The following is an editorial and represents the author’s opinion and not any views of this site, its other authors or contributors.
Both the left and right political establishment are salivating over a rare opportunity to knock around a man who has had no scandals, no marital issues, no political waffles, no changes of heart, no demagoguing and represents the most constitutional, conservative approach to enter the mainstream of politics since Senator Robert Taft. There has literally been no ammo whatsoever for the neo-socialist liberals or the big government conservatives who are terrified of what Ron Paul represents - a man of integrity, whose personal life and principles are nearly as pure as the gold standard which he advocates.
The best they could do up until this point were the logical fallacies of middle-school cliques: ad hominem attacks on him (he’s “crazy,” or a “kook”), his supporters (Ron Paul is supported by prostitutes and white supremacists, therefore he must be bad) or his ability to win (Ron Paul isn’t “electable” - therefore we don’t have to pay attention to the truth he speaks).
When Ron Paul began to actually gain traction, proving that he was no kook, his supporters are mostly normal, mainline Americans and that he was indeed electable - the establishment and their hacks stood in frozen panic for a couple of months. When he raised the most money in the fourth quarter of 2007, there was nary a whisper in the media.
The Blessing and Curse of Grassroots Support
Ron Paul has always been supported by a grassroots effort. The only inherent disadvantage of this is that supporters get a larger say in representing a candidate. If you have even one supporter who has radical, immoral or unethical views and gets his hand on the mic, then you have a moment of discomfort. However, if you happen to represent even a slightly credible threat to the establishment and the acolytes of the “lesser of two evils” then you will be the victim of muckraking.
And so the major media and blogosphere alike, especially those invested in the same old story of every other candidate, have jumped on the first so called “scandal” associated with Ron Paul. When Paul was out of office in the eighties and nineties, newsletters were published under his name, edited and written by supporters - but most of which the congressman never read, wrote or even really cared about.
The Muckrakers
In every election he’s ever ran in since, the remarks of those supporters became “breaking news” rehashed over and over again. The apologies from Ron Paul, for remarks he never wrote or read have been quick and proficient every time. The man has every right to come out swinging against the muckrakers who dig it out every election, but instead, like a true leader and ethical man of integrity, he apologizes again and again - despite having nothing to do with it except his name.
But this doesn’t stop so called conservatives (where the majority of the attacks come from) from acting like children and bored old women, suspending their high and mighty preaching about morals and values to churn out negative gossip-columns before even doing the most basic research on the issue.
Ron Paul has never been seen or heard saying anything racist. In fact, he has the most support among blacks in the Republican party. His individualist message is the most open and tolerant concerning issues of race, and has always been. There is no evidence whatsoever that he has any racist leanings - yet the witch hunt goes on.
The NAACP itself has come to Paul’s defense. Yesterday, Austin President Nelson Linder, who has known Paul for over 20 years, maintained that Paul was being attacked because he represents a threat to “the establishment.” He remarked further:
Knowing Ron Paul’s intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that….so I think it’s very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that’s what I’m hearing
The Real Kooks Reveal Themselves
Ironically, the major media have been the first to admit their mistakes in this whole joke of a story. Wolf Blitzer had Ron Paul on right away and finished his interview declaring, “You and I have talked a lot… and I was pretty shocked, because it certainly didn’t sound like the Ron Paul that I have come to know, and our viewers have come to know.” Fox News, who has been blatantly anti-Ron Paul, didn’t even bring it up in their most recent debate.
Tucker Carlson told the author of the story that it was “right over his head” when he accused Ron Paul of speaking in “racist code” as part of his covert racist agenda. Ironically, many of the conservatives who openly dismiss Paul as a “kook” are jumping on an anti-Ron Paul bandwagon driven by a man who thinks Paul is speaking in “racist code” as a “transmitter.” The author also admitted he “had no evidence” of Ron Paul actually saying racist things.
But the so called “conservative” under-media continue to revel in their hypocrisy. Like all self-righteous entities, they boldly proclaim themselves, their candidates and their causes moral and just - sounding the biblical trumpet of pride as thy announce their moral superiority - while simultaneously exposing their ignorance and unabashed hostility towards the closest embodiment of true conservative principles in the modern era. Many who use this example of yellow journalism will call Paul a kook, and base this accusation on a man who thinks Paul is a “neo-confederate transmitter” of “racist code.”
Even the left-leaning New York Times printed a retraction on a story from last year accusing Paul of being tied with white supremacists. It will be interesting to see if the conservative media and their followers will bear even a shred of the integrity the Times has, and retract their ungrounded accusations.
The Blowback Generation of Conservatives
The false conservatives publications, authors and pundits, many paying lip service to the free market, strong national defense and the constitution, have been revealing their true colors the past few elections. This incident has now proven that they are desperate and the era of big-government conservatism will likely not endure. The moral “majority” soon will have a choice - make the full transition to Huckabee and Hillary-style moral socialism, or repent and return to the way of freedom, limited government and individual responsibility.
Ron Paul will not win this election, but he if he maintains his status as a fund raising, conservative magnet, then the next election will move a little closer to the right. Politicians are predictably eager to go where the wind blows, and a significant gust is brewing in the form of Ron Paul republicans. For the first time in my lifetime, the mainstream media is broadly and openly questioning the federal reserve, the constitutionality of previously sacrosanct government programs and the war on drugs. Paul is educating and inspiring a new generation of conservatives, armed with the moral and political principles that the current generation has either forgot or abandoned. We will never vote for a faux conservative again. We are the generation of their blowback. And the siren song of their big-government pundits is wasted - gradually decreasing into baseless accusations, and the whining of a faded empire.
I think most Ron Paul supporters will argue that there may or may not be time to wait on the “next election”. Our country is hopelessly bankrupt. The national debt has never been this high, and it may be too late to have any hopes of paying it off. Andrew Jackson paid off the national debt by eliminating the 2nd Bank of the United States (Federal Reserve predecessor), but the debt wasn’t near as high then since the central bank had not been around as long as the Federal Reserve has. That is why you’ll find large numbers of Ron Paul supporters who feel he is the last hope for the United States to maintain its sovereign borders and currency.
Umm, the media has always questioned the war on drugs. Where have you been?
John, someone once told me that “things are never as bad when your guy loses, and never as good as when your guy wins.” I think there is truth to this. Until Ron Paul pulls out, I am with him 100%. However, if he pulls out, I am not simply going to throw down my arms. I think it is obvious RP has already done so much that the repercussions will be felt for decades. People are being educated and inspired to fight for freedom.
Let’s put and end to this racism thing once and for all!
http://canyouspeakthis.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/naacp-president-ron-paul-is-not-a-racist/
There does that help?
Darius, this is only partially true. I have not seen the media broadly question it on grounds of fundamental freedom. It has been a matter of should government legalize some drugs and then tax and regulate the junk out of them. We are now starting to see the issue of personal responsibility addressed with this issue, and this I haven’t seen. However, I do admit I could be under a rock on this issue.
I read the transcript for the ABC New Hampshire debate… Paul was a joke on there. He tried to bring everything back to the war. I’m glad that Fox finally cut him out, he’s a joke and has such extremely limited support, most people I know haven’t even heard of him. His support does NOT come from average mainstream Americans but young idealistic 20-somethings who are stuck between the emotion-driven liberalism of their peers and the fact-driven conservatism of their parents. My dad saw the debate and saw who Ron Paul was for the first time and told me that he was a pathetic joke or something to that effect. I wholeheartedly agreed.
Great story except for “Ron Paul will not win this election”. People need to have purpose and conviction when voting, not whom they think can win. Minnesota elected Jessie Ventura to the governorship when, democrats, republicans and the media said he had no chance.
Agreed that the media came at the drugs issue from a different perspective as you and other libertarians do.
Minnesota elected Jessie Ventura to the governorship when, democrats, republicans and the media said he had no chance.
And Minnesota has regretted it ever since.
It is so sad to me that most of my fellow Americans think politics is a game. Right now our nation faces a very real disaster with our economy and most are apathic. If we do not elect Ron Paul, we will be the losers, not Ron Paul.
War with Iran and Natioanl Healthcare seem to be the goals for most Republicans and Democrats. We are on the verge of a recession and possibly a depression and most people want to step on the gas peddle and get there faster. We have very little time to change course. Please people, read, learn, and understand what is happening before it is too late.
Darius, I also wanted to add that I have been resoundingly impressed by your not picking up this issue and blindly running with it like so many others have.
Colin, I was tempted a couple times but every link I read was kinda weak. Plus, one link mentioned some supposedly racist organization started by Pat Buchanan. I’ve never seen anything racist about Mr. Buchanan, so that made me question the validity. I can disagree strongly with a candidate without questioning his motives. I actually have complimented Ron Paul to other people regarding his apparently principled stand against abortion and his apparent personal moral life.
Thank you for covering this matter objectively. The president of the Austin NAACP has stated emphatically that he has known Dr. Paul for 20 years, that Dr. Paul is not racist, and that the establishment is trying to smear Dr. Paul because feel threatened by the degree of success that Dr. Paul has enjoyed as a constitutionist. Pathetic.
Some libertarians such as Mr. Phillies are worried that the smears will embarass the LP. I have news for Mr. Phillies: if Dr. Paul wins the nominations, the LP nominates Mr. Phillies, then this will be the first election in a long time that I will not vote Libertarian. I will write in Dr. Paul’s name.
That said, there is one newsletter that appears to be written by Ron Paul, since it says “Carol and I” and mentions some other stuff that implies that Paul is the author. Included in that same newsletter is some pretty racist stuff. So while I think most of the “evidence” is weak, that one particular newsletter is a bit worrisome.
Something like 30 delegates have been decided, so this nomination cycle has only started. Even though this has only begun, the message that Ron Paul is speaking has already won. People are waking up and are fired up, so this has just begun.
Darius,
This 30 something husband and father thinks you are a complete ignoramous. I am proud to have broken the brainwashing Fox News had over me for the past 7-8 years. The current “mainstream” establishment supported political view is the disease, and Ron Paul is the cure to that disease.
Darius,
You and your father appear to be brainwashed simpletons.
Ok then XYZ. Your savior cometh. Some of you guys have no idea what conservatism is, choosing to define it by so-called conservatives instead of the ideals it stands for. Giuliani… not a conservative (except on foreign policy possibly). Huckabee… not a conservative (except on social issues). McCain… not a conservative on almost any issue (he’s also not liberal, he makes it up as he goes). Thompson… conservative. Romney… mostly conservative (if you believe that he has geniunely “seen the light”). Ron Paul… mostly conservative EXCEPT on foreign policy and drugs, where he is libertarian/liberal.
This “Ron Paul is my savior” complex is a little disturbing, much like the “Al Gore will save the world” view that is rampant among liberals right now. People, Ron Paul is a MAN. Do you really believe he would get anything worthwhile (in your view) done with conservatives and liberals in Congress???? What proves to me that Ron Paul’s support is almost entirely young 20-somethings (or 30-somethings with the mind of a 20-something, in the case of XYZ) is this idealistic “revolution” idea. Live a few more years and your idealism will become a lot more practical.
(For everyone’s information, I’m 28.
)
Hows about not attacking people personally? Darius has every right to his views and he’s not saying anything about Dr. Paul or his supporters that is a personal attack.
Darius, I’m surprised at you. It’s pretty widely known that Ron Paul is a god.
I know Jew. I just don’t want to bow down and worship him quite yet. Maybe once he becomes Lord Ron Paul and carries a scepter everywhere he goes.
“Yet I reserve seven thousand in [America]—all whose knees have not bowed down to [Ron Paul] and all whose mouths have not kissed him.”
When I called Ron Paul a “joke,” I meant that his candidacy is a joke.
Oooh, I missed Scotty’s remark. Boy, some of you libertarians talk like a lot of liberals I know. The use of the witty ad hominem attacks is prevalent on such websites as Daily Kos.
42 and a mom. I’m voting for Ron Paul, because I hope he gets rid of the Department of Education. Money for schools come from the state, the money from the fed is blackmail, live by their rule or they will take it away and destroy your school. Why children should be measured by their tests is beyond me. Parents don’t give their children tests to see whether they are worthy. Why should we fall into this trap, and grade our children? If you had ever read some of those tests, the questions your allowed to see you would know what I mean.
I am also voting for Ron Paul, because Congress voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, which Ron Paul voted for, but we never caught Bin Laden, and it seems we have forgotten all about our original intent. Now we are in Iraq, possibly forever. We went to Iraq to get rid of Saddam, which we did, but we have no intention of leaving. Now we are starting to look at Iran. Where does this end? I would like to hear what you have gained from our going into Iraq. Because I personally have gained nothing!
I could go on and on but I have some other things to do. Thanks for allowing me to share my comments.
Go Ron Paul.
Darius I read the transcript for the ABC New Hampshire debate… Paul was a joke on there. He tried to bring everything back to the war. I’m glad that Fox finally cut him out, he’s a joke and has such extremely limited support, most people I know haven’t even heard of him. His support does NOT come from average mainstream Americans but young idealistic 20-somethings who are stuck between the emotion-driven liberalism of their peers and the fact-driven conservatism of their parents. My dad saw the debate and saw who Ron Paul was for the first time and told me that he was a pathetic joke or something to that effect. I wholeheartedly agreed.
I could say the exact same thing about Rudy (9/11! 9/11!) Giuliani. Yet the media still say he’s got an excellent chance of the nomination. I’m not saying I agree with everything Paul espouses, but I do like his attention to the economic problems and foreign policy. More than anything, he’s at least getting a lot of people who have either become disinterested or are new to voting, interested in learning about the issues and the political process. Admittedly, discussing foreign policy with many of the current GOP mainstream is like banging your head against the wall, it seems to be the main talking point of these debates period. Giuliani is a complete joke in my opinion as I can see absolutely nothing positive about his platform. I’d rather look at a McCain or Thompson after Paul than Giuliani.
Zanatos, I agree. Giuliani scares me.
I guess it’s those young 20-somethings fighting in our wars that support Ron Paul, as well as our veterans. Our military must be kooks and weirdos for supporting Ron Paul more than ANY OTHER candidate. I won’t ’spam’ you with links. You can find it out for yourself. Watch out what you say about his supporters, you may be offending the very people we send to defend our country. Food for thought. May the light of truth shine on you always.
Darius This “Ron Paul is my savior” complex is a little disturbing, much like the “Al Gore will save the world” view that is rampant among liberals right now. People, Ron Paul is a MAN. Do you really believe he would get anything worthwhile (in your view) done with conservatives and liberals in Congress???? What proves to me that Ron Paul’s support is almost entirely young 20-somethings (or 30-somethings with the mind of a 20-something, in the case of XYZ) is this idealistic “revolution” idea. Live a few more years and your idealism will become a lot more practical.
I will agree with you on this point. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who don’t know how to temper their response and go overboard thus sounding like the “wild-eyed crazies” that have predominantly been said to support RP. It’s unfortunate that those overzealous individuals are seen as the majority of Ron Paul supporters. I personally have asked in forums as well as sent emails requesting the campaign to address supporters on these issues. As it’s mostly a bottom-up organization, I see it as being a difficult thing to control regardless.
Xanatos451,
I think you hit on a key regarding so called racist writings. Ron Paul has never been a centralization kind of guy, so people in the grassroots feel some sense of license in using his name. Even many who agree that the allegations are preposterous have commented that it shows a lack of control on Paul’s part. But this is not relevant in a decentralized campaign.
no matter what happens Ron Paul will be the name for president on my ballot in 2008
“Ron Paul won’t win?” I must have been in a coma and the nominating process has already happened. So far, only two states have voted. This is a marathon, not a sprint. After IA and NH, Paul still has more votes than both Thompson and Giuliani, and he has more money than them and McCain and Huckabee. Things are looking good in MI, where Democrats and independents can cross over and vote. MI is a must-win for Romney, and SC is a must-win for Thompson. If both of those candidates lose in those states, they’re out. Rudy is not going to win FL. Paul could win in NV and pull an upset in either MI or SC.
Paul has the money and support to go beyond Super Tuesday, and even if he doesn’t win, he should no doubt run as a independent candidate, especially since the GOP wants to nominate McCain or Huckabee. It’s clear that the GOP doesn’t want to return to its traditional roots and have been hijacked by religious fanatics and pro-war hawks. Ron Paul supporters are not going to vote for the GOP nominee if it isn’t Paul. I know I want. If Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination, I’m staying home.
“Watch out what you say about his supporters, you may be offending the very people we send to defend our country.”
What have I said that is offensive? I just said that most of his supporters are idealists who don’t see the world practically. As for Ron Paul being the military’s guy, I kinda doubt it. Ever heard of John McCain? He just might be popular with the soldiers.
“Darius has every right to his views and he’s not saying anything about Dr. Paul or his supporters that is a personal attack.”
I have to disagree with this statement. Define “personal”. However, I do agree that he has a right to his views.
I don’t think he was talking to anyone Darius - just spamming.
Okay you forced me to do it…
Military and Veterans for Ron Paul 2008
http://www.militaryforpaul.com/
Military Favors Ron Paul Over McCain
http://ronpauldelaware.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/military-favors-ron-paul-over-mccain/
And there is this:
Military contributions for Q2
Ron Paul 26.23%
Barack Obama 24.02%
John McCain 18.31%
Hillary Clinton 11.08%
Hum… more contributions for even Obama then McCain. I’m sorry sir, McCain comes close, but no cigar.
From the soliders themselves:
Combat Vets Support Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPmgQ_-ISuM
Military for Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFi0h2ZBoH0
…and many others. I just like to back up my ‘claims’. You got any back up for yours?
Darius, you seem like a pompous prick. you speak down on people for having strong beleifs and call them idealistic while you parade around on some message board speaking as if you have all the answers. P.S i’m sure our soldiers would vote for a guy (McCain) that said he would keep them in Iraq for 100 years.
I read about the NAACP president speaking on behalf of Ron Paul yesterday, and I knew that it would not make any of the mainstream news stories today.
As others have already said, we are all entitled to our own opinions. To me the number one threat to our country is not a handful of terrorists (ok, a few hundred or even a few thousand- a handful in the big picture) but the economic trouble we have allowed our government to get us into. Our monetary policy makes little to no sense (except for the super rich bankers who profit from it) and casues lots of trouble for the rest of us (dotcom bust, housing bubble, etc.). Our national debt is over $9 Trillion and growing, China owns over $1 Trillion in dollar denominated assets. We have allowed our government to put the very future of our country at risk - we are behind the eight ball with China right now and we need to change course. There is only one person running for President who even understands this problem - the others think we can tax our way into prosperity (Hillary, Obama) or that there is no problem (McCain), or that we just need to build cars in Detriot (Romney this week- he’ll have another plan for other states), or that the problem is that gas prices are too high (Huckabee).
I am a Ron Paul supporter and I think it is great if you disagree with me - I just want you to be informed and be able to support your candidate’s positions with facts. Understanding and then disagreeing is ok, but ignoring and disagreeing is scary.
TJF, I heard Huckabee declaring the “high gas prices” were a cause of our economic ills. I was surprised - this i pretty ignorant even for Huckabee.
It’s nice to see I’ve brought the tin foil hat brigade out this morning. Was wondering when you guys were going to show up.
Mystic, campaign contributions don’t mean squat to me. All they tell me is who has the most energetic fanbase. Also, linking to random pro-Paul military blogs and claiming that they prove that the military overwhelmingly supports Ron Paul is like linking to a pro-Huckabee gay blog and inferring from it that most gays support the Huckster.
Darius, you seem like a pompous prick. You speak down on people for having strong beliefs and call them idealistic while you parade around on some message board speaking as if you have all the answers. P.S. I’m sure our soldiers would vote for a guy (McCain) that said he would keep them in Iraq for 100 years.
Yep, they might vote for McCain, since they voted for Bush in 2004 by a landslide. I don’t recall, maybe you can remind me, but what is Bush’s plan in Iraq? Oh wait, the SAME as McCain. Oops, there went your post script point. As for me having all the answers… obviously, I believe what I say on here. But so does everyone else, don’t you even believe what you say??? And “speaking down on people for having strong beliefs”… I like it that people have strong beliefs on the subject of politics. It is much better than having no idea what is going on in politics (and society). But if I can correct foolish beliefs and push people to the right views, I will do so. Ron Paul is very foolish on foreign policy. There, I said it. I will ALSO say that he seems to be authentic and is very socially conservative (a big plus in my book). However, he is NOT the ONLY candidate who is socially conservative, but he is one of the few who are absurd with regards to foreign policy (Kucinich, Obama, and Huckabee being the others). Does it not scare you at all that Kucinich and other leftist idiots are supporting Paul? Kucinich said he would love to have a Kucinich/Paul ticket in the general election.
It’s really sad, but a majority of my Christian friends have become Huck supporters. I’m doing my best, but many of them don’t understand how social conservatism shouldn’t be the ONLY qualifier for candidacy. My eyes are opening to the fact that many evangelicals believe that an authentic Christian faith (and adherence to a pro-life platform) is all that is necessary. As Mark Steyn said last week, if Huck wins, it will be the secular left vs. the Christian left in November. I would rather that Huck be a Democrat, cause then at least he would be pulling the Dems right on social issues.
It’s really sad, but a majority of my Christian friends have become Huck supporters. I’m doing my best, but many of them don’t understand how social conservatism shouldn’t be the ONLY qualifier for candidacy. My eyes are opening to the fact that many evangelicals believe that an authentic Christian faith (and adherence to a pro-life platform) is all that is necessary. As Mark Steyn said last week, if Huck wins, it will be the secular left vs. the Christian left in November. I would rather that Huck be a Democrat, cause then at least he would be pulling the Dems right on social issues.
I agree. I am saddened to see how many Christians are supporting Huckabee, when he is clearly a left-winger, probably moreso than any GOP in recent times. He is pro-life and a Christian, but that it is. Sadly, many Christians are only one or two issue voters - and those are them!
Who said anything about head gear? Paul is the only one on the ’stage’ that keeps asking why we got distracted from our hunt of OBL and attacked Iraq. He has said he does not believe in all the conspiracy stuff too. So that limited minded attack won’t fly.
I’ll give you a half-point on the contributions point, I agree, but the support is real.
“All they tell me is who has the most energetic fanbase.”
Well isn’t that kindof the point here? Do you honestly think ANY pro-war Republican could win against let’s say Obama (who is still for the war)? The ONLY anti-war candidates are Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul. Paul is getting the lion share of support from those that know the Democrats are on the same page with the Republicans as far as continuing war after war. The only differance is with the Democrats they get a Nanny State and the Republicans will bring in a Police State. “Your National ID please!”
“linking to random pro-Paul military blogs and claiming that they prove that the military overwhelmingly supports Ron Paul is like linking to a pro-Huckabee gay blog and inferring from it that most gays support the Huckster.”
By your logic you can say the same about FOX news and any other Republican that pulls for the war (and Hillary). Or the Washington Post, New York Times, ect…
Does it bother you that the Rupert Murdoch is supporting Hillary? Does it bother you that most of these ‘Neo-Cons’ were considered “Crazies” during the 70’s and 80’s? Does it bother you that, most within the administration, take their teachings from Marxists and Communists such as Leo Strauss?
No it does not bother me that those that want peace support Paul. Unfortunatly, in this day and age, we have a “War is Peace” mentality, so your logic only allows you to chose war. I thought the best offense was a good defense, what defense does your guy support (and hasn’t flip-flopped on)?
If you REALLY want to destroy Pauls base, Gulliani should endorse him when he drops out. It would confuse his support so much that the traction would stop. Hey have Tret Lott support him, or Bill Kistol, bring out the whole Neo-Conn crew to endorse Paul. That would be the only thing that would stop the WHOLE movement. BTW - This is more than about Paul, win or not the movement will continue. There is Congress too.
Also Dr. Paul is still performing his Congressional duties WHILE he is ALSO campaining. Is McCain keeping up with his job or just looking to the next. I hope when I’m 72 I can get around like Dr. Paul.
It would behove the Republicans to start pushing for Paul because he could utterly destroy the Pro-War Democrats in the General Election by exposing their empty rethoric. Also he could help them improve the Republican ‘name-brand’ from the chaos that has been brought upon the party for the past seven years.
The Foreign Policy of Ron Paul’s is that of our founders, what does that bother you? He is not totally against war, he is just against undeclared, unconstitutional wars. Why are you against the rule of law?
It’s not that they support fiscally liberal policies, but more that they don’t understand why a Christian should resist welfare and economic socialism.
Mystic..
Well, for one, our founders waged undeclared wars themselves. So…
Furthermore, things have changed since 1776. Non-governmental entities attack us on our soil and then disappear into the crowd. Countries on the other side of the world can attack us without even stepping onto our land. Ron Paul is an isolationist, which is impossible in this day and age. He also completely DENIES that the terrorists have ideological reasons for attacking us, merely political ones. This is INSANE. Anyone who is that blind to the truth scares me as a presidential candidate.
It doesn’t bother me that Murdoch is supporting Hillary (I hadn’t heard that), since I don’t watch Fox News or any of the other “mainstream” media outlets. Conservatives like many at the WSJ and Fox News primarily only care about fiscal conservatism. I can think for myself regarding the best candidate. As for “my guy,” it currently is Fred Thompson. He has a clue, but unfortunately not very good poll numbers. If he folds from the race, I am not sure who I will support. Maybe Romney… though he worries me. I may just wait til the general election if Thompson leaves the race before Minnesota votes.
I thought the issue with Ron Paul here wasn’t his supposed racism, but his lack of oversight. Even if he didn’t care about the publication, the fact is that it was in his name, and it wasn’t just a couple of isolated incidents that slipped by. It’s disturbing he would be so careless of writing that went out under his name.
Since when do actions take a back seat to words?
To the best of my knowledge Ron Paul’s principled stance, AS DEFINED BY HIS RECORD, is more closely aligned with the Constitution than any other candidate’s.
To me, his ACTIONS speak louder than all of the words on all of the comments on all of the websites that have written articles and blogs about him combined.
Judging a candidate’s viability on his or her words alone is foolish as it allows emotion to dictate your aligence rather than hard data.
TVB
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=227844
Please read this!
Anyone reiterating their support of Ron Paul in the wake of the newsletter revelations is either suicidal or not a libertarian.
The libertarian movement has never been so visible in its history. It will recede in a month to regroup for the next election. Meanwhile, during the next month, it will redefine itself for voters nationwide. It will either frame itself as a welcome home for racists (”Those newsletters aren’t racist, they’re the TRUTH!!!”) or as a movement truly devoted to individual liberty that rejects racism.
The outcome will help or haunt the libertarian movement for years.
Fools and their rights are soon parted.
It saddens me to see the comments of the Ron Paul detractors. They seem to be so caught up in their own paradigm that the can not see what is actually taking place. Preconceived and Predisposed notions blind their judgment.
Economic catastrophe is in motion. The end of America is near. Your petty squabbling hastens our doom. it serves no purpose.
Tell me, if you can, of a candidate that recognizes the eminent disaster and discusses it in open forum. Not one other than Paul is so open.
Should we continue to War around the world as this is the main cause of our economic drain. We will not be conquered, but sold to our enemies.
This is the time when the fate of America’s very fabric is at stake. If you pose no other solution then you continue to be part of the problem.
I vote for virtue; I vote for Ron Paul.
“Well, for one, our founders waged undeclared wars themselves. So…”
I do believe the Revolutionary War was declared. As were others. So…
But this point goes to the core of why Paul has ANY support. The founding fathers are being demonized even by patriotic Americans as being ‘Terrorists of their time’ or ‘Power hungry warmongers’. Some had ambition bigger than their britches but the ideas and foundational rules they laid out should be followed. The Constitution is not for us (the people) it’s the rules for the government. They should only do what they are allowed. Paul supports free trade but not Government managed trade of NAFTA and GATT (Oh, FYI those [NAFTA,GATT] are some conspiracy theories from the 80s-90s.)
Isolationist? You mean Non-Interventionalist. Isolationism is what we are doing de facto by our current policy. This type of racist paranioa of ‘the rabid Arabs are going to get you” is what scares me. Everyone is guilty until proven innocent these days. Look at HR 1955!! Anyone trying to cause political change is a terrorist? What about the ‘Partiot’ Act section 802: Terrorist are defined as anyone “involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State” Humm…DWI = Terrorism!!!?
it goes on to say:
“to intimidate or coerce a civilian population”
“to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion”
Protests maybe?
“to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping”
This makes SOME sense.
“occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States”
So that could be just about anywhere Americans are.
This ‘War on Terror’ seems to be angled more towards Americans and our freedoms (Habius Corpus, ect…) than towards OBL and his ilk. As McCain said about tourture, “It’s not who they are, it’s who we are.” That is one thing I agree with McCain about. Are we to allow ourselves to be so scared of so few? Yes, governments have the ability to shoot us with ICBMs, but who would be that stupid? Seriously! As far as “Non-governmental entities attack us on our soil and then disappear into the crowd.”
That is just an excuse to get rid of our freedoms. Because if you can’t identify an ememy out right, then under collectivist thinking you can not discriminate, so EVERYONE must be tracked and identified. Then follows the ‘laws’ and the restrictions on freedoms.
Look, I think the main point here that is being missed is this is no longer about Republicans vs. Democrats, or Left vs. Right, or Liberal vs Conservitive, it’s about Collectivism vs. Individualism. Are we going to buy into group-think (left or Right) or are we going to be on the side of individual freedom. And to bring this back to the point of this entire thread, this is why Ron Paul is misunderstood an assumed to be racist. He is about individual freedoms, racisim is a collectivist control valve. With out the group-think of collectivist victim mentality, how can racism florish.
“In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” George Orwell
Are we to allow ourselves to be so scared of so few?
I saw someone else comment that it was a few hundred or even a few thousand. Get your FACTS straight, people! We’ve killed thousands of Al Qaeda in Iraq alone. Throw in the ones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Phillipines, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, England, Germany, Canada, etc. and you have yourself probably a half million terrorists or wannabe terrorists, plus a large portion of Muslims worldwide repeatedly polling as being sympathetic or even supportive of Islamic terror. Most polls get something like 30-40% (or greater) of Muslims who support or sympathize with radical Islam. For those who don’t understand basic math, that’s about 650 million people worldwide, 10% of the earth’s population. Furthermore, as I have said before, this isn’t just a war against terror, but also a war against an ideology and value system (creeping sharia if you will). The blindness and ignorance in Ron Paul and many of his supporters to this phenomenon is breath-taking.
Jasen, I would agree with you if this was something that was coming from HQ and that Ron Paul was reading/editing on a consistent basis/ However, it was primarily run by his grassroots and people I believe he thought he could trust. This is like holding Matt Smucker accountable for the things that have shown up on this site for the past few years.
Darius, of course this is true. If China or someone started building bases here, threatening us, sanctioning us or invading our neighbors, we would side with some of the most radical elements in our society as well. I already brought this up with communism and Vietnam. Those large numbers have not spawned out of thin air, but directly in response to our actions and attitudes towards the middle east. Ending the Iraq war won’t magically fix this, but changing our foreign policy to what the founders advised would go a long way in gradually reducing anti-american setiment and violence around the world.
But it ISN’T anti-American sentiment that drives them, that’s where you (and Ron Paul) are wrong. If it were, then they wouldn’t be attacking about every other country as well. But as it is, they attack almost indiscriminately, even killing their own to further their agenda. What drives them is the “radical” (but unfortunately not rare) view that Islam should overtake all governments and societies by any means necessary and that Western society disgusts them and is warping their own culture and children. While I agree with them that much of Western society is disgusting, I don’t agree that people should be forcibly stopped from their debauchery (at least not by threat of death). It is primarily a clash of cultures, not a clash of governments or politics.
Hey, you want to talk about polls now? We know of polls. I hear a lot how polls don’t matter when Ron Paul wins them, but when the boogeymen terrorist are polled (I thought they didn’t like democracy, so why would they participate in polls) then you stand right up to defend it. Ask Barak Obama about polls. Ha, polls.
“…sympathetic or even supportive of Islamic terror..”
Now why do you think that is? Oh, because of our freedoms? Because we are ‘capitalists’? They have some sort of an ideological score to settle. Sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory to me that there is this large world wide network out to get us. Hum.. you sound just like a “Truther”. People get POed all the time and some react violently, but what is the CORE of that. You can not say it’s because ISLAM demands it because that is not true. There was a time when the Abrahamic faiths welcomed each other into their homes and traded with each other and actually protected each other. But in the past 100 years or so things have gone wrong on ALL sides. It’s not blame America first to point out we have made mistakes. It is the right course of action to take to end this. Ideas a bullet proof, so you can’t “kill, and bomb” ideas as much as your bloodlust wants to. Just like with drug addiction, you must admit you have a problem before you can fix it. Unfortunately there are many in denial. I can assume you would spin that point right back but that won’t work because peace, prosperity, and sovereignty are not anything to be in denial about. Having a foreign policy that is an economic drain, full of strategic diplomatic blunders, and demoralized & divides our great nation, THAT is something I can understand you would have a vested interest in being in denial about.
All that being said, I think your a good well meaning person. I don’t know you personally and I’m sure there are many points we would agree about, but do you really want to go down this path of undeclared preemptive wars (if we lead by example, who would stop any other country from a preemptive strike on us?), loss of civil liberties, and the loss of moral home and abroad. I don’t care if there is 3 1/2 billion that want to do away with us. That is just tuff cookies for them in my book. All the more reason for a better defense, because by your logic the only way to get rid of them is to destroy whole cultures and people. I am not scared of those that are ignorant, I just pity them. That is not to say that those that would do us harm should not be dealt with, but let’s do it in a fashion that is USA and not USSR. Remember, Russia was fighting OBL when he work for us in the 80s. So does that mean we support(ed) terror? You see, all these ‘well intentioned’ acts of ‘justice’ can (and will) come back to haunt us. The only thing we have to fear is fear it’s self, right? Do you believe in the land of the free and the home of the brave or are you willing to pack all that up to ‘feel’ secure? I guarantee you, no matter how much you ‘clamp down’ on terrorism you’ll never end the violence with violence. Hearts and minds are not won with bombs. You can bomb the world to pieces but you can’t bomb it into peace. Unless you support Genocide. Even then, you have to quell the ones inside your own nation that disapprove of such notions. Then the whole experiment is a lost.
Remember, when the politically correct use the term racist, they simply mean white Gentiles who discriminate.
DR. PAUL IS JOHN GAULT
Whoever is against the FED must be an Anti-Semite because the FED is a semitic invention and institution run by Semites.
An Anti-Semite by definition is a racist because he is against the semitic race. In the USA, although anti-semitic is a widely and often used term and correctly connected to racism, Semites are not officially accounted for as a race, such as Caucasian, Afro-American or Latin.
hey darius…
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/25500
just so you know.
Colin, I don’t think it’s that simple. People were writing the article for him, even if he didn’t exercise much oversight of it. Paul’s spokesperson said Paul did right some of the letters, but didn’t even see many of them (including all of the controversial ones).
Many of them were written without indication of the author, but read exactly like it was a first perspective from Ron Paul. At the very least he shouldn’t have allowed that (at least not without checking what was written).
I love the “practical” vs. “idealistic” slur. It’s great and works for all settings. “Why can’t we pull out of Iraq today?” “It’s impractical, sir.” “What makes it impractical? Is it impossible to do so?” “No sir, we just worry that massive violence will occur in the Middle East and the ranks of terrorists organizations will swell once they no longer see our troops, fortresses, and firepower all over there land.”
What I see here, is a negation of one’s ability to gauge human behavior.
Litmus test: I detonate your house, shoot your child, and then “cut off trade” whilst I build a new home for myself in the wreckage of your home.
Do you retaliate with force?
What if I have 10 men with me?
What if I have 100,000? With the support of a nation?
Do you retaliate when your enemy is right there in front of you?
Do you retaliate when your enemy is foolish enough to spread himself so thin that the only things protecting his homeland are incompetent bureaucracies and a populace forcefully disarmed in select very targetable locations?
If you wouldn’t stand up against the atrocity being done to you sir, I say then you are a coward and deserve nothing more than to have died at the hands of those who you should be fighting for.
I know if I saw foreign armies running amok on American soil, I would be very quick to do something about it.
Tommy, I gotta love how you vilify our troops. Nice and classy.
Paul’s foreign policy is liberal? WTF? Clinton was running around bombing other countries too. President Bush ran on a non-intervention foreign policy, apparently just to fool us into thinking he was actually different than Clinton. Taft was a non-interventionist….where are you getting your definition, sweetheart?
I didn’t say that Paul is a liberal, just that his foreign policy matches up with a lot of liberals. You say tomahto, I say tomato.
Tommy, I gotta love how you vilify our troops. Nice and classy.
Darius this is a flag-wrapping logical fallacy. Whether he vilifies the troops or not, is the actual content of his point invalid? Consider that even non-insurgent Iraqis overwhelmingly have demonstrated that they see this issue almost exactly like Tommy described.
Colin, so is that why the Iraqis are overwhelming helping our troops?
Colin, so is that why the Iraqis are overwhelming helping our troops?
If they are indeed (and I think more information on exactly how this is happening is pertinent), it is likely because they see helping us as the best way to get us out. If they are attacking us, it is also because they see it as a means to get us out. Iraqis overwhelmingly support the US leaving immediately - now - no timetable, no surge, no new strategy, no nothing. They want their country back and they don’t care whether we’ve messed it up or made it better as much as they care that we get out.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/
Umm, that is a really old poll. This is what I don’t like about the discussion of Iraq on here, almost everyone is living in the past. 15 months is a long time when talking about this war.
Yes Darius, I am sure they have dramatically changed their opinions. The most recent poll I have found shows that 70% think the US is making their situation “much worse.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf
But again, the point is that Tommy is painting a picture that is mostly accurate. The troops, the Iraqis and the American people don’t want to be there. The only people who want us there are the people who have the least to lose and the most to gain - politicians, contractors and nationalists.
And Iraqis don’t have a lot to gain from us being there????????
That is an imperialistic attitude at best and a paternalistic one at worst. It’s not our land to manage and they are not our people to control. They have the right to have sovereignty just as much as we do. If they ask for help or wan to buy our help then fine, but as you seem to acknowledge we are imposing our will over their right now - and regardless as to whether it is in their best interest or not, it is contrary to the greater principles of freedom and democracy to occupy their country.
You seem to ignore that they didn’t have freedom OR democracy before we invaded. Hard to be contrary to a principle that didn’t exist prior.
You seem to ignore that they didn’t have freedom OR democracy before we invaded. Hard to be contrary to a principle that didn’t exist prior.
Democracy is not a right, nor a need. Freedom is a concept derived from our rights. Rights are inalienable and God-given. Therefore, we did not give them freedom. We did not give them rights. They had them all along. Democracy? At our terms.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Darius wrote: “My daddy doesn’t like Ron Paul and I don’t like Ron Paul!”
Way to go, Champ. You never cease to amuse.
Well, as always, if we need someone to say something completely pointless, gurr8 is to the rescue. I was using my dad as an example of someone who had never heard of Ron Paul but IMMEDIATELY saw the foolishness that he represented. Of course, he’s ripping on your daddy/god, gurr8, so I can understand.
Why is it that you are always the lowest common denominator on here, gurr8? Why not rise to the occasion and actually ADD something to the conversation, like Ornot, Colin, Chris, Jew, etc. do? We have this cliche in America that may not have reached Canada yet, but it goes something like this: “If you don’t have anything constructive to say, don’t speak.”
Do you realize how stupid you sound when you talk about how somebody sounds “young 20-something”? How wise you are sitting from the vantage point of a lofty 28!
Ironically, you sound like an 18 year old who just discovered Bill O’Reilly.
There ya go again, lowering the collective civility of the room.
The idealism of some of the “Ron Paul is my god!” folks who visit this site is what I am referring to when I talk about foolish 20-somethings. Doesn’t take a 40-year-old to see it, though I guess it does take some common sense. Ron Paul is NOT GOING TO WIN. Those who claim otherwise are idealistic fools! Even if he did win, he would change very LITTLE.
Is Hillary a racist?
Check this out:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/16/hillary.book.response.02/index.html
Darius wrote: “There ya go again, lowering the collective civility of the room.”
Yet again you seem to instantly forget what you have written. You started the mud slinging in this thread in your second post. You can dish it but you can’t take it.
“Ron Paul Is Not A Bigot: Refuting the New Republic Charges.”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_w__080116_ron_paul_is_not_a_bi.htm