Posted on 12/26/2007 10:44:41 AM PST by SJackson
The interview comments.
MR. RUSSERT: You're running as a Republican. In your--on your Web site, in your brochures, you make this claim: "Principled Leadership. Ron was also one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president against Gerald Ford in" '76. There's a photograph of you, Ronald Reagan on the right, heralding your support of Ronald Reagan. And yet you divorced yourself from Ronald Reagan. You said this: "Although he was once an ardent supporter of President Reagan, Paul now speaks of him as a traitor leading the country into debt and conflicts around the world. "I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration." And you go on to The Dallas Morning News: "Paul now calls Reagan a `dramatic failure.'"
REP. PAUL: Well, I'll bet you any money I didn't use the word traitor. I'll bet you that's somebody else, so I think that's misleading. But a failure, yes, in, in many ways. The government didn't shrink. Ultimately, after he got in office, he said, "All I want to do is reduce the rate of increase in size of government." That's not my goal. My goal is to reduce our government to a constitutional size. Completely different. I think that--matter of fact, he admitted in his memoirs that he had a total failure in Lebanon, and he said he relearned the Middle East because of that failure. And so there--he--you know, he...
MR. RUSSERT: But if he's a total failure, why are you using, using his picture in your brochure?
REP. PAUL: Well, because he, he ran on a good program, and his, his idea was a limited government. Get rid of the Department of Education, a strong national defense.
I doubt Paul used the word traitor, but from an old Ron Paul newsletter.
Ron Paul: Traitor had direct line to President Reagan
Ron Paul Political Report
July 15 1992
Volume VI Number 7
Page 5
Armand Hammer: Traitor
The Soviet archives have been a real source of amusement since they have been opened. Armand Hamner, the wealthy, pro-Communist businessnan who earned a fortune off the Soviet government, was one of the few Americans permitted to do business with the Soviet Union at the height of its Leninist and Stalinist terror. He was even permitted to own an apartment in Moscow and a Russian art collection. Now the archives show he personally transported funds from the Soviet Union to fund the new U.S. Communist Party in the 1920s. A highly placed staffer in the Reagan White House once told me that Hammer was one of the handful of people able to call the President directly without any screening!
Let's juts look at the first sentence: "Champion of prostitutes, drug dealers, white supremacists and anti-war activists like MoveOn.org, Code Pink, libertarian Lew Rockwell and girl friend Cindy Sheehan,..."
"Champion of prostitutes", I guess this one comes from the new reports that the owner of the Bunny Ranch brothel in Nevada is donating to Ron Paul. Ah, the Bunny Ranch is a legal business. Since legalization of prostitution hasn't come up as an issue, I believe Ron Paul is the only candidate, who supports the legalization of prostitution. That is a legal, not a moral concept. Unless you want to join the liberals in making everything illegal that you consider immoral, supporting legalized prostitution is a matter for public debate.
"Champion of...drug dealers...", now I have no idea, where this on comes from. Just as the mob opposed legalization of alcohol in the 30's, drug dealers oppose the re-legalization of drugs today. That would destroy their business and their gangs. Why would they want that?
The anti-war MoveOn.org types move to Ron Paul, not vice versa. Paul's the only opponent of foreign interventionism among the GOP. There's a difference between the lefty "anti-warism" and opposition to interventionism, which is the standard libertarian position and can be traced back to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Ron Paul is a patriot and loves America. MoveOn.org/Cindy Sheehan types hate America and want to turn us into another socialist hell-hole. They may agree on bringing home the troops, but for very different reasons.
Full disclosure, right now my candidate preference is #1 Duncan Hunter and #2 Fred Thompson, then Romney, Guliani and finally Paul. I just oppose the smearing and character assassination of people of good character. If people are of bad character (ie the Clintons), describing their characters is not character assassination. Ron Paul is a thoroughly decent, caring and concerned American, according to all the evidence I have. I've emailed Ron Paul as an '88 supporter of his, that he should return donations from the Don Black/Stormfront types, because that opens him up to attacks, like we see here and libertarians should not be associated with totalitarian types and this for any support coming from MoveOn.org types. Ron Paul disagrees, he believes he can take that money and promote the Freedom Agenda.
I've been disturbed by the activities of Ron Paul supporters and Paul's non-response. I think it's bad for Ron Paul, his reputation and the advancement of his agenda. I can criticize people without smearing them.
That's true, but if you're going on, you should be prepared with answers. Paul gave his, they're his words, and they're consistint with prior statements.
No, I have watched it several times, with different people.
The analysis is backwards.
The Republican party needs to watch carefully for goofy stuff from the Paul campaign in the early states voting.
I expect them to try something, just my opinion...
Thanks very much, SJackson, for the extra info.
Jesse
Yes, it's a legal business, a house of prostitution. Paul met with the owner, he liked Paul, and they're giving a double (two prostitutes or two services for the price of one) if you say "I'm pimping for Ron Paul" when you make your purchase. Any other politician would get the same criticism.
"Champion of...drug dealers...", now I have no idea,
Probably the indicted drug dealer in Canada who is organizing support for Paul north of the border. He should have rejected the support, his campaign said it was welcome. Same as they've done with neonazis and racists.
All kinds of sayings about lying down with dogs. If you accept the support when asked about it, you're going to end up owning it.
“I would like to see specifics of where Paul has attacked President Reagan.”
Here’s page four of the transcript. About sixty percent down the page:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/page/4/
"Paul now calls Reagan a `dramatic failure.'"
Could someone PLEASE tell me how Reagan was a "dramatic failure"?
NOTE! I'm not asking for a list of thing that could be considered failures of his administration (size of govt, Lebanon, etc.) To think any administration is not going to have it's share of failures is delusional.
I want to know how you can honestly describe Reagan as a "dramatic failure".
He was popular enough that his VP was able to secure the Republican nomination.
Nice denial Jabba...
You have an excuse for everything. But you can’t run from the bottom line facts. He has little support from the party he is running in. So he is indeed raising funds from leftists, because he represents some of their “hate America first” positions better than Democrats do at this moment.
They are moving to him, because his platform was adopted from theirs. He adopted their anti-war rhetoric, and that is what is drawing them to his campaign like flies to dung.
But because he can not win the RNC nomination with conservative votes, he is openly calling for “one day party jumping” to hijack the RNC nomination.
You have excuses for all of it. But your excuses don’t change or excuse the facts.
Only in the mind of blind minions who don’t bother to listen to the details. The devil is always in the details. Paul denounced almost every platform position... Others, he agreed were his, but had NO specifics of how or if any of them could ever be implemented.
All rhetoric and nothing more...
People who look and listen past the rhetoric know this. People who love the rhetoric never bother to ask “How” or “what if?”
Heh. I don't think that would count with the Paulbots though.
Both you AND JackRyan are dead on regarding Paul. His domestic stands are music to a conservative’s ear (at least to mine), but there’s a good deal of vagueness there as to how he would try to make them happen. I am still somewhat suspect of how he’d work on the immigration issue, but that may just be guilt-by-association with the big-L Libertarian Party and their open-borders “y’all come, y’heah?” stand.
As for foreign policy, his neo-isolationism just isn’t workable nowadays. Although, I do agree with him partially in that we need to drastically cut foreign aid, and we need to be much more selective about who we give it to and what conditions we give it under—and if they don’t want the money with the strings attached, then they don’t need the money that badly. We can, and indeed need to, be smarter about how we deploy our forces, and that may require some pullbacks and retrenching here and there. But to simply retreat behind our borders and oceans and think the rest of the world will leave us alone? Won’t happen.
}:-)4
As George Carlin always said, selliing is legal, f#$%ing is legal. Why when you combine the two is it illegal?
If you'll pardon me, I need to book a flight to Nevada. All this time I thought I'd need a million bucks.
Yeah, they are.
Something really radical, wouldn't you know?
|
Operation Live Free or Die is a grassroots effort to help ensure that the great State of New Hampshire -- the Live Free or Die State -- nominates Dr Ron Paul as the Republican candidate for the President of the United States.
The 2008 election is the most important election of our lives. The major parties offer us two terrible choices: More War (Republicans) or More Government Bureaucracy (Democrats). Dr Ron Paul is the only candidate who offers the citizens of our Republic a true alternative: freedom, peace and prosperity. |
Good post, I think Ron Paul has had a consistant position throughout his career and not changing to the current sentiment of the Country all the time.
If Bush would have started the surge 2 years ago and scrap putting bases and the Vatican Embassy in Iraq we would have been better off. I don’t want to see our troops in Iraq like they stayed in Germany and Korea 50 years after the War.
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.
