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."
Try that one-note accusation somewhere else. Doubtless there are revisionists who would consider the 9-11 attacks an inside job. Ron Paul is not one of them, and you know it.
Why is Bush Still a Mystery?
If Republicans really want to talk about a baffling political craze, they need look no further than their own tent. What explains the mania for George W. Bush?
He is barely into his second term as governor of Texas, has minimal experience in national politics, and is a virtual unknown outside his part of the country. It is only today that New Hampshire voters are getting their first look at him. Yet, since at least last fall - two years before the 2000 election - Bush has been hailed as the candidate to beat for the GOP nomination. Hundreds of Republican officials, including 19 governors, a dozen senators, and 114 members of the US House, have already endorsed him. Incredibly, many of these endorsers have never met Bush or seen him in action.
There has never been anything like it. The closest parallel to the Bush hysteria is Dwight D. Eisenhower's vast popularity after World War II. But not even Eisenhower, a five-star war hero, had the Republican establishment kneeling at his feet this far in advance of the election. On the contrary, the foremost Republican in Washington, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, contended with Eisenhower for the nomination.
After losing two elections to Bill Clinton, Republicans are understandably desperate for a candidate who can win. But there is something surreal about the stampede to Bush. It is like the rush to buy Internet stocks, a frenzy to invest in a start-up with great PR but no earnings history.
By most accounts, George W. has a cheerful personality. He polls well. He has carried Texas, a crucial state, twice. His brother is governor of Florida, another crucial state.
But who is he? What does he stand for? What are the principles for which he would sacrifice his popularity? He talks about his ''compassionate conservatism'' the way his father talked about a ''kinder, gentler America.'' But George Sr. could never quite articulate what he stood for; indeed, he had only disdain for ''the vision thing.'' George Jr. may have a compelling answer to the question of why he wants to be president, but so far he hasn't offered one. Neither have his supporters.
When Ronald Reagan ran for president, nobody wondered what his priorities were. The Gipper's philosophical clarity held a powerful appeal; he was elected and reelected in back-to-back landslides. By contrast, George Bush and Bob Dole never stood for much of anything, and the voters gave them short shrift.
And George W.? Is he a Reaganite or his father's son? Is he seeking the White House because of a conviction that his country needs him, or is he just surfing a wave? He spent the winter and spring declining to answer questions about where he stands on the issues or what he would do if he were president. Now, at last, the presumed front-runner is ready to start running. Now, at last, we will learn about his deeply-held political beliefs.
Yet it's hard not to wonder: If George W. Bush had deeply held political beliefs, wouldn't we already know what they are?
Posted by: ElfMistress 1 06/16/1999 07:27:49 PDT
snip
I'd say yes to your question.
One of the best articles I have ever seen. You should cross post it as a thread starter.
There is a sizeable group of people here on FR who fit this to a T.
It is, again, an amazingly prescient article. I am ashamed to admit that many of the attitudes therein were mirrored in myself when I marched to the polls in 2004.
No more.
Congressman Ron Paul warns of a contrived incident to provoke war with Iran, a "Gulf of Tonkin" type incident, January 11, 2006.
That kind of public speculation is ill-advised.
Vigilance against such a possibility must be maintained or it will happen again. Repetition of history is always possible for those who learn nothing from it. Can you say with certitude that such a deception as the Gulf of Tonkin incident will never again happen here with our government?
Thanks. I do appreciate that.
Me, I'm a conservative and I'm suspicious. When government makes big claims and then can't back them up, I'm even more suspicious. Call it a personal failing, if you will. Me, I call it healthy cynicism, the hallmark of any conservative worthy of the name.
You win the conservative of the day award.
Was I being highhanded? If so, I’m sorry. I generally think we’re entitled to our own opinions. But not our own facts.
***************
I couldn't agree more.
I’m no expert on the JBS. I can read Marx anytime and be considered an “intellectual”. If I read the JBS, it might come back to haunt me. Still, I think I’ve seen some of their literature. My take is that they rightly saw that some things were wrong. An example would be our liberal MSM misleading people before the advent of alternative voices like Rush and FreeRepublic. Give them credit, some things are wrong. Other people had no clue.
But then they would try to make sense out of it and take some wrong turns. It’s not all about communism, or about the Federal Reserve system, or about Jews in control.
Here’s an an alternative approach. There are intellectual ideas (forces) that swirl around the world even as individual nations, and individual people address particular issues at particular times and places. One intellectual idea is embodied in the American revolution. This was actually an Evolution. Much of the best was retained and improved as we moved civilization forward. A competing idea is embodied in the French revolution. This was truly a revolution as all of the old order was rejected. They rejected monarchism, rejected religion, rejected tradition. All was swept away in favor of superficial, ad hoc “reason” acceptable to the mob.
Today’s American conservatives are intellectual heirs to the American revolution. Today’s American liberals have been Europeanized and are intellectual heirs to Marx and Engels who greatly admired the French revolution.
Let's be FRiends. :)
************
Agreed. I say that as a frequent visitor of the Religion forum, the most deathmatch-ridden place on FR. :)
The reason the JBS is looked down upon by so many is not so much for wacky ideas or conspiracies. That conspiracies exist is beyond question, to anybody who has done any reading of history. Whether those mentioned in a previous post “...run the world...” is open to debate, though it is undeniable that those folks are movers and shakers of world and US politics. Much and many of their actions are not debatable, since at times they are quite open about their plans, and anybody who can read or see can plainly observe. For example, does anybody have any doubt about the so-called North American Union? Does anybody think that is an accident, or that we are naturally evolving toward the “new world order”?
As to your feelings some ideas seem wacky, I would say, I’ve had that feeling before, and usually would ignore whatever is presented, though keep it in mind for further info. Sometimes I find something was important, and a particular author was prophetic, and sometimes not. I must say, the level of scholarship was not lacking, and sometimes, it was my poor understanding, rather than an idea presented. I’m not slapping you down, or making any insinuations. That’s just my take on things.
Now to address why the JBS has such a bad reputation, and is looked upon as wackos by some here on this thread, I think I can shine a little light.
In the early 50’s, our government was infiltrated by communists. Many had been there since FDR or before. That too is beyond debate, and has become even more clear since some of the archives have been opened in the former USSR, and confirmed many accusations from many quarters. The JBS was founded to fight communism.
Early in that decade, Senator Joe McCarthy was doing his thing, and the House on un-Amercan activities were working to expel communist influence from our government. Most folks know what happened to McCarthy(or then again, maybe not). The communist influence was brought to bear against McCarthy and any of like mind. The news sources and many unions were already organized to exert pressure to destroy any anti-communist movements by slander and misleading information, much the way liberals do now with anybody they see as a threat. A good example is R Reagan working in the Screen Actors Guild, to eliminate communist influence. One can call it the anti-anti-communist movement, or, as math teacher knows, 2 negatives equal a positive, the pro communists.
After McCarthy was eliminated, there was just the JBS, organized as the only effective anti-communist organization still left. The mainstream press has been slamming the JBS ever since. Not, mind you, with facts or truth or disputation, but ridicule, much like is being directed toward Ron Paul by some on this thread. You will rarely read anything to dispute JBS claims in any reasonable disputation, but you will see lots of name calling and innuendo about the organization and the “nuts” who are members. I guess the most straightforward way to say it is, if you are positively opposed to the JBS, you are taking your lead from the communist influence of the mainstream press. That is not to say you must believe anything and everything put out by folks in the JBS, but to reject some information because it originates from that organization, is falling into the trap set by the left.-Glenn
*************
LOL! I'll try to remember that. :)
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.