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."

[_Jim]

Yawn (I’m gong to bed ‘cause this is lame now).

(Anybody can plainly see that I ‘asked’ if you were, and I also made the prior observation that even mentioning it the way I did would cause an ‘uproar’ and it did ... YOU LIBS ARE SO PREDICTABALE ... okay, that last part was uncalled for and gratuitous, but perhaps accurate ... nighty-nite.)

[Abcdefg]

Goodnight, darling.

[GlennD]

Goodness. How many names does this guy post under? Lormand went, then the moonbeam...lightbeam...whatever. Now these 2 new ones. This is the same clown. -Glenn

[cva66snipe]

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.

If only we had 100 more Republicans in congress and at least 30 in the senate since 1995 who would stand their ground on Constitutional issues like Ron Paul has. If we had a lot of our misery the past 18 years could have been avoided. You don't have to have a majority to bring change just a will to do so. That will is very lacking in quite a few of the current GOP elected.

Ones such as Ron Paul and Jimmy Duncan are among the better Conservatives in congress right now. Let's face it a part of the party that thinks Trent Lott for example is a good person for the senate GOP is void of any reasoning. Worse some actually thought Orin Hatch would make a great USSCJ.

[takenoprisoner]

So, the Constitution Party is a “reviled” party...and Ron Paul is reviled for his Constitutional stance. uhmmm

Not in my circle.

It takes a lot of courage to stand on a stage before a nation with millions of viewers to be the lone true real conservative.

RP has more courage in his little pinky nail than you have in the entire cab of your rebel flagged pick up truck with the sawed baseball bat under the seat.

[RegulatorCountry]

you’re simply going to be reviled (correctly) as just anotherfringe group

Fringe? Oh, yeah, I forgot ... anyone who prefers national sovreignty over unfettered illegal immigration is a "fringer."

Can nativist, xenophobe, racist and bigot be far behind? Who does this sound like, if not a bunch of radical leftist change agents?

[George W. Bush]

Isn't that the truth; and witness the 'uproar' if I accuse one (or two) of them of being 'plants' or trolls (from DU) under deep, deep cover!

Isn't that exactly what the 'plants' and trolls from DU always say when they infiltrate?

Nice work, 007.

[takenoprisoner]

“Who does this sound like, if not a bunch of radical leftist change agents?”

The descendants of the money changers Jesus ejected from the temple most accurately defines them.

[RegulatorCountry]

How did these folks ever manage to masquerade as conservative for these past eight years? Shell shock from 9/11? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? I honestly don’t know, but it’s a real eye-opener, watching them trash so many conservative icons. They’ve gone after far more than Ron Paul.

[takenoprisoner]

Elvis died while squeezing cheese. If I had been Neil Armstrong prancing on the moon, I would have take a few incontrollable squeezes myself.

[George W. Bush]

There is a backlog in processing malcontents this evening; an admin mod will be with you shortly.

You might want to check around a bit. I noticed a Juliebot got banned tonight for rudeness. Your appearance on this thread and obvious provocative flaming might exhaust the mods' patience with you.

And I'm not hitting Abuse on you. Just making an observation. The mods are cleaning out those who go from thread to thread, making trouble constantly. They're sick of people whose main contribution to FR is sniping and belittling everyone in sight and making our forum an ongoing grudge match.

It started during the last FReepathon when the most trollish of the Juliebots were banned. A number of those Juliebots had signup dates older than yours too. As does our Ron Paul pinglist. And, just like you, some of those Juliebots also claimed that they "didn't support anyone". Even though it was clear enough they had an agenda.

[George W. Bush]

They’ve gone after far more than Ron Paul.

Generally, the mods ban them when they go so far as to trash President Reagan. That's what they always do.

[takenoprisoner]

Whatever it takes to sustain NAFTA,the North American Union, the unPatriot Act, Homeland inSecurity, bribery payments to Abbas in the contrived land of palestine, and UN resolutions requiring US Armed Forces, drives them toward their ultimate goal of our dissolution.

[cva66snipe]

Reagan started us an excellent road to recovery on many fronts. It’s a real shame that there was those in the GOP who did their level best to take us right back down the same wrong road we were on before Reagan took office.

[cva66snipe]

Whatever it takes to sustain NAFTA,the North American Union, the unPatriot Act, Homeland inSecurity, bribery payments to Abbas in the contrived land of palestine, and UN resolutions requiring US Armed Forces, drives them toward their ultimate goal of our dissolution.

The fact that these are not mostly doings of the DEMs but rather the GOP makes a person wonder just how low the party can go? One things for certain if the DEMs take the White House in 2008 there's gonna be a lot of regret from those who gave the GOP blind support on these issues.

[George W. Bush]

Reagan started us an excellent road to recovery on many fronts.

And Gingrinch with his young Turks made a good start on fiscal restraint and beating back the liberal hordes.

I think the prospects now, after the chastening of the GOP by the cynical voters of '06 who wanted back their pre-Bush GOP (at the very least) opens new prospects for conservatives.

• We no longer have to tremble that even a Dim majority in Congress will result in gun control. And no one ten years ago could have predicted the great victories we've secured in CCW legislation at the state level. And the Second is now defended by many liberal voters who have decided they'd rather have a handgun if they need one. We even have a few Blue Dogs like Shuler and Tester who look like strong defenders of the Second though they haven't been put to the test yet. Our renewal of the Tiahrt amendment is expected to sail through, stymieing the Bloomberg/Brady Bunch agenda.
• We have begun work on our border fence, enough that the Dims will almost be forced to complete it. And the states are themselves starting to move on the illegals issue, frightening the worthless Congress that they are becoming irrelevant on the issue.
• The shamnesty fight was a sheer victory of Americans over their own government. Both parties were trembling in their boots at the people's bipartisan accord on that issue. For once, the people spoke and we made them listen and we as a people put the fear of the voter into the congresscritters and reminded them who they represent. We reminded them of what it was like for their careers in both parties when they let Carter shaft us on the Panama Canal, something that we made them all pay for for years to come.
• The impotent Left continues to fume but remain powerless to force their party to do more than stage silly all-nighters in the Senate while their poll numbers drop to 13%, far worse than the GOP Congress of 2006 which at least held at 24% even with the war going badly and with Rumsfeld at the helm of the war effort.
• The Court is giving signs on abortion of moving the issue back to the states and finally allowing its regulation, something Roe promised but which never happened in practice.

You could point to many more small but important examples. The movement back toward states' rights is a key to our future success. And there are signs the American people have reached the limits of their patience with these dark-of-night bipartisan stabs-in-the-back of issues they care about.

The momentum for conservatives is still with us. We merely suffer a crisis of leadership, a crisis of confidence. And a pack in Congress who'd rather listen to the president's ideas about shamnesties and such rather than listen to the voters. That's changing. We will manage to eject the Hagelmonster and possibly Goober Graham from the Senate in their primaries in the spring. We have many other opportunities this year to remind them who they work for.

[Designer]

"Do you know if Birch articles are allowed on FR?"

Yes, we see them posted here occasionally.

Often, the mere mention of The John Birch Society will kill a thread due to most FReepers being Republicans first, Americans second.

[Designer]

(Designer coming late to the thread)

"Birchers are the proto-typical conspiracy theorists. Although they were ardent anti-Communists, they tended to believe in things like The Protocals and to sympathize with fascism. A Bircher might tell you, "Well, maybe Hitler wasn't so bad, afterall?" Also, they were radical isolationists, thus, the pro-Axis Charles Lindberg is a Birchite icon."

So many corrections, so little space.

The conspiracy is hardly a "theory", having been proven and admitted many times.

We are still anti-communist, although we don't go in for all unfounded theories, and I personnaly am not even familiar with the "protocols" thing.

No Bircher I know would ever say such a thing about Hitler unless he was trying to "bait" you, to see how wacky you are.

Americanism is not at all "isolationism" as some people have taken to mis-using the term. There is a huge difference between "isolationism" and "avoiding entangling alliances".

Charles Lindberg was never "pro-axis", but he was an Americanist.

That has become a "naughty word" these days.

[Designer]

"I’m always seeing ‘the Birchers’ catching flak, why? What is it with the Birch Society that has everyone up in arms? I’ve seen this so many times but never asked."

Members of The John Birch Society are not necessarily beholden to the Republican Party, and often criticize unconstitutional activities perpetrated by the POTUS and Members of Congress, regardless of party.

Obviously that will generate much bile coming from the party faithful.

[Designer]

"I have known several Birchers in my day, and they were to a person anti-Semite and racist."

If they were, they have probably been discovered and kicked out by now. Any form of racism is not tolerated in the JBS, and prospective members are screened before their membership application is accepted.