Posted on 06/15/2007 7:24:20 AM PDT by Fiji Hill
The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul
By John Hawkins
Friday, June 15, 2007
Even though he's not one of the top tier contenders, I thought it might be worthwhile to go ahead and write a short, but sweet primer that will explain why so many Republicans have a big problem with Ron Paul. Enjoy!
#1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative: I have nothing against libertarians. To the contrary, I like them and welcome them into the Republican Party. But, conservatives have even less interest in seeing a libertarian as the GOP's standard bearer than seeing a moderate as our party's nominee. In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side. So, although he is a small government guy, he very poorly represents conservative opinion on a wide variety of other important issues.
#2) Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy: If you're so inclined, you can click here for just one example of Paul talking up a mythical Bush administration merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, but you're not missing much if you don't. Reputable conservatives shouldn't be spreading these crazy conspiracy theories and the last thing the GOP needs is a conspiracy crank as our nominee in 2008.
#3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts: Even though Ron Paul admits that he does not believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy, he has been flirting with the wackjobs in the "truther movement," like Alex Jones and the "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." Republican politicians should either ignore people like them or set them straight, not lend credence to their bizarre conspiracy theories by acting as if they may have some merit, which is what Ron Paul has done.
#4) Ron Paul's racial views: From the Houston Chronicle, Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.
Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."
..."Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.
...He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote."
Ron Paul has since claimed that although these comments were in his newsletter, under his name, he didn't write them. Is he telling the truth? Who knows? Either way, those comments don't say much for Paul.
#5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating: There are, without question, plenty of decent folks who support Ron Paul. However, for whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner to spam polls and try to annoy everyone into voting for Ron Paul (which is, I must admit, a novel strategy).
#6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. Since then, the world has become even more interconnected which makes Ron Paul's strategy of retreating behind the walls of Fortress America even more unworkable than it was back in the thirties.
#7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq: Even if you're an isolationist like Ron Paul, the reality is that our foreign policy isn't currently one of isolationism and certain allowances should be made to deal with that reality. Yet, Paul believes we should immediately retreat from Al-Qaeda in Iraq and let that entire nation collapse into genocide and civil war as a result. Maybe, just maybe, Paul's motives are better than those of liberals like Murtha and Kerry, who want to see us lose a war for political gain, but the catastrophic results would be exactly the same.
#8) Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attacks on America: In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on American with this comment about 9/11,
"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda.
This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for that matter. If you want to truly realize how foolish that sort of thinking is, imagine what the reaction would be if we had bombed Egyptian or Indonesian civilians after 9/11 and then justified it by saying "We attacked them because those Muslims have been over here."
#9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans. That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988. Granted, Paul would do considerably better than that if he ran at the top of the Republican Party ticket, but it's hard to imagine his winning more than, say 35%, of the national vote and a state or two -- even if he were very lucky. In other words, having Ron Paul as the GOP nominee would absolutely guarantee the Democratic nominee a Reaganesque sweep in the election.
Summary: Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable qualities. However, he also has a host of enormous flaws that makes him unqualified to be President and undesirable, even as a Republican Congressmen.
Mr. Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News. He also writes a weekly column for Townhall.com and consults for the Duncan Hunter campaign.
Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
No - conservatism is a set of beliefs ... many of which Paul does not hold. However, regardless of what his few (but rabid) followers think of him ... he will never have enough broad appeal to justify nominating him.
Look - I am a relatively mainstream conservative ... and I think Ron Paul is a nut. Sure - he may be a fiscally responsible, small government type ... but he’s also got a screw loose here and there. The 9-11 comment is not only stupid ... but dangerous. His racial remarks demonstrate AT LEAST a complete inability to understand how to appeal to a mainstream American ... and possibly a serious racial bias.
If I - a conservative - think Paul’s a loon ... how in the world do you expect a moderate or liberal will take to him? You’ve got to get 51% of the electorate to vote for this guy ... and most CONSERVATIVES think he’s the Republican equivaent of Dennis Kucinich.
Paul is nothing more than Dennis Kucinich with an (R) beside his name ... a cute side show, completely unelectable, and completely unqualified to be nominated for national office.
A
You beat me to it...
Ron Paul PING!
You beat me to it...
Ron Paul PING!
I don’t think the article properly characterized Paul’s comments, at least with the quoted language.
Seems to me (again, looking at just the quoted language) that Paul was offering an explanation as to why we were attacked as opposed to, say, Canada, which is basically like the United States except not globe-trotting and playing world police.
If Paul ever said that we shouldn’t go after Al-Qaeda, I think he’s wrong; but on the other hand, if he’s saying we need to seriously reevaluate our foreign policy and take less of an active role in world affairs, I think he’s right.
Paul’s case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side.
The most conservative member of Congress seeking the Republican nomination - based on lifetime voting records - is Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, with a score of 82.5. The most conservative score possible was 99.
Lifetime scores for the other Republicans:
- Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, 81
- Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, 75.9
- Sen. John McCain of Arizona, 71.8
- Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, 71.5
- Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, 51.7
The year-to-year scores can reveal consistency or change. McCain, for example, grew increasingly less conservative in recent years. He started with annual conservative scores consistently in the 80s when he first went to the Senate in 1987, dipped to the 70s during the mid- 1990s, into the 60s in the late 1990s and into the 50s starting in 2004.
The GOP candidates’ votes also reveal big differences issue to issue.
For more on the National Journal scorecard, http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
However, I do want to thank Mr. Hawkins for bringing Ron Paul into my view. If even half of what Hawkins writes is true, Mr. Paul sounds like my kind of guy and is definitely worth investigating further.
>>> I think that comes from the fact that his supporters, or people who just stick up for the guy, are incredibly tired of the Republicans and the Democrats being the same party. In other words, they are pissed from the get go
>> A simple truth that none of these Ron Paul haters have addressed.
I agree about the Republicans and Democrats - like most conservatives, I am not particularly happy with how the party is being run.
I fail to see how that would lead to me voting for Ron Paul - replacing liberals that want to placate Al Quiada and leave Iraq ... with a “libertarian” that wants to ... uh ... placate Al Quiada and leave Iraq. Replacing liberals that blame America for 9-11, with a libertarian who ... blames America for 9-11.
Nevermind that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would have a FIELD DAY with some of those racial quotes ... and they might actually be RIGHT!
Ron Paul would be a step backward.
A
Well, my original point was Bush doesn’t hold them all either and yet most here call him a conservative. I don’t find Paul’s 9-11 comment outrageous at all. It’s being spun out of all proportion in an attempt to make him look loony. There is rabid support for the Iraq war on this site, and to be opposed to it is viewed nothing short of treason or lunacy, despite the fact every poll indicates the majority of Americans are opposed to it. I agree with you that it is virtually impossible for Paul to win the nomination, but I don’t see enough difference between the other R and D candidates to to make me care one way or the other. Yes, I like R tax policy better, but running huge deficits is just a future tax increase.
If not filtered thru cynicism and apathy, clear differences exist between D's and R's. Just saying they are the same doesn't make it so. Sure, they are pretty damn close on a few issues, but that only seems to matter to the all-or-nothing conservatives.
It's my belief that Ron Paul is just a proxy for those wishing to punish RINOs. They are so consumed with who to fire, that they are ignoring who might be hired.
Mr. Hawkins is either completely wrong or extremely misleading on most of those points.
There is certainly a strain of libertarianism in conservatism ... and, on most domestic issues conservatives and libertarians will see eye-to-eye (with the possible exception of drug-related issues).
But you’ll never convince me that Ronald Reagan would see Ron Paul’s foreign policy stances as anything but dangerous isolationism in a time when America should be leading the world. Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy was peace through strength ... that America should be the shining city on the hill fostering the spread of freedom and democracy around the globe.
Ron Paul’s statements about Iraq, the War on Terror and 9-11 show him to be more aligned with the likes of Kucinich, Conyers, Edwards and Hillary than Reagan or Bush.
Putting our hands over our ears and yelling “LALALALALALA” is not a foreign policy - and Reagan would’ve laughed Paul off the stage in a foreign policy debate.
A
>>> Ron Paul would be a step backward.
>> A step backward is exactly what we need
Ridiculous. When you’re fighting terrorists abroad and liberals at home ... the last thing conservatism or America needs is a step backward.
>> these ad hominem attacks on Paul using out of context quotes and outright fabrications just aren’t working. Americans want a change of direction.
Perhaps they want a change of direction ... but there is NO indication they want it from Ron Paul.
I certainly don’t. If someone (like Paul, for instance) is going to screw up American foreign policy ... I’d really rather he didn’t have an (R) beside his name.
I’d rather put up an actual conservative candidate ... F. Thompson, Huckabee, Gingrich, perhaps Tancredo, whoever ... and let him take his chances with the electorate. Heck I’d take Giuliani or Romney over Ron Paul - they’re not perfect (by any stretch) ... but at least they understand national defense, and they’re more likely to win than Paul is.
A
Lie #1: In Paul’s case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side.
What an absurd statement. I guess the writer has redefined “conservative” to his own liking.
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.