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."
OK. But, FReepers have, and don, endlessly support massive expansion of federal entitlements, things that also would seem to be totally against what "we" believe. I'm simply saying that one issue typically does not define a person. If the person held big government positions in addition to what you object to, I would see your point. I just think you are wasting a lot of time and energy complaining about the lack of a WOT litmus test for membership here.
Did you know that Ronald Reagan called libertarianism the "heart and soul of conservatism"?
It is quite a stretch to tie into a 'small government' candidate and an isolationist foreign policy which is also based on the notion that America is to blame for evil abroad.
The previous GOP congress was booted because of anger from Conservatives and abandonment from libertarians. My congressman John Carter (R-TX) is just as much smaller government, but without the self defeating views on foreign policy.
There is enormous pressure from CONSERVATIVES who have much more influence on members of congress than do libertarians to shrink the government. It is an issued played out every election year.
Like who, and what?
I've got actual Ron Paul quotes. What do you have?
That would be major news if it were true.
Libertarianism is the canvas which Conservatism painted from.
The closer you look at the two, the greater the contrast. That is why we Conservatives don't call ourselves Libertarians.
That's absurd. When I have the option, I vote for the candidate for smaller government. You don't. When there is no candidate for smaller government, I vote for the lesser of two evils.
It is quite a stretch to tie into a 'small government' candidate and an isolationist foreign policy which is also based on the notion that America is to blame for evil abroad.
I don't think its a stretch at all. It is all not based on the notion that America is to blame for evil abroad. It is tied to the notion, proffered by George Washington's farewell address, that foreign entanglement are not good for the country.
The previous GOP congress was booted because of anger from Conservatives and abandonment from libertarians. My congressman John Carter (R-TX) is just as much smaller government, but without the self defeating views on foreign policy.
OK, so? They were, as a whole, not for smaller government, as given by the sizes of the budgets they proposed.
There is enormous pressure from CONSERVATIVES who have much more influence on members of congress than do libertarians to shrink the government. It is an issued played out every election year.
I disagree. We got our candidates elected, and we took control of the whole government. We then proceeded to do nothing as out candidates expanded government faster than Clinton of Carters wettest dreams.
The simple explanation is that we pay good lip service to smaller government, but aren't really for it.
Huh. If you haven't watched the Bushbot crowd defend everything he has ever done, then I can't help you. I've got actual Ron Paul quotes.
You keep saying that, as if it is a bone of contention. For the record, I know you have Ron Paul quotes. Whoo de doo. You can stop saying it now.
What do you have?
I am not going to go back and look at every single quote for the last 7 years as the bush bots have supported every big government move. If you haven't seen it, you are blind. Or perhaps you are one of them.
Also referred to as Gulf of Tonkin Incident
For someone who pretends to speak as if an authority, it might behoove you to at the least make some primitive attempt to seek limited knowledge before you mouth off.
Now, where you there, and what did you see?
I added the word "every" to your post to correct it grammatically. You are absolutely correct, and I am definitely NOT a member of the JBS.
They were preaching to get us out of the UN when everyone else thought they were nuts.
I consider myself to be both, actually. Which facets of libertarianism do you feel conflict with conservatism? Many folks make a case about libertarian attitude towards the war on drugs, but other than that, I am hard pressed to think of any other domestic issue in which there is a whole lot of difference between the two.
That's funny, I don't recall anyone looking over my shoulder when I cast a vote. Why do you Paulistinians come up with such nonsense?
Thanks for making my point. The previous GOP congress was booted partly because of their abandonment moving towards a small government. You should continue to pressure the GOP AND support a brutal execution of the war against Islam-0-fascist.
Supporting Ron Paul is suicide.
I suppose it is possible that you vote a totally different way then you debate, but I doubt it.
It's not my job to recast to you the last 7 years of FR history. If you don't want to believe that the Bushbots defended the ted kennedy education bill, and the medicare entitlement expansion, go ahead.
What a weak attempt to sidetrack or divert attention to Ron Paul's own words, action and company he keeps. Ron Paul propagate kook-conspiracies. I'm not an expert on kook-conspiracies because I don't believe in kook-conspiracies. Now, where you there, and what did you see?
I'm thinking lobodomy about now.
Ron Paul, Cindy Sheehan, Rosie O'Donald and Alex Jones are not talking about the ACTUAL "Tonkin" incident. You know that right? If not, the "TGI" is a template for all successive kook-burgers out there to use as an excuse for attacking their own Military and Government.
Yeah, I was at the "TGI" in a "black helicopter" piloted by Richard Nixon and LBJ.
The most obvious and biggest difference is why we are arguing here in the first place, i.e., foreign policy.
Open borders, pro-abortion, drugs are other huge contrasts in Libertarian versus Conservative beliefs.
FYI, Paul is both pro-life and pro building the wall, as many libertarians are.
I don't make up things from thin air on how you vote. You and I just admitted to voting for Dubya, and would have to do it again given the same choices.
The difference between you and I is I pay attention to what the candidates say, and who they associate with.
In the case of Ron Paul, he is a frequent guest on the Alex Jones show. That in itself should be a major disqualifier for anyone who has an ounce of rationality within them.
While i'm not a John Birch Society member, indeed John Birch was never a John Birch society member, and would not have agreed with all of their political views, it was interesting to see failure of the politcal wisdom of that time.
i see much of Gene Grove's attitude here today. Take this little story with as many 'grains of salt' as you wish.
lol
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.