Posted on 11/14/2007 4:06:53 AM PST by George W. Bush
<snip>
There are plenty of reasons to be perturbed when loons and hate-mongers support a candidacy. But this game of guilt-by-association can be played endlessly. I tend to place greater emphasis on loons and hate-mongers that candidates actively seek out. Pat Robertson is a loon and an anti-Semite and a vicious homophobe who blamed Americans for 9/11. Giuliani didn't receive some unsolicited money from him; he actually stood on a platform and embraced him. Why one standard for Paul and another for Giuliani? If Obama embraced Louis Farrakhan as a supporter, you think Goldfarb and Kirchick would be silent? They'd have a cow because it's unthinkable. But naked bigotry is more than thinkable in today's GOP: it's integral to it. What's the difference between Farrakhan and Robertson? I can't see any. Maybe Goldfarb and Kirchick can spell it out.
Giuliani also promoted and endorsed a seriously mobbed up man to be head of the DHS; he fully embraces and employs a priest credibly accused of sex abuse of a minor (and refuses to distance himself from him); and actively endorses torture as a foreign policy weapon. Jamie Kirchick actually supports Giuliani for president - but is hyper-ventilating about a $500 check that Paul hasn't even decided what to do with! There you have the massive double-standards on the neocon right.
Here's an idea: when Giuliani disowns his abusing priest, his mafia-consigliere and his anti-Semitic nutcase, Ron Paul should send back the $500. Deal?
(Excerpt) Read more at andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com ...
An attack on a leading candidate as an antisemite is a clear threat to the Republican Party, if true of course. Or if false if allowed to stand. As you'll note upthread, the Dems use the perceived tolerance of Republicans for racists and antisemites all the time. With all the weakness' to attack Giuliani on, without involving the credibility of the GOP, to fabricate a charge of antisemitism has no motivation other than to damage Republicans. I'll leave out the attacks on the RJC since as the Paul supporter noted, not enough Republican Jews to care about anyway.
Your unwillingness to address the topic of the post is noted.
Do you think Giuliani is an antisemite?
Do you think Pat Robertson, and per the article cited as support many Evangelicals, are antisemites?
Do you equate Willis Carto/Don Black/David Duke/Stormfront/Council of Conservative Citizens/National Alliance et al and their ideologies with Rudy Giuliani/Pat Robertson/Republicans/Evangelicals?
I hope so...
As I say all the time, "out of Iraq now" is a fatal position to have. It is a parallel goal of Al Qaeda. His statements on Islamic hate towards America were to blame the US.
"And as I told you before, those who rail against "neo-cons" or start with the gibberish about war for oil *should* have their accounts nuked, as many newcomers have found out in the past. Just because we have differences over the war doesn't mean were a bunch of Code Pinkos"
Echoing enemy propaganda puts one on par with Code Pink. Just because many Paulistinians have morphed their methods here from rabid Cindy Sheehanism, to "Dr. Paul understands the constitution", it doesn't make it better.
Promoting Ron Paul on this forum in any form is promoting someone who echoes enemy propaganda. I don't see why you guys don't get it, but I guess the Prawned Paul 08' campaign is urging you guys to continue with the spam, and try and drive a wedge between Conservatives on this Forum.
I'm just a regular schmoe, but I strongly urge some action be taken against the Ron Paul spam and spammers.
The best summary I’ve seen. I didn’t know about the Hutton Gibson endorsement
Prawned Paul could probably use all the Soros cash he is raising so far and spend it against his opponent Chris Peden.
As a Paul supporter I know you disagree, support from indicted drug dealers like the organizer in Canada or contributions from felons like Don Black are welcome, but IMO that's the wrong way to run a campaign. Rudy should reject this support.
No. But I think that the anti-semite charges against him are just as bogus as those about Paul. You're just getting all defensive about Rudy for whatever reason though. Like I said earlier, I suspect you're a Rudy guy and ashamed to admit it on this admittedly anti-Rudy forum, so you're focusing on bashing Paul until the primaries are over. The Giulianites who used to pollute this forum were notoriously anti-Paul too, even when he was popular on FR.
Faulty logic. 15 yards. Repeat 2nd down. Ending abortion is a parallel goal of Al Qaeda too.
When this guy is on your candidate's side, thinking people should be be seriously reconsider their support for Der Paul.
Who is supporting a candidate reflects seriously on the candidate. That Paul has not rebuked those on the political fringes that are supporting him indicates he is quite at home with their lunatic dogmas.
Yet another example of Der Paul's fundamental unfitness for the office of President.
All I ask is that you quote any statements by Ron Paul that you think may have attracted the support of these neo-nazi groups. But if it is guilt by association that you want to engage in then google finds all kinds of weirdos supporting all the candidates.
I've posted about candidate preferences on other threads, which is of no interest to Paul supporters for whom facts are composed of whatever flutters around in their minds at any particular moment.
Paul bashing, anything I've posted about Paul is factual. See post 100, mostly the truth.
This may come as news to you, more likely you don't care, but over the years the GOP has had a problem with charges of racism and antisemitism. Fair, no, but the media and the left has latched onto the stereotype.
Paul's support from, and association with neonazis (and truthers, though they're not the topic here) are facts. Thus far it hasn't been much of an issue. The DNC points to Ron Paul and says see, Republicans don't criticize their own like we criticize people like Carter and McKinney. Factual, no, does it resonate, yes.
Were Paul a viable candidate would his links to hate groups be used against Republicans, you bet it would. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see it used if he doesn't become viable.
Precisely why Paul supporters consider criticism of association with groups that have damaged Republicans, despite Republican condemnations, in the past is beyond me. I do acknowledge that a great many Paul supporters are not Republicans, and are hostile to Republicans, the party having been hijacked by neocons, so I suspect damage to the GOP would be welcome.
They do love their dope.
I think he attracts them by being advertised in hate publications for years. And implicitly by accepting their support. You contension that candidates aren't defined by their supporters is absurd. Many of the same groups and individualy Paul is afraid of separating from have been roundly condemned by the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, Bush I and Bush II when they gave a hint of support for the GOP. Paul fails this test.
What you are essentially saying is that to attack the front runner Rudy is to attack the Republican Party. There is no greater evidence that you are a shill then your own thesis.
So this is how a "Fred Thompson supporter" spends his time on Freerepublic, by attempting to illustrate faulty logic by using faulty logic?
To attack him on false charges of antisemitism and connections with antisemities like Pat Robertson, thus characterizing the Republican Party the GOP as tolerant of racists and Jewhaters, yes, I think that is attacking the Republican Party. If that makes me a shill in the eyes of KDD, so be it.
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.