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."
Huh? My logic is strait-forward. You are willing to sacrifice basic conservative principles at home so long as we win in Iraq. It is obvious. Every time I bring that up, you change the subject.
Support the war, or feel free to infest some other forum with Ron Paul 08 crap.
This is not your forum. I couldn't care less what you think ought to be posted here. Well, that's not true, because you are so obnoxioius about it, I want to post Ron Paul stuff even more.
If you want a website that believes that sacrificing every principle, so long as the war is won, is the way to go, then go and start one. Until Jimrob tells me otherwise, I will assume that he is ok with conservatives aho are 99% pure, yet disagree with him on the other 1%. You, of course, are a big backer of the war, but would sell out every other principle in order to win it. You can deny it all you want, but it is the logical conculsion of all of your posts.
I am perfectly willing to accept you as a fellow freeper with whom I disagree. The problem is that you are not willing to extend the same couretesy to me. You insist that everyone who does not share your view that its ok to give in to socialism and illegal immigration so lond as we win the war in Iraq is a traitor.
I like Howard Phillips, also. Sometimes I wonder if the GOP has been taken over by the Rockefeller socialists.
Someone built one already genius.
Please stop trying to intimidate me with your superior knowledge on "nuclear magnetic resonance".
I scare quite easily
< /uber-think, mega-sarcasm >
Ron Paul's campaign staff should all get canned for that one.
Period!
Ron Paul never said this, and your attempt to spin what he did say is despicable.
or that we are poised for a "Gulf of Tonkin" style raid
We are too pure for that, are we? You have an incredibly naive view of men. Look LBJ was not some wicked monster, any more than Bush is. He was a fallible man, who, when he got under pressure fabricated an event to have an excuse for what he considered a GOOD use of our military power. He was an AMERICAN! One of the "good guys." I don't think that made him a diabolical monster. It just made him another man in power who made a mistake which wound up costing WAY more than he thought it would, to the nation, to himself, to his party,and most importantly, to thousands of human lives.
Snatching back your skirts in feigned horror that someone would suggest that such a thing is possible today just makes you look stupid and naive, not patriotic.
I will gladly accept any name or title, as long as I'm no surrender monkey like Ron Paul and his minions of Paulistinians.
Fine. Now that we have established by your own mouth that you are NOT a historical conservative, but a neocon interloper who has helped hijack the party and its principles, the debate should move more smoothly.
I understand. I have a sensory processing disorder that makes proof reading almost futile. Not Dyslexia but an inability to find sentence structure and spelling errors. Spell check helps but often leaves the wrong word. The problem is I can't catch it even after reading 3-5 times.
A post to you may be easy, a post by me requires my 100% concentration of which sometimes I only have about 15 minutes of in a days time. It falls under audio and visual sensory processing disorders. Disabling as far as work goes but not fatal fortunately.
If it is so obvious, please give an example?
Lets be clear and frank.
If a Freeper knowingly supports a candidate that blames America for Islamic hate, frequents a 911 conspiracy radio shows, and propagates Cindy Sheehan paranoia, then I have a duty to fight tooth and nail against such a loon.
I did. What are you feeling is nutball? If it’s just the phrase you posed earlier in this thread, maybe you can answer my questions about what you think about it? What is it supposed to open my eyes to? Is it the same quotes you keep taking about, or maybe the idea we need real money?
You keep avoiding answering if you have any concern about an incident to expand the war. -Glenn
Read the article before judging it's content OK? There is reality fact based reasoning and there is making someone say a bigot or racist who is not. Warning the radical left uses it to limit political dissent as does the MSM. Few people understand just how it came to be and who invented it. It is called Cultural Marxism. People die over it. Wars are fought because of it else where as well as riots like we saw here in the 60's. It is very real and it's origins which trace back to post WW1 U.S.A are real. Read it and you can see how the USA has been set up for a fall. Bill Lind is not some whackjob.
“...doing the research on Ron Paul that Paulistinians refuse to do.”
Looks like he was there 3 times. Is that bad? Maybe it was three times he was banned from Republican events? -Glenn
Slept thru the debates eh?
"We are too pure for that, are we?"
Do you think our current administration has done this, or will do this?
"Fine. Now that we have established by your own mouth that you are NOT a historical conservative, but a neocon interloper who has helped hijack the party and its principles, the debate should move more smoothly."
What is this "we have established" nonsense that you spew?
Self-importance on parade.
I hope you accept my apology.
Ignore this at your own peril.
Welcome back!
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
Surreal, isn't it?
I think I'll take this as an opportunity to rant a tad.
There are the one issue "conservatives" here. They are politically naive in general, but on one issue, conservatives agree with them. Ignoring other issues, any politician who agrees with them on their hot button issue is also a conservative and can do no wrong.
There are "My Country, right or wrong" conservatives here. An admirable attitude, to a point. But there things about this country which are wrong, and which need to be corrected. Things which used to be right. Things are unconstitutional. To these "conservatives", pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes is "anti-american."
Closely allied to the previous group are the literal conservatives, who simply do not want change. Previous comments apply. History is irrelevant.
Then there are the so-called "Bushbots". Not as vocal as before the November elections, they still don't know the difference between a Rockefeller Republcan and a conservative. They still believe that a globalist, free-spending, nanny-state, "no child left behind" president is a conservative. Reason is futile.
Some, who grew up in an increasingly socialist country, never knowing the degree of liberty and freedom the founding fathers intended, and who were trained in government schools, do fear freedom and liberty, and cannot distinguish between freedom and anarchy.
Enough rant, I guess. Again, welcome back. I hope you stick around.
That fact that you ask this is very disturbing.
The link is right next to the Ron Paul 08 link.
You should have included this lil' jem at the end of your post.
Putting it on the top nullifies everything below it.
That is what Weyrich was concerned about as early as 1996. He had a C-Band {Big Dish} satellite network called N.E.T. Weyrich started it up before the 1994 elections or thereabouts IIRC. Weyrich and Trent Lott were once good friends. A split came when Weyrich saw the GOP abandon The Contract with America and began pushing left. Weyrich exposed it. Weyrich was soon removed as Chairman of the network and it was replaced by a network called America's Voice.
Large changes took place overnite. For example on N.E.T. you had conservatives like Lind, Janet Parshal, Major Garret, Paul Rodriquez, and many others. But on America's Voice you had the Armstrong Williams show {The Right Side} which was a NET show that became co-hosted by Ellen Ratner and I am not making this up either. Regular guest on other shows were ones such as Bob Beckel.
The GOP went to war with itself in the 1990's after the takeover. Conservatism won the houses but the Rockefellers took over functional control of the party. Ever wonder why after major conservative wins Chrissie and Suzie were the 2006 GOP Convention speakers? Who is Susan Malanori's husband?{SP} Rep Paxon. A house of cards set up for a fall and Newts outing was a part of the fight. The GOP doesn't like to air it's dirty laundry.
BTW N.E.T is where I found out about Howard Phillips. Paul Weyrich made sure the Conservative message got out. Yes he even had Birchers on from time to time. He also had John Lofton with a show called “It’s only Politics” LOL not that man is good.
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.