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."
You sound like one of those MENSA guys who embarrass themselves by posting "didn't think so" assumptions about people you know nothing about.
Maybe not all MENSA members are familiar with the internet.
Use it, read Ron Paul's own words, don't take mine for it.
Support the war, or feel free to infest some other forum with Ron Paul 08 crap.
I loved Ron Paul before 9/11. The things he said the week after made me write him off permanently. I don't recall exactly what it was but it had a "blame America first" feel to it. Such is life.
What's wrong did it taste bitter when spoon fed back at you? You have no earthly what Constitutional Conservatism is it seems. I bet names like Howard Phillips send you into a rage as well huh? Well if ones like Phillips whom I voted for over Bush in 2000 had none did their work in the late 1970's there likely would have not been a GOP majority and possibly no Reagan terms either.
It's the Democratic come lately to the GOP that have taken it over with their buddies the Rockefeller Republican supporters the type who think persons like Ford and Poppy Bush and company were great presidents that stand in the way of reform and accountability. They forgot to leave their Liberalism with the DEMs and want a form of it within the GOP as well.
I think you meant that you refuse to try to define "neocon." Let me make it simple for you. A neocon wants to pull out the values of liberty, freedom, capitalism, etc, and use government to do it. Simple. A neocon believes in enhancing and expanding the power of government, even if we surrender "a little" of these values to get an entity big and powerful enough to make it happen. Rather than see collectivized power as an evil which is to be feared almost as much as a foreign army, the neocon believes that there are "good guys" and that they can be trusted with power. A historical conservative, believes strongly that men are fallen and evil and that we cannot fix the world, but that we can defend our interests, but insists that collectivized power necessary to do this is always a danger to US as well as THEM. A neocon sneers at this as "anti american" or "cowardly" or some other such crap.
See what a simple definition that is? Simple. Try that coat on and see if you like it.
As to my "jew hatred" I am a modified Christian Zionist.
Same here.
neither do I know what you just said.
Actually, Ron Paul was at the forefront calling for immediate and overwhelming military action against al qaida and by extension Afghanistan if they would not give Bin Laden up... , up to, and including war on Afghanistan. You have no idea what you are talking about.
neither do I know what you just said.
Put a comma between "Conservatism" and "is. We got us a freaking genius here.
I guess that depends upon what you consider shutting ourselves off from the world. Paul has been very clear. He doesn’t want to stop trade, relations, but he doesn’t think we have any business being local police for every backwater country in the world. That’s a democrat policy, not republican(or used to be). 10 or 15 years ago, the US would not provide aid to S American countries unless they submit to having abortions and unhealthy, artificial birth control. They are Catholic countries. That’s explains why we’re hated all over the world. I don’t see that as “nutty.” I see that as exactly what the framers of the Constitution indicated we should do. If that sounds goofy to you, you need to read more American history.
By the way, what does DU stand for?
Sorry, but I didn't see a link, just some spew from a cut-run, useful idiot for the jihad.
"See what a simple definition that is? Simple. Try that coat on and see if you like it."
That's not a coat, it is a pile of excrement.
I can provide you with Ron Paul's own words, yet you provide a twisted pile of crap definition of what you think a Neocon is.
What an embarrassing exercise I would think for any rational thinking person.
If I told you what you sound like, I would get banned, so let's just leave it at "I never joined Mensa and never want to, and if I did, I would not brag about it on the internet."
read Ron Paul's own words, don't take mine for it.
I do, therefore I don't.
OK, I'll try Mr. MENSA
You have no earthly what Constitutional Conservatism, is it seems.
This genius put the comma where you suggested, but still, the sentence does not make sense. Is there some MENSA code in there that I don't have a decryption key to?
Try again oh great one.
Republicans can oppose the war, of course, since attacking a cruddy third world country with no offensive capability to speak of, one that was a thorn in Iran's side, and one that is in the middle of a hell-hole hotbed or war wasn't exactly a great move (though at the time it was sold to our recently-bombed nation as an extension of the 'War on Terror'). It was a misguided war. I only support it now because we trashed Iraq and owe it to its people to rebuild what we trashed rather than leave them to the wolves. We could of course leave and let them kill each other, with support from outside forces interested in seeing whether the Baathists, Sunni, or Shia gain control. At least that way our allies like the terrorist-spawning Saudis would finally have to put up or shut up.
And, because yo uturd-bomb RP threads so much, let me ask who do you support for Prez? And try not to name call or taunt - just answer civilly as if Reagan were in the room. Then if you answer who, we can discuss why. Or if you'd rather just list the values you like in a leader of the executive branch of the USA, then we came see who fits them.
And don't list what you DON'T want, list what positive characteristics your ideal prez candidate should have.
best regards
What could be more anti-American? Invading countries without a declaration of war, for one. Ignoring the constitution is another.
Tell me, why do you think the muslims are ardent haters of the US? Why do they call us the “Great Satan”?
Don’t you have any concerns of a “Gulf of Tonkin” type incidents?
Do you think Ronald Reagan surrendered, when he pulled our troops out of Lebanon, after they bombed the barracks of the Marines? Did Reagan blame America first? -Glenn
Just like the DEM's and the clueless in the GOP. Constitutional Conservatism. Conservatism based within the confines of the Constitution itself and demanding governement abide within it.
Now as for Phillips? The man and a hand full of his friends began a grassroots conservative organization that changed our nations political direction unlike any GOP changes seen since Lincoln. Phillips you have heard about somewhat. You likely know to hate him because party propaganda wrtiers says so. Paul Weyrich the founder of Free Congress among other things was part of the conspiracy as was a Democratic southern preacher and University founder named Jerry, and a retired Colgate/Palmolive sales marketing executive. Those four lit the fires of change in this nation that brought about conservative direction in this nation and a return to basics in the GOP.
One unintended result was though many people changed from Dem to GOP because everybody else was doing it. It wasn't a change in their beliefs by any means but a change in party support for social reasons. In doing so they brought with them Liberal baggage from their previous party. It's like what happened within the NRA. The NRA at one time was a staunch pro-Second Amendment organization. The very mention of a gun permit or back ground check would have cost a person their membership. Now it is their policy to support such issues. The GOP is a far cry from where it was when it took over both houses in 1995. And I bet you blame the loss after wards on the DEMs huh? Ron Paul remains true to the Constitution and the Conservative message. It is the GOP as a party which strayed from it.
Send it to me Freepmail.
I love getting quotes from certifiable wackos
Here is a link from either you, or one of your co-conspirators
hate mail from a Ron Paul Supporter
In case you don't want to click on the link, read it and weep.
"Hey stop f@!#ing deleting and banning Republicans who are for Ron Paul you piece of garbage. Just because we disagree with neocons on some issues doesn’t mean you should ban us! You act like some f@!#ing Communist who stifles all dissenting opinions. If you and your goons weren’t going around banning all who disagree with Fred Thompson’s fat ugly evil looking ass you would see Ron Paul Republicans all over your neocon front website. Ron Paul Republicans would destroy your neocon minions easily if we weren’t constantly banned you filth. You did the same bull s!@t to Pat Buchanan supporters. F#!! you and all your little posters who get away with calling Ron Paul names without any facts or anything real to say."
" Btw Fred Thompson is a disgustingly evil looking bald bastard, Rino who has no chance of winning or beating any democrat. Support your little fake conservative crony you motherF#!!er."
Yes, you Ron Paul supporters are not only smart, but have rich vocabularies too.
Bwaaaaaahaaaaahaaaa!
Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable... Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. for a great power, the 'national interest' is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns.
Now that you have a link, you have a fit for the coat, don't ya think?
Really? I thought it was based upon conservative ideals, and still can’t seem to get answers about why it’s not. Do you have some reason to think it’s better, not following the Constitution, the supposed law of the land?
What is DU?
_Glenn
Nobody yet. It is way to early to throw support. Campaigns start way too early now. It makes me sick.
My ideal candidate would be like Ron Paul, but with guts, courage and a sound mind.
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.