Posted on 12/21/2011 10:41:32 AM PST by presidio9
Ron Paul is now leading in Iowa polls of GOP voters. It’s quite possible – if not likely – that he’ll win the Hawkeye State caucuses on Jan 3. He’s well positioned in New Hampshire, too. Depending on how he does there, Representative Paul could scramble the entire Republican presidential race.
Naturally, in light of Paul’s surge in fortunes, those in the party who disapprove of the Texas libertarian are now moving to attack him.
First up this week was the Weekly Standard, a newsmagazine notable for its (fruitless) efforts to get New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and/or Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin into the GOP race. It ran a piece by journalist James Kirchik about the racist language contained in newsletters issued under Paul’s name in the 1980s and 1990s.
For decades, Mr. Kirchik writes, Paul promoted “hateful and conspiratorial nonsense,” including outlandish tales of racial violence, and hate speech about Martin Luther King, Jr.
This is not a new story – Kirchik and others have written about it in years past. Paul has defended himself by pointing out that he did not write any of this stuff himself and he did not know who the ghost writers producing it were.
Asked about the Kirchik story Tuesday during an appearance on CNN’s “American Morning,” Paul said that it must mean he was doing well, since people are starting to dig up old charges to try to stop him.
“It wasn’t good – but I didn’t write [the stories] and those aren’t my beliefs, so I sleep well,” said Paul.
Then Wednesday the conservative blog RedState posted a piece titled, “Ron Paul Hates Republicans and Everything They Stand For.”
Written by contributing editor Leon Wolf, the piece focuses on
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
The Constitution left slavery up to the states. In three places.
So you think the South had the “right” to slavery??
I am a Republican. I have voted for Republicans since 1972 — including Richard Nixon, which I would do again, given the choice I had. I have never voted for a Democrat. Ever. I do occasionally vote for Libertarians. I am generally choosing the lesser of two (or three) evils. Government itself is a necessary evil.
If you are familiar with your Bible, perhaps you recall that Jesus once said anyone who wanted to be His disciple and did not hate his mother and father was not worthy of being Christ’s follower.
Did Jesus mean that you are to hate your parents in contradiction of the Fifth Commandment? Or did He mean it in a comparative sense, that your love for Him was to be primary?
You make some good points. Republicans are not as bad as Democrats. Consider, though,
Republicans passed Medicare Part D
Republicans passed Campaign Finance Reform
Republicans helped push TARP through Congress
Republicans tried very hard to pass an amnesty bill under Bush, and Reagan did sign an amnesty act.
A Republican signed the Gun Control Act of 1968
Republicans floated the dollar
Republicans imposed a wage freeze
Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt were progressives.
Finally, are we sure giving women the vote was a good idea?
:)
So I guess that means you can’t answer my question.
See #57.
Say it for me: Heroin and all other drugs should be legal, right?
Continuing down this same line of reasoning, it should be legal for me (or my jihadist neighbor who is an American citizen) to walk into a gun store and buy a shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missle, right?
He's an adult. What he does with it is his business.
No, it means I’m not wasting anymore of my time on druggie LIBERALtarian Paulbots like you. Good day.
I am not aware of anyone on this website who deifies DR. MLK. Are you referring to when Ron Paul opposed (and continues to oppose) the Civil Rights Act? Or when he said that those quotes were just published in Ron Paul's newsletter under Ron Paul's name, and Ron Paul had nothing to do with them? Or when Ron Paul later said that they WERE, in fact written by Ron Paul, and that Ron Paul agrees with them? Or what Ron Paul is saying now, again that Ron Paul ran Ron Paul's newsletter like Sgt. Schultz: "I know nuthink!!"
The shoulder-launched missile seems reasonable enough. I would also like to buy a short-barreled shotgun without a stamp and maybe a full-auto BAR and a Thompson, just for fun. You should be able to keep the government in line. That’s the point of the 2nd Amendment — that those with tyrannical tendencies not have exclusive access to all the good weapons.
Since your reading glasses seem to be faulty, I said that drug legalization is a state and local issue rather than a FEDERAL one. I am against the War on Drugs and the DEA and all the rest of the FEDERAL government alphabet agencies that get involved with it.
Alcohol has some federal regulation, but determining whether or not alcohol can be sold in an area is up to the voters in that community — as is should be. Why do you have a problem with that?
Heroin is a narcotic. Narcotics just as dangerous, just as powerful and just as addictive as heroin are purchased legally everyday with a doctor’s prescription. Why is drug legalization such a big deal to you? Are you such a weak-willed individual that you need the FEDERAL government to keep you from sticking a needle in your arm?
You are a crazy person. No wonder you're into Ron Paul.
Tell me sir: Why did 9/11 happen?
“How about handing the Republican nomination to Mitt Romney, and then guaranteeing an Obama victory with an ego third party run?”
You’ve got it about one third right. The useless and feckless gop will nominate mittens. That’s their call and their responsibility. And Ron Paul will most likely run third party. Who wins is anyones guess, but I imagine it will be barky. Not that there is a lot of difference between mittens and barky anyway.
As for ego, naaah. Ron Paul is not all that interested in running to be President for the sake of being President. Like most libertarians, he sees elections and political office as a means to an end, not an end in itself.
If you honestly believe that, you have just disqualified yourself from contributing your opinions to this political website.
“The folks in power are not going to relinquish that easily, you must expect a battle.”
You got that right.
Giving women the right vote was as good as giving men that right. But then I’m just a woman. :-)
Voting Libertarian is throwing away a vote and demeaning a right that was bought with blood.
Being a former Democrat, I know that it is never lesser of the two evils.
Equating a parental relationship with a political relationship is communism, my friend. Jesus wasn’t talking about a political party.
Regan repented of giving amnesty and was sorry the rest of his life. I don’t know the background on the wage freeze. As I said earlier, Republicans aren’t perfect, but they’re far better than a Democrat or Libertarian...unless you like unions and pot.
Merry Christmas!
What does 9/11 have to do with anything? I have already said that I do not agree with Libertarian (large-L) foreign policy as it is usually presented. Islamic radicals used airliners as weapons. It happened because Islam is a primitive, warped, antichrist religion, except for the Sufis.
Do I get a cookie?
But more importantly, I assumed your shoulder-launched missile deal was more or less tongue-in-cheek, though I don’t have any problem with doing away with regulations on the kinds of weapons I, as a non-criminal with no history of mental instability or violence, can buy, provided I can afford it. I really don’t have any use for an RPG and I’m not that into full-auto — uses too much ammo. But I would seriously like to be able to buy a sawed-off shotgun without having to register it. Silencers, too, more for hearing protection than anything else.
Military arms for defense of person and property are what the Second Amendment is about. I don’t see anything crazy about that. Governments cannot be trusted.
And who do you support?
“And when he doesn’t win the nomination, he will not think twice about f—king the GOP and everyone on this website by mounting a 3rd Party campaign.”
Pretty much. Although I disagree that it will be any worse of an end result for conservatives than a mittens-barky matchup would be anyway. They’re cut of the same progressive cloth.
“FURP!! You, homo-loving, abortionist, anti-Semitic, anti-military, racist, God and morality-hating LIBERALtarian non-conservative POS!!”
Got anger issues there?
I suppose you would prefer mitt romney then? Because he’s going to be the gop nominee.
To repeat: You are a crazy person.
Am I not making myself clear?
It's nuts for sure. Apprentice without a winner.
Great way to put 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.