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."
The very definition of a Bircher is that of one who is conservative. They don't come any more conservative.
As for the WOT, our main point is that our President has gotten us into yet another open-ended action under the auspices of the United Nations, and without an official declaration of war from the Congress.
Such actions, while theoretically making Americans safer, also vastly increase the power of the Chief Executive, far in excess of what is allowed by the Constitution.
I like it, though I admit I admire Ronald Reagan and think his D-Day speeches were among his best.
That Ronald Reagans foreign policy perspectives would upset a Ron Paul supporter I fully understand.
Two names stick out especially in my mind Bill Paxon and his wife Susan Malanori. Both were NY state congress critters. Susan was part of the 1996 Convention Charade remember? By that time the GOP was trying to sell us Liberal Lite in the Bob Dole Snake Oil Show? It happened that quick and is a lot of the reason the damage Clinton was doing went unchecked especially on such matters as military cutbacks. The GOP had a sitting majority for 6 of Clinton's 8 years in office.
In the senate side it was Lott who was brokering deals that never needed to be made and a much more political savvy person than me caught on to it early on. It was Lotts former friend Paul Weyrich who began saying there was a sell out underway. Again IIRC this also was before the 1996 elections. The GOP became everything we elected them not to be.
I think part of the problem was they mistakenly thought that since Democrats jumped the fence to help put the GOP in power that people wanted a Liberal GOP. No they went to the GOP because the DEM Party was too liberal. Most were what can best be described as Wallace Democrats which were Conservatives with no place left to go. A sizable other portion were the Joneses type Democrats who crossed the party to become Republicans because it was the thing to do at the time. They found refuge with the Rockefeller wing of the GOP and have remained there. That is mostly the Rudy for POTUS crowd. Thus the reason you hear some very liberal ideas coming from supposedly Republicans. That's just my take on it though.
Reagan was a quick learner on foreign policy. A trait no one can say a Bush possess. Would GW Bush sit back and do nothing while Israel ran an attack on say Iraq or Iran? No he would have had Powell or Condi there ASAP to scold Israel and if he caught word of it before prevent such an attack. Thus the reason Reagan had far more success than Bush. He knew when to let some problems work their own way out in the M.E. Bush however feels he must micropmanage the M.E.
Let's face it the Reagan policies did not lead to half the M.E. being angry enough to come at us as they are now. Yes there were attacks but not to the extent of the build up in Iran. Iran backed down remember? Remember when Iraq and Iran hated each others guts? Bush has united them to hate us a fete no other POTUS has managed to do not even Carter was that stupid and yes Carter was a dunce but then so was Ford. There lies the Bush legacy. Reagan dealt with Qaddafi one on one. He didn't mobilize the entire military to accomplish the task to do it either. He made it personal and he didn't strut around like a rooster in a hen house saying Mommar I'm coming after you for months on end before doing it.
Reagan wasn't perfect but compared to Poppy, Clinton, and Junior, the man was a political genius. Too bad da Bushes despised all the man worked on and stood for. It cost Poppy a second term. Oh I forgot the official party spin is that was Perot's's fault.. LOL..
I wouldn’t disagree with your comparison of Bush-Clinton-Bush with Reagan. He did condemn the Osirak bombing, though did nothing beyond that. Jihad would have grown, but Bush I and Clinton certainly did little to fight, and more than a little to portray the US as inept.
Whoo-Hoo!
If someone claims Paul as a columnist and he disagree with them, then he should repudiate them, not accept their suppoort.
An interesting tag-line. Osama bin Laden could translate it into Arabic and use it in his screeds to whip up the jihadists, except he has so many equally over-the-top claims to global over-reach to choose from in his beloved Quran. The Romans were pretty good at that too: always dreaming up reasons to attack their neighbors, based on real or imagined affronts to their dignity.
“I like it, though I admit I admire Ronald Reagan and think his D-Day speeches were among his best.”
“That Ronald Reagans foreign policy perspectives would upset a Ron Paul supporter I fully understand.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The same Ronald Reagan who knew when to pull the troops out of Lebanon (after the slaughter of several hundred of them),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
concluding that irrationalities of the Middle East were beyond his ken? I suppose today’s enthusiasts for the Iraq expedition would call that “cut and run”.
If you’re going to fall back on RR’s authority, you need to acknowledge the entire package, not just the part that appeals to your current bellicosity. This argument has been tried before, as recently as 2005, e.g.,
George Bush, who once criticized Ronald Reagan’s approach to terrorism, is now making a desperate grab for the former president’s coattails.
In August, Bush said that, because of Reagan’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Lebanon after the 1983 bombing of a Maine barracks in Beirut killed 241 Americans, “[Terrorists] concluded that free societies lack the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy.”
But two months later, with his poll ratings dropping to levels Reagan never saw, and with public support for the Iraq occupation collapsing, Bush traveled to a the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, where he declared with a straight face that, “we are answering history’s call with confidence and a comprehensive strategy.”
Comparing himself with Reagan, Bush said of the former president: “He recognized that freedom was opposed by dangerous enemies. And he understood that America has always prevailed by standing firmly on principals - and never backing down in the face of evil.”
Returning again and again to his “stay-the-course” theme, Bush announced that, “The key to victory lay in our resolve to stay in the fight till the fight was won.”
He did not, of course, announce a strategy for pulling anything akin to victory out of a quagmire that former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, a Republican stalwart, compares with the Vietnam imbroglio in an article penned for the forthcoming edition of Foreign Affairs magazine. Connecting Bush with another former president, Laird suggests that the current commander-in-chief is repeating the mistakes of Richard Nixon by keeping U.S. troops in a fight where there appears to be no obvious benchmark for defining victory and no plan for bringing U.S. troops home. Some kind of exit strategy is needed, contends Laird, because, “Our presence is what feeds the insurgency (in Iraq), and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency.” Bush and his supporters has repeatedly dismissed calls for an exit strategy, suggesting that any announced plan for withdrawing U.S. troops would make Iraq more chaotic and make America more vulnerable.
But Ronald Reagan, the man Bush was trying so hard to associate himself with during his visit to California Thursday, took a different view. And even some Republicans are beginning to make that point. In a remarkable October 7 speech delivered on the House floor, Representative Ron Paul, a maverick Republican from Texas who has long been critical of Bush’s misguided approach to fighting terrorism, invoked Reagan’s legacy as part of a call for withdrawal.
“Supporters of the war in Iraq, as well as some non-supporters, warn of the dangers if we leave. But isn’t it quite possible that these dangers are simply a consequence of having gone into Iraq in the first place, rather than a consequence of leaving? Isn’t it possible that staying only makes the situation worse? If chaos results after our departure, it’s because we occupied Iraq, not because we left.
“The original reasons for our pre-emptive strike are long forgotten, having been based on false assumptions. The justification given now is that we must persist in this war or else dishonor those who already have died or been wounded. We’re also told civil strife likely will engulf all of Iraq.
“But what is the logic of perpetuating a flawed policy where more Americans die just because others have suffered? More Americans deaths cannot possibly help those who already have been injured or killed.
“Civil strife, if not civil war, already exists in Iraq— and despite the infighting, all factions oppose our occupation. The insistence on using our militarily to occupy and run Iraq provides convincing evidence to our detractors inside and outside Iraq that we have no intention of leaving. Building permanent military bases and a huge embassy confirms these fears. We deny the importance of oil and Israel’s influence on our policy, yet we fail to convince the Arab/Muslim world that our intentions are purely humanitarian.
“In truth, our determined presence in Iraq actually increases the odds of regional chaos, inciting Iran and Syria while aiding Osama bin Laden in his recruiting efforts. Leaving Iraq would do the opposite— though not without some dangers that rightfully should be blamed on our unwise invasion rather than our exit. Many experts believe bin Laden welcomed our invasion and occupation of two Muslim countries. It bolsters his claim that the U.S. intended to occupy and control the Middle East all along. This has galvanized radical Muslim fundamentalists against us. Osama bin Laden’s campaign surely would suffer if we left.
“We should remember that losing a war to China over control of North Korea ultimately did not enhance communism in China, as she now has accepted many capitalist principles. In fact, China today outproduces us in many ways— as reflected by our negative trade balance with her.
“We lost a war in Vietnam, and the domino theory that communism would spread throughout southeast Asia was proven wrong. Today, Vietnam accepts American investment dollars and technology. We maintain a trade relationship with Vietnam that the war never achieved.
“We contained the USSR and her thousands of nuclear warheads without military confrontation, leading to the collapse and disintegration of a powerful Soviet empire. Today we trade with Russia and her neighbors, as the market economy spreads throughout the world without the use of arms.
“We should heed the words of Ronald Reagan about his experience with a needless and mistaken military occupation of Lebanon. Sending troops into Lebanon seemed like a good idea in 1983, but in 1990 President Reagan said this in his memoirs: “…we did not appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle… In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave… yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.”
“During the occupation of Lebanon by American, French, and Israeli troops between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in that country. One horrific attack killed 241 U.S. Marines. Yet once these foreign troops were removed, the suicide attacks literally stopped. Today we should once again rethink our policy in this region.
“It’s amazing what ending military intervention in the affairs of others can achieve. Setting an example of how a free market economy works does wonders.
“We should have confidence in how well freedom works, rather than relying on blind faith in the use of military force to spread our message. Setting an example and using persuasion is always superior to military force in showing how others might live. Force and war are tools of authoritarians; they are never tools of champions of liberty and justice. Force and war inevitably lead to dangerous unintended consequences.”
While George Bush and his neoconservative allies connive to use Ronald Reagan’s legacy as the latest justification for maintaining the deadly, dangerous and unnecessary occupation of a distant land, it has fallen to a more historically-savvy and genuinely-conservative Republican, Ron Paul, to honor that legacy with the suggestion that it might indeed be time to bring the troops home.
Recognized his mistake, and withdrew, kind of. Ron Paul’s OK to here.
Actually he first pushed of an “agreement” (“ “ because only one side complied) between Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and THE UNITED STATES. I’m sure RP is in favor of things like that.
As it collapsed we withdrew.
Reagan assured for a buffer in the south, that’s something RP would stick his nose into, and marshaled the escape of the PLO, eventually to Libya, saving Arafat’s life from an Israeli sniper in the process by withholding support for killing him. Sounds like the non-interventionist Paul to me.
Three days after the Lebanon withdrawl he invaded Grenada at the request of our local allies to overthrow a Marxist govenmnent. RP didn’t support that.
He aided the Contras in Nicaragua, RP didn’t support that.
He aided the Afghan rebels, ironically using some of the PLO weapons captured by Israel in Lebanon, RP didn’t support that, and points to it as one of the actions leading to 9/11.
Although today he’s a supporter of MAD to confront new nuclear regieme, they being a logical as us I suppose. Yet in the Reagan years he was a supporter of the SDI.
There’s nothing to indicate RP was a proponent of large troop levels in Europe, Korea or Japan. Or of Reagan’s confrontational style with the Soviets, possible only because of our presence in Europe.
Would he have supported the INF treaty?
To claim Ron Paul is the rebirth of Ronald Reagan based on one withdrawl (followed within a week by another foreign incursion) is just plain silly.
I’ve not GWB is Ronald Reagan, he isn’t. It’s a election, not a Ronald Reagan look alike contest. Perhaps Ron Paul should be content standing on his own positions.
Probably should have included his boost in aid and statement that Israel would never be asked to return to the 1967 lines an rather un-Paulike middle east positions.
“Reagan assured for a buffer in the south, that’s something RP would stick his nose into, and marshaled the escape of the PLO, eventually to Libya, saving Arafat’s life from an Israeli sniper in the process by withholding support for killing him. Sounds like the non-interventionist Paul to me.”
So, are you saying that, while Clinton let several opportunities to take our Bin Laden slip by, RR’s folks committed even greater folly by actively intervening to engineer the escape of the PLO and keep Arafat alive? Sounds pretty interventionist to me.
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.