Posted on 12/26/2011 9:17:36 AM PST by TBBT
Congressman Ron Paul grabbed the lion's share of headlines among GOP presidential candidates last week, and not just because he is the latest improbable figure to challenge the inevitable nomination of Mitt Romney.
The conservative Weekly Standard ran a rehash by writer James Kirchik of an article he wrote for the New Republic in 2008 that collates, to deadly effect, the astoundingly bizarre, racist, and anti-Semitic comments Paul broadcast in a series of newsletters he published for two decades. Paul implausibly claims the newsletters (written in the first person and bearing his name) were produced by others, but it really doesn't matter. The time has come, as Kirchik helpfully reminds us, to recognize Paul for what he is.
He is not -- as some disillusioned moderates and media pundits like to believe -- a refreshing, small-government Republican with a healthy distaste for Wall Street and foreign adventurism. He is a clinically paranoid (and likely bigoted) conspiracy theorist. And you don't even have to cite his newsletters to prove it.
I paid some attention to Paul's 2008 campaign, because at the time I was assigned by my newspaper to cover two of his biggest fans: Ed and Elaine Brown, a pair of New Hampshire tax cheats who engaged in a months-long standoff with the U.S. Marshals Service over the couple's refusal to pay federal income taxes. The Browns believed they lived on a sovereign enclave atop a hill in rural Plainfield, N.H., stockpiled scary weapons, and threatened violence against any federal agents who came on their property.
You would think a presidential aspirant would want to distance himself from such wackos. Not Paul, who declared in a videotaped interview that the Browns were "heroes":
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.sfweekly.com ...
“As far as I can tell, Paul is the only candidate in at least a generation in either party, actually attempting to accurately interpret the Constitution of the United States of America.”
You just made your case for appointing Paul to the Supreme Court. I have to say that would be interesting.
You are not the arbiter of who can “accurately interpret” the Constitution. The Consittution does not require interpretation by a President. It only requires being upheld as written.
Dr. Paul is right where he needs to be, where he can vote against wasteful spending. His foreign policy is suicidal, and he likes to hint that Bush brought down the Towers.
He is impossible to take seriously.
Perot handed us clinton...on a silver platter.
Sorry but Paul is nuts, the others simply stupid from time to time and none want to surrender to our enemies...
Perhaps he needs to change his brand of soap. ;-)
Okay, okay! I admit it.
Where do you get that idea?
The 20% of GOP primary voters who support Romney are mostly registered Republicans, claiming to be "moderates", but just as commie left as their fellow Democrats.
Independents who voted for TEA Party Republicans in 2010 are more conservative than the Romney commies, and these conservative Independents outnumber the entire bloc of registered Republicans.
RPaul was one of the five treacherous Rs voted to repeal DADT. He thinks homos in the military is a good thing.
Fie on him.
If Bush and his merry band of RINO’s hadn’t selfishly gotten in the way of Perot, Clinton would have lost.
But no...
:D
Equally valid criticism...
Perot was right.
I’ve been counting.
Your posts were the 32,726th, and 32,727th time the word “kook” has been tossed at Ron Paul on FR today.
About 967273 times too few if ya ask me.
Until it gets through the thickest skull it bears repeating.
You dont count too well either
Lol yeah I saw that.
I don’t count too well, true enough. I’m blaming this one on my mouse though.
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.