Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NYT: Ron Paul for President... of the 'Wackos'? [Birchers, Israel-Haters, etc.]
Editor and Publisher.com ^ | 07/20/07 | E&P Staff

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."


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: antireality; antisemite; antisemitism; antiwhatever; appauled; asseenonstormfront; ballotwasters; bigshrimper; birchers; carto; conspiracy; dajoooooooooooooooos; dingbats; dopers; election2008; electionpresident; fantasies; grppl; idjits; illuminati; jbs; jewhaters; johnbirchsociety; kentucky; knownothings; kucinichandpaul2008; liberaltarian; losers; lyndonlarouche; meatheads; moonbats; moonies; muhammadsminions; paranoids; patbuchananlite; paulbearers; paulestinians; paulistas; paulistinians; paulnuts; paultard; paultardation; potheads; randpaulsucks; ronpaul; ronpaul911truther; ronpaulsucks; rontards; rupaul; sonofabirch; stoners; stormfrontposterboy; surrenderists; texas; thevoicesinronshead; tinfoilhelmetguy; toolforhillary; truther; usefulidiot; whackos; zionprotocals; zog
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 601-616 next last
To: lormand
I see repeatedly that you make allegations about Ron Paul and then expect us to do your research for you. If you are going to make these allegations, why don't YOU back them up?

"I guess 20 times . . ."

321 posted on 07/21/2007 11:03:28 AM PDT by Abcdefg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp
"You think Bush is for smaller government? And yet you can call Ron Paul supporters stupid? My Lord, man, do you ever actually stop and THINK about the crap you are posting, or do you just open up and let it flow? Bush has actually increased the size of government FASTER than Clinton/Gore did. The hysterical idiocy of neocons knows no bounds."

Why don't you read the context of the statements instead of cut-paste to fit your argument?

What a waste of bandwidth that could otherwise be used to further the debate rather than rewind the tape so some "johnny come lately" can understand. Go back and read it genius.

322 posted on 07/21/2007 11:07:24 AM PDT by lormand (...doing the research on Ron Paul that Paulistinians refuse to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: lormand

I don’t believe you are interested in “furthering the debate”. Name calling seems to be your forte.


323 posted on 07/21/2007 11:10:37 AM PDT by Abcdefg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Abcdefg
I think I counted 3, and another 3 by Ron Paul campaigners.

I would think that one would be enough, but 3, just on that link alone?

Did you see the other nut-balls he associates with? Does it make you comfortable? Did you see names like Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney and other totally wacked out anti-Americans on Alex Jones' show list?

324 posted on 07/21/2007 11:12:54 AM PDT by lormand (...doing the research on Ron Paul that Paulistinians refuse to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
"Another possibility is that whereas you are willing to turn socialist at home, so long as we win the war in Iraq, we are not."

That is an amazing leap of logic.

325 posted on 07/21/2007 11:16:31 AM PDT by lormand (...doing the research on Ron Paul that Paulistinians refuse to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: lormand

“What a weak attempt to sidetrack or divert attention to Ron Paul’s own words, action and company he keeps.”

You were the one who raised the tin foil hat flag regarding the TGI. I was merely curious what you knew. I now know you know nothing about the TGI and have no standing in raising the tin foil hat flag regarding the TGI.


326 posted on 07/21/2007 11:17:00 AM PDT by takenoprisoner (Forfeiture of liberty for alleged security undermines our distinction as a free nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: lormand
I counted two, you say you saw three. Okay.

That is a long way from "frequently", "very frequently" and "I guess 20 times".

How many times has he appeared on Stormfront to be interviewed? Exactly zero, I would bet. And yet you have tried to associate him with these racists because some of them agree with a statement he made having nothing to do with race.

327 posted on 07/21/2007 11:20:39 AM PDT by Abcdefg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: lormand
Was Ronald Reagan known as a Libertarian?

That is the wrong question, and a typical dodge I would expect a neocon to make. The correct question is "How did Ronald Reagan identify himself with regards to Libertarians?" However, you have had that answer shoved in your face so many times already that it is no wonder you don't want to go there.

Neocons are NOT conservative. Neocons are war mongerers because they believe in the use of state power to achieve their ends, whether it be domestic or foreign. Neocons are yapping nitwit imbeciles who are appallingly ignorant of what historical conservatives have believed, which BEGINS with the premise that state power is to be eschewed, not grasped and utilized for "good purposes." Neocons are so achingly stupid about the nature and dangers of political power that they would sneer and attack the ideas of the founders of our republic as "cut and run cowards." I have seen them do so on FR. Pull up a quote by Hamilton, clean up the language to make it 20th century and these drooling chimpanzees will attack it as being short sighted or cowardly. Don't tell me it doesn't happen because I have seen it happen with Jefferson, Adams, Washington, JQ Adams and others. They don't hesitate to bash Buckley, who has the balls to call this bunch what they are, a bunch of constitution tramplers, and power hungry elitists. As of yet, I have not figured out whether the Free Republic neocons are duplicitous lying fascists who know what they are not historical conservatives but have hijacked the movement and deliberately lie about it, or they are frighteningly stupid cerebral black holes who think islamofascism is something new (rather than something the west has been continually fighting for 1400 years) and that because the USA was attacked on 9/11, that means "everything has changed".... translated "all this fou fou about liberties, freedom, minding our own business and eschewing nation building has got to go...., because we are at WAR!" Either way, this bunch of liars/dunderheads (pick one or both!) will denounce every single figurehead of conservative thought for the sake of their grand pipe dream, including Reagan, who is blamed for "running" from Lebanon and not "finishing the job."

If you call em out by name, you violate the posting rules on FR, so we just have to call them "neocons."

However, I can comment on this line you posted:

The closer you look at the two, the greater the contrast. That is why we Conservatives don't call ourselves Libertarians.

Yhe historical "Russel Kirk" "William Buckley" "Barry Goldwater" "Ronald Reagan" type leaders of the Conservative Movement, would be defined by the neocons as "libertarians." Could they see what is now purporting to be the "Conservative Movement" would have helped to kill this fascist imposter and then p*ssed on its grave.

328 posted on 07/21/2007 11:24:05 AM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now they bleat like sheep for security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
"Here you go again spewing lies about things you know little or nothing about."

"No, I am not a libertarian."

Yet you claim to know libertarian views on border issues and abortion?

Organized libertarians today are running away from the open border platform because they know it is a death nail on any candidate. The classic meaning of libertarianism is to allow open borders, abortion, drugs, and just about anything close to anarchy.

I was a democRAT when I first voted for RR in 80' He didn't believe in whacked out conspiracy theories, and neither do I.

Using Ronald Reagan as an example to compare with Ron Paul is absurd.

329 posted on 07/21/2007 11:25:55 AM PDT by lormand (...doing the research on Ron Paul that Paulistinians refuse to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
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”.

Not exactly. I would say, though, that anyone who doesn't agree with W's mission to defend America is, indeed, a traitor. That includes lilly-livered dopers like Ron Paul. I mean, seriously, is that all the liberaltarians can throw at America? A blame-America-first dope smoker?
330 posted on 07/21/2007 11:28:33 AM PDT by LightBeam (Support the Surge. Support Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Abcdefg
Do you know what a guess is?

It isn't a statement of fact. However, I would not be surprised if Ron Paul was on his show more than 20 times.

Can you focus on just one wacko statement by Ron Paul?

331 posted on 07/21/2007 11:30:28 AM PDT by lormand (...doing the research on Ron Paul that Paulistinians refuse to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: Abcdefg
"Name calling seems to be your forte."

I admit, that calling someone who propagates kook conspiracies as a nut-ball.

My apologies to real nut-balls.

332 posted on 07/21/2007 11:31:45 AM PDT by lormand (...doing the research on Ron Paul that Paulistinians refuse to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
"I was merely curious what you knew"

Wouldn't it serve you better to know what Ron Paul says instead of haggling me of my knowledge of an incident that took place in the 60's?

333 posted on 07/21/2007 11:32:58 AM PDT by lormand (...doing the research on Ron Paul that Paulistinians refuse to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Abcdefg
Too bad you couldn't apply the kind of scrutiny of my words and focus them on the words of Ron Paul.

If you did, you may be on the verge of barfing, like most rationally thinking people would.

334 posted on 07/21/2007 11:35:38 AM PDT by lormand (...doing the research on Ron Paul that Paulistinians refuse to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: lormand
Take it to moveon, DU or Stormfront.

Hey the guy was just giving the JBS side and many conservatives agree with a lot of their agenda. More so than the Rockefeller Republican agenda which is the same as Democratic Party Socialism. If that so offends you why not you go to the Temple of Rudy site? If a person can not understand the concept our MISTAKES in the M.E. INCLUDING BUSH MENTOR GERALD R FORD's PROHIBITIONS on killing such scum as Saddam when they become a serious threat then maybe you need to look better at history. Bush failed to plan for and realize that if we went after Iraq then Iraq's enemy Iran and other nations would do as the M.E. Islamic culture does and put that war against each other aside and come against us.

How come Ron Paul can understand this and warn us yet the pathetic dolts in the state department with a long established track record of failures nor Bush can? It's cause and effect. Not really blame but understanding why and how come and adjusting national policy to prevent it. That is where Ron Paul is coming from.

The main problem with Bush is his blatant arrogance. No one tells him no and no one can tell him he is wrong. Period! Worse is the people who defend him no matter what and says or does he can not be wrong because he is a Republican. Party First ya know. Thus our screwed up situation in Iraq as well as or border.

Ron Paul has far more intellect and depth on understanding foreign and domestic issues than any man running for POTUS since Reagan. It's closed minded Party Bots Republicans like the former Democratic Party Members LBJ voters who have issue with Ron Paul it seems.

335 posted on 07/21/2007 11:38:08 AM PDT by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: lormand
Too bad you couldn't apply the kind of scrutiny of my words and focus them on the words of Ron Paul. If you did, you may be on the verge of barfing, like most rationally thinking people would.

I agree. I read the way you twist up the words of Ron Paul, and I feel like barfing. Same way I feel when reading Strauss. Ever hear of him? Nah, didn't think so. Urp lurp.

336 posted on 07/21/2007 11:41:04 AM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now they bleat like sheep for security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: lormand
That is an amazing leap of logic.

How so? You have said repeatedly that the Iraq war is number 1, then you go around supporting politicians who are for big government. Therefore, you are willing to have big government here as long as we win in Iraq.

337 posted on 07/21/2007 11:41:22 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp
"That is the wrong question, and a typical dodge I would expect a neocon to make"

I refuse to even try and define the definition of "neocon".

Surrender monkeys like yourself attempt to tag names on those you disagree with with neocon or whatever.

I'm just someone who believes in most all of what Ron Paul believes, but just doesn't blame America for the reason Islamist want a world wide caliphate. Unlike Ron Paul, I don't believe that our Government is poised to stage a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident.

Keeping your head in the sand of "libertarianism" is a huge step in allowing the islamist to chop it off. It will be more convienient for them.

I don't know what your problem with "neocons" are, but it could be you just hate jews, like most surrender monkeys repeat.

338 posted on 07/21/2007 11:42:09 AM PDT by lormand (...doing the research on Ron Paul that Paulistinians refuse to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: LightBeam
I mean, seriously, is that all the liberaltarians can throw at America? A blame-America-first dope smoker?

Ron Paul is a dope smoker?

339 posted on 07/21/2007 11:43:11 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
"If that so offends you why not you go to the Temple of Rudy site?" More brilliant stretches of "logic" by Paulistinians.
340 posted on 07/21/2007 11:43:50 AM PDT by lormand (...doing the research on Ron Paul that Paulistinians refuse to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 601-616 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson