem to understand that we can’t shut ourselves off from the rest of the world. When he says the goofy things that sound like he is a member of DU he turns us off and makes himself out to be a nut.

[lormand]

"And yet National Review thinks your attack is unfair and idiotic."

The National Review article is all that you guys can come up with?

I choose focusing on the company Ron Paul keeps, and the actual words HE says, not some patsy writing in another magazine.

[rideharddiefast]

I find it incomprehensible to discover a man who not only claims, but has demonstrated by a voting record for neigh on 30 years, that he wants to follow the Constitution is called anti-American.

He is called anti-American because of his Blame America First statements. He said it was our foreign policies that caused the 9/11 attacks. He has great concerns of a Gulf of Tonkin type of incedent happening in the near future. He wants to surrender to the terrorists in Iraq. What could be more anti-American?

[lormand]

"In 1998 when we discussed allowing such posters as you to share this conservative forum some of us complained that allowing posters with misconceptions or just plain ignorance about conservatism to post here would just lower the level of debate to, well, what it has become here. You are an example...and a case in point against lowering the playing field to promote debate dialog in quantity while neglecting the quality and accuracy of debate."

I must have missed the part of Conservatism that caters to nut-balls and conspiracy kooks.

If you were part of the staff or whatever at the beginning of FR, then my confidence in them is shaken severely. Somehow I think you are overstating your role in this forum.

You can't act like a conspiracy baffoon, lob sophmoric lines at me, then accuse me of going against the grain of this forum.

It is you that must have fallen off the wagon. Freerepublic should not be a forum to propagate hate against America and to further kook conspiracy theories championed by Rosie O'Donald and Cindy Sheehan.

If you think you have enough power on this board to do something about it, then I double dare you to.

Take the Ron Paul nut-ball campaign to some forum composed of like minded wackos.

[lormand]

"I’m just wondering why you seem to think that statement is something that would be detrimental to Paul’s candidacy.-Glenn"

You still don't understand. Ron Paul 08 threads are probably more welcome on some other forum than here on Freerepublic.

Everyone knows that his campaign is an exercise in stupidity..

Take it to moveon, DU or Stormfront.

[lormand]

"You are on every Paul thread simply trashing, thrashing and reaching."

I'm just posting his own words and reminding you how that is advantageous to our enemies.

I'll keep reminding you conspiracy kooks.

[lormand]

"What Paul Did Not Say"

That's a no brainer.

I'll bet he didn't say "lets win this war".

[LtKerst]

I heard Ron Paul talk for 2 minutes...thats all it took, he is a Moron.