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."

[George W. Bush]

You never returned to debate 2 Chronicles and your application of scripture.

But that's okay if you don't want to. You might like seeing cva66snipe's post of Ron Paul's recent Statement Of Faith a few posts up. If nothing else, maybe it's something new for you to dislike him for. Warning: some blatantly Christian statements are contained in it.

[cva66snipe]

One thing is for certain U.N was written all over the authorization of force by congress. Our national policy can never be determined by the likes of the U.N. in my opinion any way. That's a quality I like seeing in Israel or we did see it. Outside it's internal government they didn't ask for permission for the six day war nor for ours or the UN's approval to destroy Saddams nuclear capabilities. That act did more to set Saddam back than any other.

I'm for getting the U.N. out of our lives and re-located to a more suitable host nation such as Siberia LOL. That is not isolationism as we can still maintain reasonable diplomatic relations with friendly nations. But the U.N. has in a horrible sense become a government within itself and it's Capitol is on our shores.

[cva66snipe]

You never returned to debate 2 Chronicles and your application of scripture.

Do you mean our relationship with Israel? I posted this on another thread earlier today. I think it's just common sense.

Outside of foreign aid can anybody name me even one thing positive the U.S. Dem or GOP has done for Israel in the past 20 years? Israel is in a major bind in part because of our USSD Globalist Clowns who wish to force Israel into UnHoly treaties of making peace with those who wish her demise. We are aiding and abbeting her enemies and have been for quite a while now. When Israels acts on her own behalf The Sec of State steps in on her enemies behalf calling a truce. That is both DEM and GOP policy BTW.

If the alternative to stop our medling in Israels affairs is cutting off funding so be it and it can't happen soon enough if that's what it takes. Israels future and her survival do not in any way shape or form depend on the United States but rather on the Word Of GOD. Which of these two is more powerfull and has the best track record on Israel the U.S. or GOD?

IMO our policies with Israel are approaching a nature of which we may be soon finding ourselves fighting against GOD's chosen nation or even worse doing them harm. I do not think it is wise to go there. Had we stayed out of Israels way a lot of the M.E. issues would have been resolved by her.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

The initiator of this thread stated:

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.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That’s my main takeaway from the article and the state of discourse revealed in this thread.

RP’s statement of faith is something I’ve been waiting for. I suspected he thought along these lines, but it’s nice to see it made explicit. Although I don’t agree with Paul that the Constitution is canonical (at least that’s what he seems to imply - - - “divinely inspired”? Sheesh!) much of the rest of what he says makes so much sense that it’s hard to explain the manifestly deceptive vitriol the supporters of the various empty suits have been pouring on him except as the fruit of their “anything goes in war and politics” view of the world. That’s the reigning spirit in Rome-on-the-Potomac and has been for some time. Its steady amplification through the past several elections is reminiscent of the later phases of the period in Roman history in which the republic transitioned to empire (retaining for many decades the trappings of the republic while having long since jettisoned the substance).

I know that history doesn’t repeat itself, but there are certain characteristic rhythms that seem to reappear with great regularity, whether one is studying Western Civ or the annals of China’s dynastic histories. It looks to me like we are fairly late in the US variation of “death of the republic”, which commenced with the triumph of centralized power in 1865, and accelerated from the time of Teddy Roosevelt’s propensity to rule by decree (executive order) and Woodie Wilson’s simultaneously utopian and profoundly cynical WWI intervention. It’s been mostly down-hill ever since. What the article’s author has sensed is how out-of-control, how utterly unprincipled, the various wings of the “empire-centrist” parties have become. This, to the extent that our “rhythm” has a similar beat, is a very dangerous (or at least unstable) state of affairs.

One would be justified in profound reservations about the prospects of this polity persisting beyond the fiscal and logistical crises it faces over the next few decades, if it weren’t for the Augustinian “City of God” perspective on the life cycle of empires. ‘This too shall pass’ into something else, and it is like searching for a needle in a haystack to identify the individuals or movements that will emerge to bring about the next island of stability (or perhaps just the appearance of stability).

For a better account of how the Constitution came to be (at least the references used by the author are worth familiarity, even if one is utterly unpersuaded by his theological filters) try:

http://www.demischools.org/philadelphia.pdf
or for a brief precis of the contents, see http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north291.html

Some of the other sites that reference this study are a reminder (for those who have been tarring Paul because he attracts a variety of nut cases) that clear thinkers and profound spirits have always attracted hordes of nut cases too, especially in times when nut cases become increasingly prevalent, i.e., when a coherently governed and managed polity is in the process of unraveling and increasing numbers of its strongly committed members are being driven out of their minds by the stresses of political breakdown.

Of course, nut cases also attract nut cases, so the fact that RP attracts nut cases does not prove he’s NOT a nut case... but given the truly bizarre types that have been attracted over the centuries to individuals such as Jesus, Plato, Buddha, etc., it doesn’t prove that he IS a nut case either. This fact will not cause the partisans of the empty suits to hesitate from using every invalid form of inference that can be used to persuade the inattentive or dull, but the rest of us should be able to see them for what they are: desperate centrist shills for a political order whose center is evaporating before our eyes.

[Abcdefg]

Good history lesson. Thanks.

[takenoprisoner]

” It’s not a conspiracy, just hoping for some action to sell more laundry detergent and deodorant.”

Don’t forget a pharmacy full of dope we are encouraged to ask our doctors if it is right for us.

[JoinJuniorAchievement]

. Ron Paul has voted against foreign aid for Israel, therefore he is an anti-semite.

Ron Paul votes against foreign aid to all countries.

Donate to whomever you wish, but get your hand out of my pocket!

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

If you and the other defenders of the various empty suits would like to become more than shills with a bad case of oral diarrhea, you should aspire to emulate the more effective critiques of a foreign policy opponent of Ron Paul like Dimitri Sims:

http://www.nationalinterest.org/BlogSE.aspx?id=14468#PostComments

Get Real

Rarely has there been a more offensive, counterproductive, and—frankly—undemocratic and un-American idea in public politics as the suggestion by Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis to exclude Representative Ron Paul from the Republican presidential debates because of remarks he made during the South Carolina debate about the reasons behind the September 11 terrorist attacks.

My foreign policy philosophy is different from Mr. Paul’s. I enthusiastically supported the first Gulf War and, with reservations, supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as well. In the latter case, we were led to believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and I argued for a quick intervention to depose Saddam, eliminate his WMD programs and get out. In my view, we should have immediately turned over reconstruction and nation-building to the United Nations, the Organization of the Islamic Conference or almost anyone else. I wrote a piece in support of the invasion (”Give War a Chance”, ITNI) and would make the same recommendation again on the basis of what I knew at the time.

Still, I admire Representative Paul’s courage and consistency and cannot understand why his comments should make him a pariah in the Republican Party. Mr. Anuzis and his ilk had better watch themselves—if they succeed in removing Mr. Paul from the debate, they would send a powerful signal not only to Democrats, but also to independents and quite a few Republicans that the Republican Party is not a big tent, that there is no place in the party for those who are skeptical of foreign interventions, and that on the most important campaign issue—Iraq—the Republican Party has lost touch with reality on the ground in both Iraq and America. Mr. Anuzis may succeed in excluding Rep. Paul from the debate, but he would likely also contribute to excluding the Republicans from the White House.

What is it that Mr. Paul said? Now, his language was not quite precise, and I wish he had stressed that he was talking about what motivated suicide bombers and their masters, not legitimizing it. But for the record, these are his words:

Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East—I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us…I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, ‘I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.’ They have already now since that time killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.

Whether one agrees with it or not, there was nothing repugnant in his statement. Actually, it was quite refreshing to hear a candidate, even someone who is considered a long-shot, trying to analyze what motivated the attackers.

My problem with the debate was not with Ron Paul, but with Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Of course, with the way Mr. Paul phrased his argument, he made himself vulnerable to a strong rebuttal. But I wish that Mr. Giuliani had offered an alternative explanation of why we were hit rather than self-righteous indignation. No one familiar with Al-Qaeda, its actions and statements, and the interrogations of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo and elsewhere, could say that the American way of life or even our status as the sole superpower was the exclusive reason for the 9/11 attacks. On the contrary, specific U.S. conduct in a number of areas, particularly the Middle East, has motivated and continues to motivate the terrorists. Acknowledging this does not necessarily mean that U.S. conduct was wrong and or that we should change our foreign policy behavior. But when American security and lives are at stake, we should be intellectually honest in evaluating what animates our enemies, even if we find their grievances without foundation. Understanding the other side is a basic requirement in any war, though it seems to be news to some leading politicians in both parties.

Mr. Giuliani was magnificent as the mayor of New York during the aftermath of the attack on the city. He was also a strong prosecutor. But does he have the character and intellectual depth to lead the United States in these troubled times? His moralistic sound bite at Ron Paul’s expense is not a substitute for the serious thinking that the American people are entitled to hear from presidential candidates. To be fair to Mayor Giuliani, the debates so far have been a travesty of the democratic process, which should allow voters to make informed choices. As Newt Gingrich commented, “We have shrunk our political process to this pathetic dance in which people spend an entire year raising money in order to offer non-answers, so they can memorize what their consultant and focus groups said would work. . . . This idea of demeaning the presidency by reducing it to being a game show contest . . . is wrong for America.”

Forcing presidential candidates to be game show contestants does demean them—and all of us too. Worse, it is a fundamental danger to the United States. The sad fact is that the most articulate contestant, even if he or she is also the best fundraiser, is not necessarily the best person to lead the nation. Most dangerous of all if the possibility that the winner will not even be able to do so.

Posted by Dimitri Simes at 05/18/2007 05:35:38 PM |

Dimitri, once again you are directly on target. Though Rep Paul is an odd-ball and has zero chance in any primary election that I can think of, he did in fact raise important points and deserved a better response than Rudy gave him. I’d be interested in learning the reactions you’ve gotten to your article.
Posted by: Lionel Olmer ( email ) on 05/25/2007 10:56 AM

[SJackson]

I'm a well know shrill of oral diarrhea as you note.

Barf happens.

Nice to hear from another lucid supporter of Congressman Paul.

Quesion, I've seen pictures of Congressman Paul, and his suit looks pretty well stuffed.

What does he use?

I don't wear a suit much, I'd love to know.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

Here is some kaopectate for your bad case of verbal diarrhea:

Get Real

Rarely has there been a more offensive, counterproductive, and—frankly—undemocratic and un-American idea in public politics as the suggestion by Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis to exclude Representative Ron Paul from the Republican presidential debates because of remarks he made during the South Carolina debate about the reasons behind the September 11 terrorist attacks.

My foreign policy philosophy is different from Mr. Paul’s. I enthusiastically supported the first Gulf War and, with reservations, supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as well. In the latter case, we were led to believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and I argued for a quick intervention to depose Saddam, eliminate his WMD programs and get out. In my view, we should have immediately turned over reconstruction and nation-building to the United Nations, the Organization of the Islamic Conference or almost anyone else. I wrote a piece in support of the invasion (”Give War a Chance”, ITNI) and would make the same recommendation again on the basis of what I knew at the time.

Still, I admire Representative Paul’s courage and consistency and cannot understand why his comments should make him a pariah in the Republican Party. Mr. Anuzis and his ilk had better watch themselves—if they succeed in removing Mr. Paul from the debate, they would send a powerful signal not only to Democrats, but also to independents and quite a few Republicans that the Republican Party is not a big tent, that there is no place in the party for those who are skeptical of foreign interventions, and that on the most important campaign issue—Iraq—the Republican Party has lost touch with reality on the ground in both Iraq and America. Mr. Anuzis may succeed in excluding Rep. Paul from the debate, but he would likely also contribute to excluding the Republicans from the White House.

What is it that Mr. Paul said? Now, his language was not quite precise, and I wish he had stressed that he was talking about what motivated suicide bombers and their masters, not legitimizing it. But for the record, these are his words:

Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East—I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us…I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, ‘I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.’ They have already now since that time killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.

Whether one agrees with it or not, there was nothing repugnant in his statement. Actually, it was quite refreshing to hear a candidate, even someone who is considered a long-shot, trying to analyze what motivated the attackers.

My problem with the debate was not with Ron Paul, but with Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Of course, with the way Mr. Paul phrased his argument, he made himself vulnerable to a strong rebuttal. But I wish that Mr. Giuliani had offered an alternative explanation of why we were hit rather than self-righteous indignation. No one familiar with Al-Qaeda, its actions and statements, and the interrogations of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo and elsewhere, could say that the American way of life or even our status as the sole superpower was the exclusive reason for the 9/11 attacks. On the contrary, specific U.S. conduct in a number of areas, particularly the Middle East, has motivated and continues to motivate the terrorists. Acknowledging this does not necessarily mean that U.S. conduct was wrong and or that we should change our foreign policy behavior. But when American security and lives are at stake, we should be intellectually honest in evaluating what animates our enemies, even if we find their grievances without foundation. Understanding the other side is a basic requirement in any war, though it seems to be news to some leading politicians in both parties.

Mr. Giuliani was magnificent as the mayor of New York during the aftermath of the attack on the city. He was also a strong prosecutor. But does he have the character and intellectual depth to lead the United States in these troubled times? His moralistic sound bite at Ron Paul’s expense is not a substitute for the serious thinking that the American people are entitled to hear from presidential candidates. To be fair to Mayor Giuliani, the debates so far have been a travesty of the democratic process, which should allow voters to make informed choices. As Newt Gingrich commented, “We have shrunk our political process to this pathetic dance in which people spend an entire year raising money in order to offer non-answers, so they can memorize what their consultant and focus groups said would work. . . . This idea of demeaning the presidency by reducing it to being a game show contest . . . is wrong for America.”

Forcing presidential candidates to be game show contestants does demean them—and all of us too. Worse, it is a fundamental danger to the United States. The sad fact is that the most articulate contestant, even if he or she is also the best fundraiser, is not necessarily the best person to lead the nation. Most dangerous of all if the possibility that the winner will not even be able to do so.

Posted by Dimitri Simes at 05/18/2007 05:35:38 PM |

Dimitri, once again you are directly on target. Though Rep Paul is an odd-ball and has zero chance in any primary election that I can think of, he did in fact raise important points and deserved a better response than Rudy gave him. I’d be interested in learning the reactions you’ve gotten to your article.
Posted by: Lionel Olmer ( email ) on 05/25/2007 10:56 AM

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

“isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments”

An interesting tag-line. Osama bin Laden could translate it into Arabic and use it in his screeds to whip up the jihadists, except he has so many equally over-the-top claims to global over-reach to choose from in his beloved Quran. The Romans were pretty good at that too: always dreaming up reasons to attack their neighbors, based on real or imagined affronts to their dignity.

[cva66snipe]

I read the forwards on both links. Sounds interesting. At this point in my life reading books even The Bible is is becoming an exercises in futility for me. About 10 years ago I found a book that I had read a long time ago which was written based on the public and private notes, letters, and speeches of many of the framers including Jefferson and Madison. Ironically Jefferson who did use Biblical or rather Divine reasoning for The Declaration of Independence also later in life was the man who penned the Jefferson or Unitarian Bible. Jefferson politically was the original Libertarian. As such it is actually the oldest in policy party of our nation although not existing in name.

Anyway I've read many of the notes etc of the framers and see the majority as being GOD fearing persons acting in faith. Next into play comes God's plan and God's will for a nation. That can be a rough one to discern in our personal lives how much more so for the ones who's signatures formed our nation? Man can be wrong, man can do wrong, but through God all things are possible.

From the landing a Plymouth Rock through such colonies as Jamestown many thing can and did go wrong because wrong deeds were done. I believe the majority acted in faith and best conscience even Jefferson in his earlier life. No matter who deceived who our nation was born and many of the early leaders were in fact devout Christians. At this point in time I'm much more concerned at what is on the heart and the intentions amongst the living as they are the ones who can harm us now. But I wish I had known about that book years ago for my own curiosity sake so I could say yea or Ney about it.

[Abcdefg]

I respectfully disagree and think Ron Paul has a very good chance of getting the nomination. He has a lot of support out here and it is growing daily. Also, the prospect of a Paul presidency scares the bejeebers out of the establishment (read: socialists).

[_Jim]

I respectfully disagree and think Ron Paul has a very good chance of getting the nomination.

Oh God; a moonbat.

[_Jim]

I think it's worthwhile, draw them out, put them on the record, point out the variations in their tactics (accusations, insinuations, etc.). Our candidate is not a member of the Washington establishment so we have to expect attacks from liberals, many of whom think they're conservatives and even post at FR.

DON'T flatter yourself; you are lookling more and more decidely like whack jobs ... the contrast you show - nay, the parallels you show with DU and DailyKOS are beginning to become very unnerving.

[George W. Bush]

I know that history doesn’t repeat itself, but there are certain characteristic rhythms that seem to reappear with great regularity, whether one is studying Western Civ or the annals of China’s dynastic histories. It looks to me like we are fairly late in the US variation of “death of the republic”, which commenced with the triumph of centralized power in 1865, and accelerated from the time of Teddy Roosevelt’s propensity to rule by decree (executive order) and Woodie Wilson’s simultaneously utopian and profoundly cynical WWI intervention. It’s been mostly down-hill ever since. What the article’s author has sensed is how out-of-control, how utterly unprincipled, the various wings of the “empire-centrist” parties have become. This, to the extent that our “rhythm” has a similar beat, is a very dangerous (or at least unstable) state of affairs.

Great post. But the dread path of Empire leading to the triumph of socialistic globalism over the nation-state and our own sovereignty are entirely avoidable.

We simply have to choose, to have confidence in our country and her traditions, her people's love for liberty and their conservative instincts. If we lead from the principles of liberty and conservative values, the people will follow.

[Abcdefg]

Your asinine opinion means nothing to me, troll.

[George W. Bush]

DON'T flatter yourself; you are lookling more and more decidely like whack jobs ... the contrast you show - nay, the parallels you show with DU and DailyKOS are beginning to become very unnerving.

Well, well. You must not be too happy with your current candidate.

No matter. We're confident that you and many others in the party will succumb to Ron Paul's message of liberty, conservative principle and small government. Just as so many did during the Reagan years when he sounded these exact same themes. It is a timeless message. It reunites our libertarian and conservative wings with the Religious Right.

You will be assimilated.

[_Jim]

Your asinine opinion means nothing to me, troll.

Great!

That makes me "The Longest-Lived Troll on FR"!

(I've BEEN HERE even longer than that "George W Bush" poster for cying out loud!)

THAT is SIGNIFICANT!

BTW I had the opportunity to read through most all the 550+ posts in this thread and I just have to say that YOU guys are seriously DELUDED!

Refusing to acknowledge that L. Ron Paul should assume some resposibility as to his actions (where he appears/where his written words appears) was the LAST STRAW for me.

You people should be considered downright dangerous for your lack of critical judgement ...

[Abcdefg]

Go play in the street.