Posted on 12/26/2007 11:04:00 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
Paul supporters claim to believe that Paul will shrink the size of the federal government by ending trillions in military, intelligence and foreign aid spending, the day he’s elected. Yet when questioned by Russert about the specifics of such a bold plan, Paul had no specifics about how such a plan could ever actually be implemented. He didn’t even know how many troops would have to be recalled from around the world. Russert had to tell him.
He has repeatedly stated that he wants to abolish the Department of Education, the FBI, the IRS and the Income Tax, as well as countless other federal agencies and programs. Not a bad idea. Yet again when questioned by Russert about the specifics, he either had no specifics, was wrong on his specifics, or accused Russert of being “confused” and denied that he ever made such statements.
Russert even cornered Dr. No on the very real fact that he has “ear-marked” millions for his own Texas district over the years, while railing against ear-marks and stating that the fed shouldn’t even provide disaster relief to American victims of inescapable natural catastrophes.
In short, Ron Paul is far better at rhetoric than reality. Watch Paul make a fool of himself on Meet the Press… (4 separate video segments, watch them all)
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhillcoffeehouse.com ...
He says some things that many Americans like hearing. But he has no real plan for implimenting any of it and most of it can't be implimented without destroying a nation alread teetering on disaster.
The Paul rhetoric has a ring of conservatism to it. But a very unrealistic, even dangerus ring to it as well.
His campaign is going nowhere, except to probably lose him even his congressional seat in the end.
But it is sure causing turmoil in the Republican Party primaries and that is increasingly looking like the real goal behind the campaign. Certainly many of its leftist supporters.
Sadly, Ron Paul is killing serious libertarians where there is plenty of room for disagreement.
It’s altogether unserious. If seniors already cost 1/3 of the US budget and rising, how does Ron Paul handle these people?
None of it adds up. No matter. It’s Ron Paul.
Did you watch David Shuster (sp?) tear into Paul on this morning’s MSNBC gabfest? Kept calling him names concerning his mental health. I never expected this, a MSM journalist to be so biased. . .well, never mind.
The Republican Party is acting like it’s taken a massive dose of LSD.
A socialist posing as a conservative: Huckabee.
A Nazi posing as a human being: Ron Paul.
A socialist liar who dubs his socialist lies as Straight Talk: John McCain.
A whole crop of eastern establishment liberals, pretending to be in various stages of Conservative Conversion.
And the only two real conservatives running for office, Hunter and Thompson, are either completely ignored (Hunter) or slipping into obscurity (Thompson).
Given our responsibility to be the Responsible Party, I would say that collectively we have gone more insane than the Democrats, whose very role is to BE insane.
It’s like the staff of the institution has adopted the behavior of the inmates.
“Sadly, Ron Paul is killing serious libertarians where there is plenty of room for disagreement.”
Ron Paul = Ross Pero split of the Republican party?
Historical amnesia...
Here in Ohio I grew up with Robert Taft Republicans.
Paul sings the tune.
To tell you how ignorant the voters are on CSpan they are calling for a Paul/Kucinich ticket. The two could NEVER get along.
Ignorance is the most expensive commodity in the US.
The Paul campaign actually seems much more like a typical Democrat campaign, full of half-truths, half-baked notions and hate-filled fear-driven lunatics, all functioning without an ounce of logic or common sense...
BRAVO! Best analysis I’ve seen...
I wouldn’t count Thompson out just yet though. Something tells me he might have a few surprises up his sleave in Iowa...
Well Ron Paul has already stated he is not running on an independent line after the Republican nomination. Expect he will follow through on that.
If not, he would seriously impact the Republican candidate. Even 2-3% nationally would have a major impact on the race is my guess.
Ross Perot just had it in for Bush Sr. That’s clear now but oddly if he had not dropped out initially, the guy was actually poised to win. He was too over the edge. Read a funny story how Perot wouldn’t allow people to do the common details of a trip, re: plane, car service, etc.
That and Perot decided he could not part with ANY of his money. He rejected ads he screened and loved because they came with a bill. He said he could have someone do the ads for him for $250.
The guy was in the end, an absolute ass. I was almost working on his campaign and then he dropped out only to come back again later and screw up the election in his less than serious effort.
Indeed!
I’d LOVE to see a Paul/Kookoocinich Independent ticket!!!
LOVE IT! These two were made for each other actually!
Well most of the campaigns and coverage has been far less than stellar.
Ron Paul’s campaign is awful in how it refuses to even accept the reality on the ground in Iraq.
When you listen to him, he can’t speak to the reality there now. And in that regard you are exactly right, he is just like the typical Democrat.
Excellent analysis!
There are rumblings that Paul is now actually considering a third partyt run, which is why for the first time with Russert, he rfused to rule it out...
Perot has always been an ass with a ax to grind with the Bush family... Too many Americans did not know him for what he really was until he had already done the damage.
This time, mainstream Republicans do seem to see Paul for the nutjob he really is. But I agree with your point that every conservative vote MUST be counted in ‘08...
Frank Luntz was on CSpan Christmas Day and he said there were no constituents more committed than the Ron Paul bunch. I wanted to call in and say there were no larger group of constituents that needed to be committed!!
Kinda like Perot.
It is true that his troops are very committed to his campaign, so much so, that by the time they are through making an ass of him for all the world to see, he won;t even keep his House seat... I did like having him in the House to cast those NO votes.
But a president, he ain’t!
Exactly!
Anyone who checks my posts will know that I’m not “Paulbot.” In fact, I, too, have been dismissing Ron Paul as some kind of a wingnut throughout this campaign. This weekend, I decided to watch a few Youtube clips about Paul, including the Potatohead aka Tim Russert interview, the Leno show appearance, and the John Stossel interview.
As I listened to him, I increasingly realized that THIS, refreshingly, is the pure form of leave-us-alone, small government constitutional conservatism that Reagan ran on but failed to really pull off. Yes, it’s a little jarring to hear Paul argue that we quit Iraq immediately and bring all foreign troops home in order to stop acting as the “policeman” of the world.
But, unlike the hate-America leftists, who simply want to see this country defeated, Paul wants to do this for the best of reasons: to honor the counsel of the founding fathers about avoiding foreign intervention and limit international resentment about American heavy-handedness.
Just as the Left has been opposing the Iraq police action almost reflexively as part of its Bush Derangement Syndrome, most of us on the Right have also been reflexively supporting the continued intervention there because the Left opposes it. Not really a sound reason. I seriously doubt that Iraq — or the World — will crumble if we pull back.
Like Ann Coulter, I found Paul’s position on placing earmarks in the budget while voting against them to be not hypocritical — as some suggest — but entirely logical. Paul is saying this: “the entire process is rotten to the core, and I’m going to oppose the bloated budgets, but if the federal government is determined to tax my constituents and dole their money out, they ought to get their fair share.” Makes sense to me.
The other thing that struck me about Paul’s campaign is the excitement it is generating at the grassroots level and particularly among young people. Mark this well: the electorate is going to be in the mood for radical change in 2008, and the party that offers it will sweep to power. By contrast with Paul, the other Repub candidates — even Thompson, whom I have supported up to now — are incrementalists.
I like this guy. He has principles and he’s not afraid to stick with them. I hope you’ll take the time to hear him for yourself with an open mind.
The Republican party seems to have lost sight of the fact that every time true Conservatism is presented, it is embraced. It was when Reagan ran and again in 94. As it stands, all of the G.O.P. front runners are seeing who can sprint to the middle the fastest.
Just a heads up; The cacophony of ignorance that is Ron Pauls support will soon ascend on this thread.
Principles without a plan to implement them is just self-congratulatory rhetoric. Paul's vagueness about how he'd enact his principles is reason enough to suspect you're being conned.
“leave-us-alone, small government constitutional conservatism that Reagan ran on but failed to really pull off”
The Nanny State has been erected over the last 100 years, not the last six. The idea that anyone can wake up president on Jan. 21st and reverse 100 years of history is just insane. And even if you could, you wouldn’t want to once you see all the effects it would have on our economy...
I know...
“Conned”? That suggests duplicity on Paul’s part.
I don’t see that in Paul. What ulterior motive could he have? His record is fairly puritanical on supporting his principles (although I can understand why some folks would be disturbed by his use of earmarks).
If Paul were to get in, I doubt that Congress would be willing to give him a great deal of what he wants, but he would at least move the ball in the right direction — away from creeping socialism. And he would foster a national conversation about small government with a fair degree of eloquence (a quality that GWB sorely lacks).
His foreign policy would send thousands if not millions of innicent Americans to their death. His supporters regularly call anyone who does not support Paul’s lunacy, a “Nazi” - a “neocon” or a “facsist.”
Nazi organizations think he supports their views...?
“The Nanny State has been erected over the last 100 years, not the last six. The idea that anyone can wake up president on Jan. 21st and reverse 100 years of history is just insane. And even if you could, you wouldn’t want to once you see all the effects it would have on our economy...”
Notice I said what Reagan ran on (28 years ago — I remember), not what Bush ran on 6 or 7 years ago.
The Nanny State IS bankrupt. The next economic crisis will make that painfully obvious. At that point, we will either move toward heavy handed socialism, or reject the Nanny State altogether. Paul seems to want to start dismantling the Nanny State now, before we are presented with that stark choice.
He adds ear-marks to bills, then votes against them, then rails against ear-marks, but takes the money that passes congress, just like every liberal does...
Paul supporters are in love with cherry picking his record. They want to talk about him voting against ear-marks, but not about his passing ear-marks for his own district...
This is true of almost every RP position BTW...
And what is his detailed plan for accomplishing that?
He acts like he would have the single handed power to do it against the will of congress and the majority of Americans. But he doesn’t. No president does. So, if its more than rhetoric, which I doubt, than where’s his plan to implement?
The only chance we have is taking the war to them where they are. To stop them directly from getting nuclear weapons and last but foremost, changing their culture of death.
It isn’t America’s foreign policy that causes them to hate us. We are the ubber infidel. They hate not only what we represent, they hate our culture. From that flows our freedom, democratic processes, movies, music, cloths and any number of other things that offend them. It is those things that their children see and want that they feel derails their children’s righteous path in Islam. No matter how isolated we are militarily, our culture will still dominate and be militantly hated by them. On this front Paul is simply dead wrong. No matter how right he is on other issues, this one issue makes him totally disqualified to be President.
Yes, Paul is walking death, but for the opposite reasons from the Nazis. The two can have similar end results and not be similar in practice.
I don’t know about every other RP position, but his position on earmarks is plausible. If he didn’t bring home some bacon in exchange for the federal taxes his constituents were sending into Washington, they would quickly replace him with someone who would.
Strangely enough, this Realpolitik sense ought to reassure skeptics that RP will work as necessary within the political framework to get things done.
Having said that, does he have much of a chance? Probably not; the GOP needs a ‘64 Goldwater enema before it regains its values. Unlike Reagan in 1976, when he lost but came back stronger than ever in 1980, RP is probably already too old to pull that off (at 72). Too bad. It would be quite an earthquake.
Funny :>)
Principle without means for implementation are meaningless. If he wants to tilt at windmills, that's fine, but don't pretend it would change anything. If he had a plan for implementation, surely he'd be sharing it.
You hit it on the head exactly right. I would not be surprised if Dr. Death endorsed Ron Paul.
They have a way to handle the Federal budget. Ron Paul imposes his dismantlement of Social Security and Medicare thus eliminating the growing 33% cost and Dr. Kervokian goes on a never ending killing spree.
Of course for this to work, Ron Paul will need to fund the minions of Dr. Death.
No way Dr. Death can do all this work for Ron Paul alone.
If they get the same result, do their different intentions matter?
This just means he can change his principles on a dime. This heartens me not in the least. It just means that like most positions of him, there are times that his principles don't apply. We don't know when and where those will occur, just that they will.
“If he didn’t bring home some bacon in exchange for the federal taxes his constituents were sending into Washington”
This is Teddy Kennedy’s excuse too. Matter of fact, this is the same answer every member of congress would give to defend their plundering of the budget for special pet projects back home. This is how we got where we are, and every member of congress is part of the problem, including Paul...
““Conned”? That suggests duplicity on Paul’s part.”
Duplicity: “contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one’s true intentions by deceptive words or action”
Ron Paul says he won’t vote for anything un-Constitutional, Ron Paul voted for the Authorization of Force in Afghanistan, Ron Paul voted against the Authorization of Force in Iraq since it was un-Constitutional. If one was un-Constitutional, why wasn’t the other? Why isn’t this duplicity?
In the one theater of Islamofacism, we took the war to them and we have kept our people safe. Do you really believe we would be safer had there been no check on Saddam or Osama?
To dismantle the underpinnings of our freedom, our military, when the real threat is runaway entitlement spending is the pinnacle of stupidity, and would result in the deaths of millions if it were ever to happen. I am being kind to characterize Ron Paul and his minions as stupid. To suppose that they are a part of the conspiracy to end the Pax Americana is to give them too much credit.
They are simply willing idiots.
“It isn’t America’s foreign policy that causes them to hate us. We are the ubber infidel.”
I agree in part, and actually I heard RP himself say on a couple of interview that 9/11 wasn’t our fault. I heard him point out that > 50% of the suicide bombers in Iraq have been Saudi’s, and he draws a connection between our military presence on Saudi soil (remember the fatal barracks bombing there about 10 years ago?) and Islamic radicalism directed toward our country. Seems plausible.
In one sense you are right: 9/11 has been part of a radicalized assault on the West (i.e. Madrid and London bombings). But note that France, Germany, Italy, and many other countries not involved in Iraq have generally been spared. I think what he’s suggesting is that, if we pull back like Reagan did in Lebanon after the ‘82 barracks bombing, and focus on our own national security.
Do terrorists now (theoretically) have the ability to bring a nuclear weapon onshore and detonate it? Yes. But a deployment in Iraq probably doesn’t address that threat in any tangible way. To the contrary, it focuses the radicals’ interest in “punishing” us.
“Ron Paul says he won’t vote for anything un-Constitutional”
But that doesn’t mean he won’t add un-constitutional spending to bills he knows will pass, even with his no vote, then take the money and run, which he has done many times.
Paul supporters love the rhetoric, not the reality. That’s why liberals love them too...
Well said!
Hate to break it to you, but when Paul was asked about a Kucinich/Paul ticket, he said he'd make the decision in 2 to 3 months, noting that they're friends, and agree on the war, abuses of governmental power, and economic issues. Yes, he said economic issues. Maybe he was having a senior moment, maybe they agree.
Paul calls Kucinich veep speculation "premature" [will think about it in 3 or 4 months]
“Do terrorists now (theoretically) have the ability to bring a nuclear weapon onshore and detonate it? Yes. But a deployment in Iraq probably doesn’t address that threat in any tangible way.”
Really? You can’t bring in a weapon you don’t have. We went into Iraq because of Iraq’s documented history of dealing with terrorists and because of their failure to produce evidence they had dismantled their WMD programs as they had promised.
Re: RP’s vote in favor of Afghanistan strike.
I actually found that to be reassuring. I wouldn’t have much use for the guy if he weren’t able to do THAT much.
The explanation he gave for this on his interview was this: OBL attacked us, here. OBL was based in, and supplied, by the Afghan government. We had the duty to go in and take him out. But he draws the line there, arguing that he doesn’t support a blank check or nation building exercise in Afghanistan. At some point, the Muslims can fairly become suspicious that we are setting up a permanent base in “their” backyard. THAT tends to fuel the radicals’ appeal.
Is driving over you in my car by accident the same thing as hunting you down and killing you? Should the punishment be the same?
It is more than intentions. For all practical purposes Paul is a pacifist. Hitler was the opposite.
Frankly, I don't get all this crud about how a potential third party Ron Paul candidacy hurts the GOP. This jerk's saying everything the Leftist Democrats want to say (but can't) about withdrawing from the world immediately, coddling Islamic terrorism and Iranian nuclear ambitions, and attacking corporatists. There's no question that a lot of his new-found support comes not from libertarians, but liberals (and even farther Leftists). If GOP strategists can't find a way to paint this guy as Hillary's doppelganger, they should all be lined up against a wall and shot.
Hes a protest vote, and thats it.. IOW, you might as well stay home and watch TV
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.