Posted on 07/20/2007 4:27:18 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
NEW YORK A feature piece in this coming Sunday's New York Times Magazine on Republican candidate for president, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, portrays his followers as including a wild mix of "wackos" on both ends of the political spectrum. Paul, a libertarian, has been gaining media and public attention of late.
The cover line reads: "A Genuine Radical for President." The headline inside: "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul."
The article closes with the author, Christopher Caldwell, attending a Ron Paul Meetup in Pasadena. The co-host, Connie Ruffley of United Republicans of California, admits she once was a member of the radical right John Birch Society and when she asks for a show of hands "quite a few" attendees reveal that they were or are members, too. She refers to Sen. Dianne Feinstein as "Fine-Swine" and attacks Israel, pleasing some while others "walked out."
Caldwell notes that the head of the Pasadena Meetup Group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headquarters: "We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country....We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next 'Star Trek' convention or whatever."
Asked about the John Birch Society Society by the author, Paul responds, "Is that BAD? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They're generally well-educated and they understand the Constitution. I don't know how many positions they would have that I don't agree with."
The writer concludes that the "antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left" may have "irreconciable" differences. But "their numbers -- and anger -- are of considerable magnitude. Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together."
Among many other things, we learn from the article that Paul had never heard of "The Daily Show" until he was a guest and referred to the magazine GQ as "GTU." It also notes that he was the only congress member to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act and a medal to honor Rosa Parks, among many others tallies, based on principle, not politics. He also is praised by liberal Rep. Barney Frank as "one of the easiest" members to work with because "he bases his positions on the merits of issues."
What you are demonstrating so memorably is that you do not have courage of your convictions. You have a point, so make it.
Actually, I vastly prefer letting his supporters speak for themselves.
Wow. Real swamp, huh...?
“He is a certifiable nut-case.” They say it takes one to know one.
I think my point is far more memorably demonstrated when left as an exercise for the reader.
In other words: "no." Thanks for playing.
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Reagan, 1975.
Now, what?
Each night I would choose a different stack and select the toughest, most intimidating and most opaque tomes I could find and read until my mind reeled. Even if they were beyond my ken, at least I understood that the ideas were there and that men, now the dust of the ages, had thought and pondered and written on ideas now nascent in my mind.
One evening I came across a container full of a little periodical called American Opinion , from the John Birch Society, mostly unread and gathering dust. I recognized the name and, mostly for s#its and giggles, I thumbed through a few copies. There were, as I expected, the most preposterous of conspiracy theories. But there was something else. Usually toward the back and written in the turgid prose reserved for those seeking to express ideas both profound and precise was a description of the education that I was not getting and a bemoanal of its demise. Here was brilliance, here was intelligence, here was the flickering flame of a civilization in decline.
The problem became how to reconcile the two, the brilliance running on a parallel track but separate from the world and the base fear of forces, ominous and conspiratorial, lurking in the darkness beyond. They were right in lamenting the loss of Classical Thought and the decoupling of our social strictures from the forces driving them for millennia. I think that they were wrong and giving too much credence to the power of conspirators and the sympathetic mutuality of their goals. The lesson I took was that good intentioned men can be brilliant, educated and wrong. Were they wrong or was I? Even in my dotage I recall the cautionary words of novelist Taylor Caldwell when she was asked how on earth she could possibly believe in such conspiratorial rot. Her retort: “How can you not.”
And which country do you support if you support anyone else in this race?
“Understood.”
Cool.
Nope.
Yes, it is. What has that to do with Paul? I’m not being a smartass. Just curious. Every registered person in America can vote for someone. Is gaining a vote from any one of these an indication of the candidate him(her)self?
Wouldn’t it be more constructive to be pointing out which communist organizations are funding which democraps, for a conservative, if that’s what’s still here in freeperland?
Has anyone looked into what weirdo groups are supporting the other repubs running? -Glenn
You left out the CFR.
The problem became how to reconcile the two, the brilliance running on a parallel track but separate from the world and the base fear of forces, ominous and conspiratorial, lurking in the darkness beyond. They were right in lamenting the loss of Classical Thought and the decoupling of our social strictures from the forces driving them for millennia. I think that they were wrong and giving too much credence to the power of conspirators and the sympathetic mutuality of their goals. The lesson I took was that good intentioned men can be brilliant, educated and wrong. Were they wrong or was I?
A combination of negative and positive, balance so to speak. Maybe they present both sides of the coin.
Very interesting take on them. Thank you. I shall read them.
I looked at your Stormfront link and I see some like him and some don’t. That mix of opinions proves nothing about Ron Paul.
Keep on trying, that last argument is not persuasive.
If this is a serious question -- and I've always known you to be a serious poster in the past; so I'll gladly grant the assumption, in your case -- then, Serious Answer (repeated from earlier): what Ron Paul's most feverishly ardent supporters "see" in him -- and what they believe his true goals and positions to be (and they'd know best, surely!) has, obviously, a great deal to do with Ron Paul, the Candidate.
Are they wrong, in their collective estimation of Ron Paul, and where he stands on the issues nearest and dearest to their hearts? If so, then how, specifically? (If not... well, then: the next logical step becomes rather self-evident from there.)
The Paul haters will turn on Reagan before this is over.
On a strictly technical, quibbling-for-the-cowardly-sake-of-quibbling level: a split of roughly 90% FOR Ron Paul and 10% AGAINST would qualify as "some like him and some don't," of course.
Speaking of "arguments not being persuasive," I mean.
That was genuinely pathetic. Try again, please.
Anti-communist, but pro-fascist? So, you've bought into the propaganda that fascism is right wing communism? Get a clue, communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin.
A Bircher might tell you, "Well, maybe Hitler wasn't so bad, afterall?"
Ridiculous assertion.
Also, they were radical isolationists, thus, the pro-Axis Charles Lindberg is a Birchite icon.
Radical isolationists? Is that anything like radical constitutionalists? Lindberg is an icon because he was a valiant defender of the constitution.
I assume you are being facetious. I don’t know if these folks run the world, but anybody who denies they have great influence over what takes place in the world, are politically naive, unread, or into denial.-Glenn
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.