“They don’t get it ...not a clue as they are led down the garden path. They would rather mittens than Paul, a sad state we find ourselves in.”
Keep in mind that FR represents a slice of the population. A lot of these folks are trying to reconcile themselves to the idea that the gop will nominate mitt, who does not represent their views very well. I think the bulk will do what they’ve always done; vote for the gop nominee regardless. But they’re trying to rationalize that. And it’s tough; mittens record is not conservative in any real sense of the word. As my site handle and tagline would indicate, supporting the gop has never been high on my priority list. I support conservatives.
Ron Paul does a lot better with the general population than he does with FReepers. And thus he will do better in the primaries and potentially the general election than these anti-Paul threads would seem to indicate.
Interesting thing I’ve noted, though, is that while most of these threads started with few people disagreeing with the “Ron Paul is _____ !(add the derogatory comment of your choice)” theme, I’m finding more FReepers stepping up to the plate and challenging that. That’s good news. It also makes these threads a lot more interesting. Debate isn’t any fun if no one is actually disagreeing.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
I haven't commented much on Paul this time around since his "conservatism" has been pretty much debunked on FR. In the unlikely event he makes a couple strong showings he'll present the bigotry issue to Obama on a silver platter, the fact that a few conservatives, on FR, outed him last election cycle won't matter. And the press will love it. However I'll add a comment I made a couple weeks ago, there's no question that Paul is anti-Israel.
Of course opposing aid isn't antisemitism, and I doubt is antisemitic though he's clearly anti Israel, sympathetic to arab revisionism.Leaving aside his fetis with neocons and the Likud party, and the "Jewish Lobby", the only powerful lobby in DC, there's his view of the region as expressed in his book.
He does acknowledge a few hundred thousand were expelled a few millenia ago, and that a few families stayed. And unlike the Arab world that the Jews who moved to Palestine (don't think he knows that was the name for the Jewish Homeland, stupidity when you're commenting on an important topic. However he describes Zionism as a movement of Orthodox Jews (Herzl would be surprised as would have most of the "Orthodox" of the day) who wanted to separate secular European Jews from the culture they had assimilated into so well. Secular European Jews fully integrated and accepted into late 19th century Europe, like Alfred Dreyfus. Is Paul stupid, or a revisionist.
Then his history conveniently skips forward to post WWI, where the UN decided to partition Palestine. Apparently out of thin air, no Mandate, no partitioning at San Remo, no pogrums. The UN just up and decided to do it.
Probably most telling is his experience meeting a young palestinian attending school in the US. Her story about how her family was thrown off land in her family for centuries. To build Israeli settlements. This happened in the early 1950s, clear proof that Ron considers Tel Aviv a settlement. Like San Antonio I guess. But what the heck, it was just a group of people taking land from others on the specious arguement that G-d told them to do it. Classic pro-Arab fairy tale from the Congressman.
BTW, his #1 book to read on the topic, Jimmy Carter's Apartheid work. It's on the Code Pink suggested reading list too.