Taking Ron Paul Seriously

The Atlantic Online ^ | May 11, 2007 | Andrew Sullivan

[Austin Willard Wright]

The condescension to and mockery of the sole Republican candidate who seems to care about individual liberty has begun to tick me off. Chris Matthews can be heard groaning "Oh, God," after Paul spoke of the "original intent" of the Founders with respect to the Constitution. And in the YouTube clip below, Rudy Giuliani actually seems to be guffawing after Paul's defense of habeas corpus. I'm glad Paul's supporters are fighting back on the web. He deserves more respect than he has gotten thus far, not least because compared to the pandering of his competitors, Paul actually seems to believe what he says. And what he says has more to do with conservatism than the crap the rest of them are peddling. Here's a clip worth watching again:

[cva66snipe]

I wish the GOP had dozens like Ron Paul in office and several running for POTUS rather than the majority being Johnson Great Society Liberals. Ron Paul and Tancredo are the only two now running or considering running who are indeed true Constitution anchored Conservatives. The rest want to give us their own modified version of liberalism.

[Mr. Know It All]

Hope this answers your question.

Yes, and thank you for taking the time to respond in detail; it was very enlightening. I think your answer reinforced the need for a draft, though. SOMEONE needs to defend our borders while the more experienced troops fight abroad. ;-)

[Mr. Know It All]

How then do you explain the terrorist cells who thrived in the US sufficiently long to launch 9/11? Were they ‘hillarious’?

I guess that depends on your sense of humor. Many of the 9/11 hijackers came to the US on a quick-entry visa program established in the early days of the Bush administration. Many Saudis are friends of the US, but many more are NOT. Using 20/20 hindsight, this visa program shouldn't have been implemented, and despite the criticism of Bush's stands on immigration, I don't expect it is a mistake the Republicans will make again (the Democrats? well, you tell me).

Another thing to keep in mind is that several of the hijackers were actually under surveillance prior to 9/11. For reasons that have been highlighted here many, many, times, that information did not reach the people who needed to get it in time to take appropriate action. Want to see that happen again? Let the Democrats take the White House in 2008. I believe that the best way to lose the White House in 2008 is to stay in Iraq.

You can call it "losing" or "surrendering" or whatever you want, but I call it "putting America first." And no, I don't believe that the terrorists will "follow us home." There are two reasons I say this.

If we're talking about insurgents, they don't have any interest in following us home. The only reason they are attacking us is that we've taken the side of a rival faction in an internal conflict.

As far as actual terrorists go, if they had the ability or interest to attack Americans at home, they would have been doing so already. Why focus their efforts on the well-armed, well-trained American soldiers on their turf when they could attack undefended civilians on ours? We haven't had a terror attack here at home in nearly six years; something is stopping them and it doesn't make any sense at all that it's our troops in Iraq. Again, why would they go to Iraq and get their butts kicked when they could attack targets elsewhere?

That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it. :)

[LonePalm]

You won't get a arguement from me about sealing the Southern border. I think it can be done without a draft.

I wouldn't put the military on the border without making it a free fire zone.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Sam Gamgee]

Ron Paul (and Buchanan) are figures of worship for the isolationist (and sometime the extreme right wing anti-Semite) crowd. But forget the obsession with Israel for a moment, the lack of vision among the isolationists is astounding. They forget that indeed GWB was heading exactly into isolationist mode up until 911 - like any rational person he changed his mind.

The isolationist point of view is that the Islamic terrorists attacked us for interfering in their realm (how exactly I wonder? - we saved their Kosovo friends, and saved Egypts face in the Yom Kipper, but anyways....). They say if the US pulls all its troops homes and hunkers down in the homefront the Islamists will forgive us and focus on Israel and Europe and maybe India.

Sorry, but the naivete of that belief is beyond belief. Do they realize they are on the same page with Chris Mathews and Noam Chomsky when they say things like that?

I will even concede that in WWII, had the US stayed isolationist that, it is very likely that Japan and Germany would have just let the US be - since an invasion and occupation of the United States is impossible. But these are new times and we face a new enemy with objectives entirely different than territorial occupation.

[The_Eaglet]

Ron Paul and Tancredo are the only two now running or considering running who are indeed true Constitution anchored Conservatives. The rest want to give us their own modified version of liberalism.

I agree with you about Paul, though I have not totally ruled out Tancredo, Hunter, Grundmann, Corsi, Keyes, and Huckabee should Paul be unavailable.

[The_Eaglet]

Ron Paul (and Buchanan) are figures of worship for the isolationist (and sometime the extreme right wing anti-Semite) crowd.

If that were true, Paul can not necessarily chose who supports him. Could you name one isolationist or anti-Semite who supports Paul? I do not know of any.

[DugwayDuke]

“That’s my opinion and I’m stickin’ to it. :)”

“Many of the 9/11 hijackers came to the US...”

Regardless of your opinion, they were here, they did hatch a plot and it was successful. Evidently, catching terrorists isn’t as easy as you claimed previously.

“As far as actual terrorists go, if they had the ability or interest to attack Americans at home, they would have been doing so already.”

Osama Bin Laden has been quoted as saying on several ocassions that his objective was to lure us into something like what the Soviets experienced in Afghanistan. He wanted to fight us on his soil. In that case, the reason the terrorists haven’t attacked us at home is because it fits their strategy to defeating us in the own lands. Now, you might argue that we are playing into their hands, but the alternative is to accept as many attacks on our soil as they feel is necessary to provoke us into moving into their lands. Just how many repeats of 9/11 would you be willing to suffer?

“I believe that the best way to lose the White House in 2008 is to stay in Iraq.”

Or we could elect Ron Paul and have a republican/libertarian in the White House who is far softer on the WOT than any of the democrats running except Dennis Kuchinic.

[California Patriot]

Taking Ron Paul seriously? Let’s not and say we did.

[Designer II]

Most of the condesceding and mocking has come right here on FR towards Paul.
Pretty sad, that the candidate who adheres to the Constitution is denigrated the most.

[Allegra]

Most of the condesceding and mocking has come right here on FR towards Paul.
Pretty sad, that the candidate who adheres to the Constitution is denigrated the most.

He also adheres to the cut-and-run policy which I will never advocate for various reasons that I have enumerated repeatedly.

And the Ron Paul fans are not above reproach. Some of the most vicious behavior I have seen on here has come from the Ron Paul fans when someone dares suggest that he is less than perfect. I'm not pointing this at you specifically, but I have seen plenty of it on FR.

[Designer II]

"I'm not pointing this at you specifically"

Thank you.

[Designer II]

"..cultists who start snarling defensively.."

Meanwhile, would you please stop using inflamatory language such as this? Thank you.

[Allegra]

Who died and put you in charge?

Pound sand, newbie.

[Dead Corpse]

Who died and made you arbiter of all things Constitutional?

As you say, "pound sand newbie".

[Allegra]

Come up with something more original, would you?

Nobody's impugning the constitution. Don't be such a drama queen.

....and pound sand.

[Dead Corpse]

Nobody's impugning the constitution.

If you think that, then you haven't been paying attention to what the FedGov has been up to the last 20 years.

Keep a civil tongue in your head...

[Allegra]

What are you going to do if I don't? Hmmmmmm?

Mighty powerful keyboard you must have there.

[Allegra]

If you think that, then you haven't been paying attention to what the FedGov has been up to the last 20 years.

OK, I was not impugning the constitution as you strongly implied in your very civil and delightful post #135.

When you Ron Paul cultists learn to be civil despite the fact the most people disagree with you, perhaps others may follow suit. In the meantime, if you're going to dish it out, you'd better learn to take it. Ive noticed you RP folks like to issue orders. You don't really think we're going to take that seriously, do you?

You sure do talk tough for somebody who supports a surrender advocate.

However, I am not impressed. I've come up against much tougher than you. And I'm still standing.

[Dead Corpse]

Petty. Petulant. Typical.