Ron Paul, get out of the Republican Party.

Modern Conservative ^ | Christopher Cook

[connell]

Leave. Just go.

Mr. Paul, you are NOT a Republican. You may have views that intersect with some aspects of the Republican platform. That does NOT make you a Republican.

The Republican Party is a big tent movement. We don't apply nearly the same strictness when it comes to tests of ideological purity as the Democrats do, but we still have some standards. And you, sir, do not even come close to meeting them.

People who blame America for the acts of war made against it are not Republicans.

People who think that we blew up our own buildings on 9/11...or who hint that we might have...or who attract the support of people with such beliefs...are not Republicans.

People who may be receiving secret funding from George Soros...and who certainly receive energy and succor from radical leftists...are not Republicans.

People who have become the darling of, and the recipient of support from, America's neo-Nazis and white supremacists---and who refuse to openly repudiate that support---are not Republicans.

And people who publish racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American newsletters...are not Republicans.

Oh, and your protestations of innocence regarding this racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American newsletter to which you attached your name are absurd. As Jonah Goldberg said yesterday on the Michael Medved show, if...

[bcsco]

Dr. Paul a) isn’t a racist and b) didn’t write any of the things that are being attributed to him.

Evidence? They were written in publications under his name. Some have his signature. What evidence beyond your belief (or his disclaimer) do you have that they cannot be attributable to him?

[Xenalyte]

What evidence would satisfy counsel? Do you want videos of him somewhere else during the time period we know something incendiary was written? How about alibis? Would a notarized affidavit suffice?

You seem to be asking something pretty large of an oil-patch girl sitting in an office in Houston.

[underground]

Ron Paul really reminds me of what my dad used to say: We should have an executive in charge of domestic policies and an executive in charge of foreign affairs. It seems dang near impossible to get one person who can do both right, and I’m starting to think there’s some sort of personality thing that creates a trade-off.

[BlazingArizona]

whats sad is that this traitor just beat Fred Thompson by almost 10pts in New Hampshire

What?! Paul pulled a whole honking 8%, in a state full of people who write Letters to the Editor in green ink.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“I have never been, nor ever will be a RINO. I believe in small government, countering illegal immigration, am pro-life, and will never accept marriage between two males or two women. I am 64 years old and have been a voting Republican all my adult life. But because I don’t accept Ron Paul as a viable candidate I’m called a RINO by you. So much you know.”

I didn’t call you a RINO specifically - I was referring to the pile-on threads yesterday.

Esp when most of the article was left wing talking points, such as, gosh! he wants us out of the UN! What a troglodyte.

[tacticalogic]

why don't you call yourself a libertarian? Answer me that.

Libertarianism, as a political philosophy places a high value on protecting the rights of the individual, on the assumption that protecting those rights is ultimately in the best interest of nation as a whole. This is a philosophy that addresses the objectives of a system of government. Republicanism addresses the form and heirarchy of that system of government. They are not mutually exclusive terms.

Our republic was founded on a philosophy that includes libertarian (as opposed to socialist or communitarian) principles, and I agree with them.

[SJackson]

Thanks for the ping. Should it become a Dem vs Rep issue, it’s more important Republican officials reject him. Paul can do what he wants.

[bcsco]

You seem to be asking something pretty large of an oil-patch girl sitting in an office in Houston.

Well, that oil-patch girl in Houston shouldn't be making explicit statements unless that oil-patch girl can back them up.

Seriously, I don't expect evidence from you unless it's already been provided by the Paul campaign, and that you can link to. But that hasn't happened. All they've provided is a denial. But The New Republic (yeah, I know, retch!) has provided copies of the articles. Some of those contain Paul's signature and at least one refers back to other articles The New Republic references. THAT'S evidence. What the Ron Paul campaign needs to do is show how those had no relation to him or his office. They haven't done that.

But, your reference to me as 'counsel' is good, because in a court of law, what evidence The New Republic (retch!) has presented would trump Paul's denial. Sorry.

[BlazingArizona]

Ron Paul proposes that our military be destroyed? Are you sure about that?

Unfortunately, Ron Paul is a Rockwellite. Though all libertarians oppose rolling out the military for gratuitous wars (Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo), the Rockwellites also oppose war in retaliation for a direct attack, such as 9/11 and WW II. Yes, they are against American involvement in WW II.

[gridlock]

There should be no evoL lost between the ‘Pubbies and Paul. The sooner he is gone, the better.

[bcsco]

I didn’t call you a RINO specifically - I was referring to the pile-on threads yesterday.

Uh, huh!

[junta]

If it were a big issue then why don’t the candidates make a stink about it? Big points to be scored if Paul were an anti-semite and a racist bigot, so let the other candidates run on it.

[phillyfanatic]

No, Paul really is not a Pub and you know it. As a Libertarian , he even fractures their ethos. The Pubs should not exclude the Libertarians. They should be part of the coalition but Paul has gone beyond the boundaries of decency and blaming the USA, like Dems do for everything bad in the world and domestically here in the USA is not what a Prez should do. Paul should quietly go back to TX,. using his gains to keep his seat as a Back Bencher in the House. He is a nice gadfly there but that is all. The others are Pubs with great flaws. They are still better than any Dem Socialist Pacifist. Period.

[SJackson]

Nowhere in this statement does Paul indicate the writer was fired. I wonder where the above poster got his material. In fact, judging by the above denial, Paul would/should have no executive authority to fire anyone under the circumstances as stated. The whole implication being that whoever did this did so beyond the scope of Paul's control.

And not beyond the scope on his control over one or two issue, but a decade and a half to newsletter sales.

‘ghost writer's’ writing over more than a decade, not ‘ghost writer’, singular.

Why hasn't he identified them? Presuming they're supporters, why haven't they come forward to take him off the hook?

[SJackson]

Perhaps the leading candidates could echo this brilliant post. If Paul is so repugnant they should come out explicitly against Paul’s and his supporter’s racism against minorities and seek to bounce Paul and his 10% out of the party.

I don't see any reason for the candidates to raise the spectre of Republican racism, but if the Dems or the media raise it, that's precisely what you'll see. Like Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and the RNC they'll reject the ideology and it's supporters. Happened before, will happen again.

[bcsco]

And not beyond the scope on his control over one or two issue, but a decade and a half to newsletter sales.

‘ghost writer's’ writing over more than a decade, not ‘ghost writer’, singular.

Why hasn't he identified them? Presuming they're supporters, why haven't they come forward to take him off the hook?

You take my point to another level. 'Presuming they're supporters' is almost academic. If they weren't, Ron Paul would have quashed this at the beginning. And since Ron Paul himself admits he's denounced this for over a decade, their coming out now to take the blame would look like what it would be; a cover up.

[M203M4]

My perception is that Ron Paul is being run out of the Republican Party precisely because of his belief in limited government - the peripheral issues are just excuses. Many Republicans talk favorably about limiting government, but when they realize that in doing so they will lose the chance to control (or make war upon) people whose beliefs they don't like, all of a sudden they turn their backs on the idea and shun the one who proposed it.

I agree 100%. Big-government ideology is all but entrenched in the modern Republican party. The resistance even to Fred Thompson's retooling of the current Federalist balance is staggering. To many Republicans (and those aligned with Republicans, including those who put the interests of global institutions and foreign nations above the interests of America), shrinking of the government is a direct threat to years of investments.

[junta]

First you say RP’s “racism and anti-semetism” are threats to the republic now you are saying no big deal. I honestly don’t get where you come from with these outbursts. You are like O’Reilly he brings Al Sharpton on his show, agrees with him that America is a racist nation, and then moves on. If its a big deal then you must want them front and center of the debate. Literally Paul and his neo-confederates number in the thousands, what do you have to lose by denouncing them? Don’t hide.

[NavyCanDo]

You nailed it with one photo. Great job

[SJackson]

And the beginning was over a decade ago. He could have put it to bed in some sense then by releasing all the newsletters then. Whether that would have flown, I don't know. I don't believe it's possible to write racist tracts under a public figures name and sell them for 15 years without the public figure noticing. And objecting, as in a lawsuit. But for those who insist on an excuse, it would have provided one.

For reference, links to newsletters if anyone cares to read them. About fifteen at the first link, six threads in the second group.

Also worth noting that, imo, were Ron Paul not a notable politician, based on the content of the newsletter, his writings would be banned on FR, as are many of his supporters, irrespective of content. If his newsletter were a website, it would be banned here, as are many of his supporters sites, from anitwar to lewrockwell to davidduke to stormfront

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

Newsletters

Ron Paul: US "military is mowing civilians down in the streets"

RON PAUL ACCUSED U.S. TROOPS OF WAR CRIMES IN DESERT STORM

Ron Paul: Israel bought Jesse Helms

Ron Paul: Traitor had direct line to President Reagan

Ron Paul: Clinton didn't cut defense enough

RON PAUL ON DEFENSE SPENDING

Ron Paul supported the PLO terrorists