Posted on 11/17/2007 6:56:56 PM PST by camerakid400
Memo to: Ron Paul supporters
Subject: Your e-mails
Okay, enough is enough. Like every other journalist in America, and who knows, maybe the world or even the universe, I've been deluged with your letters and e-mails. So I've done as you asked and taken a closer look at your candidate. Here is what I've found:
1. Ron Paul is inconsistent. Though he calls himself a man of principle and is apparently admired as such by his ardent fans, his principles seem somewhat elastic. He rails against the Bush administration for its supposed assault on civil liberties, yet when he was asked at one of the debates whether Scooter Libby deserved a pardon, he said no. "He doesn't deserve one because he was instrumental in leading the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn't need to be in." Notice that he didn't say it was because Libby was guilty of committing a crime. No, because Libby argued for a policy with which Paul disagreed, he deserved to serve time in prison. Ron Paul, the libertarian, who presumably values liberty above all, is willing to deprive someone else of his because of a policy disagreement?
2. Ron Paul is historically challenged. He argues that by embracing isolationism, he fits within a Republican tradition stretching back to Eisenhower "who stopped the Korean War" and including Nixon "who stopped the war in Vietnam." Let's recap. Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against China. It was the Eisenhower administration that had a hand in toppling Iran's Mohammad Mossedegh (an intervention that Paul has elsewhere cited as causing the U.S. grief 25 years later when the Islamists took power). Eisenhower also intervened in Guatemala, Cuba (planning for the Bay of Pigs began during his tenure) and Lebanon.
Nixon, an isolationist? Most observers, whatever they may make of detente with the USSR and the opening to China, agree that Nixon was an emphatic internationalist. For the record, he intervened in many countries including Chili, Peru and Cambodia. And he saved Israel by resupplying her during the Yom Kippur war. Neither his successes nor failures grew out of a Paulesque policy of "minding our own business."
3. Ron Paul is unserious. Suggesting that you will eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office is ridiculous. These are bumper stickers, not serious reform proposals.
4. Ron Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists. As syndicated radio host Michael Medved has pointed out, Ron Paul's newspaper column was carried by the American Free Press (a parent publication of the Hitler-praising Barnes Review). Paul may not have been aware of this. But though invited by Medved to disavow any connection, Paul has so far failed to respond.
Paul has appeared on the Alex Jones radio program not once, not twice, but three times. Jones is the sort who believes that black helicopters are coming to impose a police state on America. He is quite concerned about the Bohemian Grove, the Bilderbergers, the federal election system (it's rigged, of course) and so on. Naturally, he believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Ron Paul has even appeared in a Jones film, "Endgame," the point of which is apparently that the Bilderbergers are plotting to control the world. They've already got Europe (through the European Union) and now are on the verge of securing America by means of a North American union that would unite Mexico, the United States and Canada.
Even if Paul says nothing insane in this film, his appearance alone calls his judgment into question. I have not seen "Endgame," but I have heard a tape of Paul on the Jones program just after the 2006 election. Jones asked the congressman whether the victory for the Democrats wasn't a "rejection of neo-fascist imperialism." Paul replied, "Yeah . . . This was a healthy election as far as I'm concerned."
Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of a number of racist, neo-Nazi and conspiracist websites. While Paul cannot be held accountable for the views of cranks and kooks, he can disavow their support and return their checks. He received $500 from Don Black, the proprietor of Stormfront.org and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. He has not yet returned it.
Moreover, Paul seems to be playing a sly game with his conspiracy-minded fans. He does not explicitly endorse the crazier theories out there, but he hints at dark forces in the U.S. government threatening our liberties, he inveighs against the "neo-cons" (shorthand for Jews in some circles) and he gives aid and comfort to the paranoid by appearing on their favorite radio shows.
No, Ron Paul is not my candidate. Not for president. He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians.
Please tell me you're joking. His support comes from anti-semites and assorted leftist neo-nazi types. Maybe you should ask the leaders of the democratic party why so many of their members support him. THAT'S a question I'd be curious to have answered.
I even stopped calling myself a (small "l") libertarian since the party nominated ol' Harry Browne TWICE for the presidency. I'm looking at the Constitution Party. If the CP runs candidates locally and builds an organization from the grassroots up, then I'll definitely consider that party as THE alternative to the Republican Party. (BTW .... I am NOT a republican, although I'll vote republican since the alternative, at the national level is the party of TREASON).
I’ve seen the Paul supporters bring up the constitutional argument before. I was wandering if you could explain to me which part of the Constitution has been violated and by whom.
Thanks in advance.
Same here.
The whole concept of the pardon power is to let people loose even though they are guilty, for reasons unrelated to their guilt. The question is whether they “deserve” release, and one can quite reasonably regard dishonesty as a disqualifying factor for pardon. Ron Paul appears to think that Scooter Libby is dishonest; I don’t know enough about it to know if he is right. But to accuse him of inconsistency for this stance makes no sense.
“Please tell me you’re joking. His support comes from anti-semites and assorted leftist neo-nazi types....”
Gee that’s a rather bigoted and stereotypical thing for you to say.
I have seen only 1 candidates signs in yards in this county. They are Paul’s. Why is that? I guess they are all Nazis and jew killers??
Ronald Reagan said that libertarianism was he heart of the Republican Party. He also said that the Department of Education should be eliminated. So, I guess he was a nutty neo-nazi too??
Its people like you that are driving principled conservatives away from the GOP.
Ron Paul should denounce his Nazi supporters and return money from white supremacists. His appearnces on the Alex Jones show make me skeptical of his integrity as well.
Ron Paul may be a loose cannon but the rest of the field both republican and democrat are a bunch of what I like to call good strong half wits and will send a marine to take a bullet in a heart beat.
Charen cites the Libby example as Paul being "inconsistent?" ROFL! This is a non-sequitur of biblical proportions.
Ron Paul is historically challenged.
Both Ike and Nixon did end the Korean and Vietnam Wars, respectively. Ike threatening China or whatever Nixon did isn't really germane to the discussion. Charen only included these points to convey that Paul would be a weak CIC, but Paul has always supported a strong defense and you can bet he'll retaliate against anyone who threatens our interests.
Ron Paul is unserious. Suggesting that you will eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office is ridiculous. These are bumper stickers, not serious reform proposals.
Paul has stated on numerous occasions that he would work with Congress to build a consensus on abolishing federal agencies. Charen isn't a conservative if she's whining to keep the IRS, the Army would conduct intelligence, and Paul has never stated that he'll eliminated the FBI. Charen is your typical MSM conservative. The important thing is, is that he has swung the debate pendulum back to the right, after years of it being dragged to the Left & feckless Republicans.
4. Ron Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists. As syndicated radio host Michael Medved has pointed out, Ron Paul's newspaper column was carried by the American Free Press (a parent publication of the Hitler-praising Barnes Review). Paul may not have been aware of this. But though invited by Medved to disavow any connection, Paul has so far failed to respond.
All of this has been explained/debunked. Being a Rudy shill, Medved has no credibility.
Charen is just another one of those beltway conservatives, like George Will is.
Nonsense. Paul's supporters are ordinary Americans. Just folks out in the heartland who are sick and tired of the same-old same-old.
How did this "kook" manage to raise over $8.5 million so far for the 4Q?
How many enthusiastic supporters show up for the other GOP candidates' rallies? Where are their "money bombs" at?
How many straw polls Dr. Paul has won? Post-debate polls? Meet-up groups and grassroots support? YouTube clips?
Paul is running rings around the other candidates, and you guys here just can't comprehend it.
“Ron Paul should denounce his Nazi supporters and return money from white supremacists. “
No candidate likes letting their detractors set their agenda. No matter what it is. Of course Paul would probably agree to whatever you suggest if you convince Giuliani to denounce his Mexican sponsors and return their money.
What koolaid? The only issue Paul is wrong on is the immediate withdrawal from Iraq. What other issues is Paul wrong on? You do want to see the IRS eliminated, right? Or do you enjoy paying your income taxes?
I cannot verify the quote you provided, if you have a link that would be great.
I would have much more respect for Paul if he returned donations from white supremacists, and personally comdemned his nazi supporters. Paul has done interviews with Alex Jones, who is a proponent of anti-american conspiracy theories with no factual basis.
Ron Paul is not a conservative. As far as the war on terror, his position is farther to the left than Hillary Clinton. His statement that ‘we have been bombing Iraq for 10 years’ as a reason for 9/11 is ignorant and blatantly false.
Not like it would matter to all the closed minds - but is it OK to post this guy’s entire response here? http://www.theagitator.com/
See post #33
I would have much more respect for Paul if he returned donations from white supremacists, and personally comdemned his nazi supporters. Paul has done interviews with Alex Jones, who is a proponent of anti-american conspiracy theories with no factual basis.
Returning the money & denouncing them would only give them the attention they crave, and the media and GOP establishment would just continue to criticize Paul anyway. It's not going to change the Paul basher's minds one way or another, they're not going to vote for Paul anyway regardless. So why the bellyaching then?
Despite their repugnant views, white supremacists and Neo-Nazis still have a constitutional right to donate to or vote for the politician of their choice. White supremacists probably donated to Bush/Cheney in 2000 and 2004 too, we just didn't know about it, after all you don't know who they really are unless they tell you, right? If Paul actively solicited these funds or held a fundraiser on their behalf, then I wouldn't support him. But an individual contribution of $500 from a white supremacist (Don Black) does not make Paul a racist.
Ron Paul is not a conservative.
Pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-border security, sound money....these are liberal positions now?
As far as the war on terror, his position is farther to the left than Hillary Clinton.
Do you believe our troops should remain in Iraq for an extended period of time?
His statement that ‘we have been bombing Iraq for 10 years’ as a reason for 9/11 is ignorant and blatantly false.
Looking for motives doesn't equate to blaming the U.S. for 9/11.
Thanks for the link. I knew Mona Charen’s article would get posted here and all the Paul bashers will revel and high-five each other over it. This is the 2nd hit piece Charen has written about Paul. Like I said, Charen is just a beltway elitist conservative, someone who provides “balance” in liberal newsrags to the other left-wing columnists.
He has been endorsed by pretty much every racist Nazi hate site there is. I don’t recall Bush getting one of these endorsements. Paul should personally condemn this and so far I haven’t heard anything.
Paul has many conservative positions, but he is a libertarian. We need a strong conservative candidate.
http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
In Iraq there have been many recent successes. Troops should be able to gradually reduce while handing control over to the Iraqi military over the next few years. Immediate withdrawal is not in the interest of American national security. This is not some Zionist conspiracy as many Paul supporters believe. Maybe they should listen to the many leaders of Sunni Arab states who don’t want an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq.
Paul has stated he would negotiate with the Ayatollahs in Iran. Paul obviously has little to no understanding of Islamic theology or history. His comments on 9/11 about bombing Iraq are just false, its not about looking for motives. Saddam exterminated millions of his own citizens and repeatedly violated security council resolutions, developed chemical weapons, and invaded multiple Muslim countries for no justifiable reason. Our military response to these actions are completely justified and should be supported by Muslims around the world.
Ordinary Americans do not associate with 9/11 "truth" brigade and the other associates of Paul cearly outlined here.
Mona Charen is as usual spot on with her analysis and in her conservative response to the liberals spamming her e-mail inbox.
There are lots of things that aren't the "same old, same old." That doesn't make them good or practical.
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.