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."
Why does Ron Paul frequently appear on the Alex Jones show?
FYI: Alex Jones is America's leading 911 Inside Job kook-conspirators.
Why did Ron Paul affirm Alex Jones/Cindy Sheehan's assertion of a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident?
You guys have plenty of rope now to hang yourself with. Please take more if needed.
Like when I voted for GW Bush over Gore and Kerry?
How did you vote in that election?
If you say you voted for Bush, I must ask, what does shoe leather taste like?
Why has the title been modified to include “Israel-haters”? Do Ron Paul and his supporters hate Israel?
George Bush does not support smaller government. Therefore, you support candidates who are not for smaller government. I voted for Bush, because he was better than the others. But, when the opportunity arises to support candidates who support smaller government, I do so. Like now.
I made a simple observation that you support candidates who are not for smaller government. That's ok, but I don't know why you don't admit it.
No, but Ron Paul opposes all foreign aid, therefore he votes against Foreign aid to Israel. For some, voting against Foreign Aid to Israel = anti semetism.
Also, because he is for less government, and some wackos and neo-nazis are for less government, then these people claim Ron Paul is anti-semetic.
That's all the Paul bashers have against Paul, lies, smears, and the obligatory terrorist pic endorsing Paul.
Apparently most FReepers enjoy the socialist status-quo that threatens to turn our nation into a 3rd world dumpster. They couldn't handle freedom if it walked up to them and undressed itself in front of them.
Because he has been invited to speak his mind there. He's not like your type who stick their fingers in their ears yelling "lalalalalala!", calling names, and squelching debate. Exactly how does your idea of setting up little Americas all over the world - amidst people who would rather die than be free - advance the idea of individual liberty? You haven't answered a single one of my questions yet, but you're adept at calling names.
Here's another question for you: Does appearance on a radio program (whether frequently or infrequently) constitute unanimous agreement with the moderator?
My opinion is that the 9-11 attacks were an unintended result of pushing our freedoms and way of life upon peoples who have no regard for either one. It's time to back off and let them stew in their own juices. That is not to say we are not at risk to further attacks from the outside, but for crying out loud, we don't have to ask for it.
*************
Okay, that's just weird.
Thanks for that admission. Would you do it again given that things were the same back then?
I'm guessing you would still say yes.
I noticed that I can provide Ron Paul's actual words on these threads, yet you accuse me of supporting candidates who are not for smaller government. I wait right up until the primaries to throw my support.
All of this fawning for candidates this early on is definitely not my style. For example, campaign gaffes this early in the process will kill a candidacy fast, i.e., Ron Paul 08'.
It is another day, but I have still not awakened from this nightmare of debating other members of Freerepublic who support a "Blame America", "Gulf of Tonkin" conspiracy nutball.
WTF? I don't get it.
Some people are incapable of a logical train of thought in a debate, ususally because their biases coming into a debate are so strong, they are incapable of it. An example would be religious threads, and, here, the religion of “anyone who does not agreee 100% with W is a traitor”.
Do you think a bunch of religious fanatics just woke up one morning and decided to attack us for no reason whatsoever; that they just decided out of the clear blue not to like us very much? Would you take kindly to meddling on the part of fanatics who would like to establish Sharia law here in our country? What makes you think they should appreciate our attempts to set up a republic in theirs?
Not sure, but probably. I went into 2004 thinking I wouldn't vote for W, but just couldn't bear the thought of John Kerry is commander in chief.
I noticed that I can provide Ron Paul's actual words on these threads, yet you accuse me of supporting candidates who are not for smaller government.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Ron Paul is for smaller government. None of the other candidates are.
I wait right up until the primaries to throw my support.
If you are not for Ron Paul, you are not for a candidate who supports smaller government. That's ok. You can be for the candidate who supports slightly smaller government than Ted Kennedy. But, there is only one candidate with a record of actually voting for smaller government.
All of this fawning for candidates this early on is definitely not my style. For example, campaign gaffes this early in the process will kill a candidacy fast, i.e., Ron Paul 08'.
Right, and that's fine.
It is another day, but I have still not awakened from this nightmare of debating other members of Freerepublic who support a "Blame America", "Gulf of Tonkin" conspiracy nutball.
I think you would find, it you listened more clearly, that for most of thus that is Paul's weakness, not his strenght. In my case, I simply think that this country is dead in 30 years if we continue down the same path of ever increasing government and illegal immigration. Paul is the only candidate who would address those two issues, therefore I support him.
Stunning admission for someone with an account on Freerepublic.
Why are you so obsessed with who you think ought to be allowed on Free Republic?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the above admission is a "liberal" position that one wouldn't expect here. I'd be willing to bet that it is the only position that poster has which might be considered un-conservative.
Yet, this site is full of people who supported W expanding the department of education with Ted Kennedy, it is full of people who supported W on the medicare bill, it is full of people who are just fine with illegal immigration.
I don't go around, on every thread, being "stunned" about why they are on FR.
There is a diverse group of "mostly" conservative thought on this board. You will be happier if you give up on insisting upon 100% ideological purity on this one issue.
I am willing to give, and have often given, President Bush the benefit of the doubt on many matters, but I am not about to dismiss Ron Paul as a “kook” simply because he questions the manner in which we’ve meddled in world affairs beyond usefulness in certain places.
Perhaps the 'one-issue' smaller government folks should wait another 4 years for someone who can do both, strive for smaller government, and defend America from our enemies by fighting them abroad instead of at home.
The more I learn about Ron Paul, the less I like. Ron Paul frequently appears on the most loathsome radio and blogs that any decent human would reject.
“Gulf of Tonkin” tin-foiled hat crap.
____________________________________________________________
Which ship were you aboard? The Maddox or the
Turner Joy? What was your duty station that night?
What did you see that night?
Not there and don’t have any first hand knowledge? Then please tell us what makes you an expert on the TGI?
Try posting an Alex Jones article on Freerepublic and then ask me that again.
However, Ron Paul can appear on the Alex Jone's show quite frequently and even propagate Cindy Sheehan/Rosie O'Donald conspiracies.
I can see the connection, but I expect some cheap magic trick, like, "look over there, he is for smaller government".
I would take issue with that. We all state we are for smaller government. Yet, when the GOP President and Congress were putting in massive new entitlements and pork out the wazoo, "we" by and large we all for it. When "we" finally took control of the government "we" expanded it faster than Clinton or Carter did. Given that history, I think it is fair to question whether or not "we" really support smaller government.
I know I complain about "one issue" candidates, but there is one issue which trumps all others, and that is foreign policy.
I would disagree with that. Small government is not one issue. It touches everything. It touches culture, education, economic prospertiy.. AND foreign policy. Look at the European nations like France and the Netherlands. The more they become dependant on the government, the more they become emascualted, and are incapable of doing anything while they are overrun by the muslims. Socialism is the surest thing to destroy our civilization, which is the surest guarantee of muslim expansion.
Perhaps the 'one-issue' smaller government folks should wait another 4 years for someone who can do both, strive for smaller government, and defend America from our enemies by fighting them abroad instead of at home.
Comments are mostly the same as above. Plus, there is the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. That is, the big government Republicans always have an excuse about why now isn't the time to make government smaller. I am sick of hearing it. That none of the other candidates are for smaller government is not my problem. Convince me that one of the other candidates, who agrees with you on the war, is for smaller government, and I'll be all over it.
The more I learn about Ron Paul, the less I like. Ron Paul frequently appears on the most loathsome radio and blogs that any decent human would reject.
If he had as much access to the mainstream media as the other candidates, and still did those shows, then you might have a point. Until then, I am willing to assume he takes whatever exposure he can get.
What is TGI?
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.