Posted on 01/09/2008 8:54:49 AM PST by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at modernconservative.com ...
Unfortunately, the more that comes out about Ron Paul and his past , the more it seems people who defend him, like yourself, are equating the Republican party with racists and antisemitism. At least, that's what statements like this on the surface suggest, since the implication is Ron Paul 'may' have racist tendencies, and such remarks as the above in no way refute the implication about Paul's beliefs.
Now, I'm not accusing anyone here. I'm just bringing up the fact that when one wants to show support for someone they believe is wrongly accused, they must themselves be very careful in their defense, so as not to make misleading statements.
Of course, the Republican party has never been associated with racism nor antisemitism. And rightly so. Its history is an open book in that regard. So, when those of us who are lifelong Republicans see such insinuation, intended or not, we rightly take offense.
That's why there's this push for Paul to go 3rd party. It's all coming from the party elites. The GOP does not have the numbers or the money to defeat the Democrats, so they need a scapegoat. Personally, I find all of the piling on Paul amusing. When the general election rolls around, we Truthers/white supremacists/anti-war leftists who are supposedly supporting Paul now will suddenly morph into conservatives who became traitors because we won't hold our noses for the RINO. The Republican Party is going to lose the general in Reagan/Mondale proportions, and Paul should not give them a cop-out in a 3rd party bid.
Is it a law or something that the navigation for political blogs must be designed by mentally retarded people? What a trainwreck! That said, this Christopher Cook sounds like one of those liberal/moderate “big tent” bitches.
I wish I could chase him away. Unfortunately, he won’t leave.
I couldnt disagree more.
Not only is Paul’s blame america reflex disgusting, but even McCrazy and Huckafraud make better Republicans than Ron Paul.
Hell, Paul is more anti-american and more likely to blame America than Clinton and Obama!
Does the fact that he calls for reducing the size of government compensate for the fact that he expects us to “understand” why Bin Laden attacks us and capitulate to his demands?
Even peacenic Obama doesnt spout the BS that he does.
This is supposed to be the party of Reagan and Lincoln yet Paul believes Lincoln was wrong to preserve the Union, through the civil war and called Ronald Reagan a “dramatic failure”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBgjkm21y...
How the hell does that make Paul more republican?
But in this case I'll make an exception? I guess freedom of expression is too out there for this guy big tent and all.
If you think that opposition to Paul is based solely on his war stance, you are incredibly short sighted. Paul is simply out of step, and not only that. His association with hate groups over the years disqualifies him from any decent organization.
Do your homework. If you oppose the hate groups, you shouldn’t support Ron Paul. Of course if you support them, Paul is your man.
My thoughts exactly. For that matter, add Specter, Snowe, Bloomberg, ect... to the list.
We have room for Ron Paul in the GOP. No other fiscal AND social conservative has a record that is quite as principled as his. He has tremendous support from people outside the party, young folks, who might otherwise vote for a liberal. We should listen carefully to him.
I may even vote for Ron Paul.
I'm sure you know the FR party line on libertarianism, it goes something like this:
(364 days a year) You libertarians are dope-smoking, terrorist-loving, baby-killing, smelly hippies. We don't need you in the conservative movement, and we don't want you. Get out now, and don't let the door hit you in the ass.
(The day after election day) Hey, why didn't you libertarians support our candidate?
You must be referring to the millions of illegals who your guys would love to give citizen status to before the election gets here...
That pesky platform in the way again, eh???
Already done. We are doing that through the Republican Party and voting against him in the primaries. Paul will run against the Republican nominee later this year, but he won't leave the party until he thinks he has done as much damage to it as possible. George Soros will see to that.
Which is why I do not support Guliani.
Good point, and well put.
Beyond that, antisemitism or racism have nothing to do with republicanism.
By being more pro-life, far more pro-sovereignty, pro-gun pro-constitution, and conservative than Rudy McRombee.
His foreign policy is a complete mess, and disqualifies him from any serious consideration for POTUS.
Just as Rudy’s pro-liberalism and horrific understanding of the constitution disqualifies him.
And McCain’s career long stupidity, including Amnsesty, CFR, attempts to ban ‘cheap guns’, pro-affirmative action stance disqualifies him.
He wants to have all of our military withdrawn into our own borders. In effect, in order to accomplish this, he would need to drastically reduce the size of our military. And, if a recent article I read is correct, Run Paul was quoted as saying that Bill Clinton did not reduce the size of our miltary enough during his tenure. So, IMHO, Run Paul is all about the destruction of our military.
Me neither. But I do not want to boot either of them from the party.
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.