Posted on 12/29/2011 7:02:41 AM PST by Kaslin
After the most recent GOP presidential debate, reasonable people can disagree as to who came out on top. It was abundantly clear, however, who was smothered beneath the pile.
As Ron Paul waxed naive from his perch in Sioux City, Iowa, on issues ranging from foreign policy to judicial activism, one could almost hear his campaign bus tires deflate. Although some polls indicate that Mr. Paul has surged in Iowa, most national polls suggest that, beyond a relatively fixed throng of blindly devoted “Paulbots,” support for the eccentric Texas lawmaker has a concrete ceiling.
Mr. Paul did himself no favors during the debate. Afterward, former Iowa House Speaker Christopher C. Rants blogged, “Ron Paul finally lit a match after dousing himself with gasoline.”
Putting aside for a moment Mr. Paul’s leftist policies on a variety of social issues ranging from his unwavering support for newfangled “gay rights” – to include open homosexuality in the military – to advocacy for across-the-board legalization of illicit drugs, Mr. Paul demonstrated that he has a dangerous, fundamental misunderstanding of the threat posed to every American citizen by radical Islam. This alone disqualifies him for serious consideration as our future Commander in Chief.
During the debate, moderator Bret Baier asked Mr. Paul: “Many Middle East experts now say Iran may be less than one year away from getting a nuclear weapon. … Even if you had solid intelligence that Iran was in fact going to get a nuclear weapon, President Paul would remove the U.S. sanctions on Iran - including those added by the Obama administration. So, to be clear, GOP nominee Paul would be running left of President Obama on Iran?”
Mr. Paul responded: “But I’d be running with the American people because it would be a much better policy.” (The only American people running with this policy risk running the rest of us off a cliff.)
He went on to reject a U.N. agency report that indicates Iran is within months of developing nuclear weaponry, calling it “war propaganda.” He then spouted the same anti-American talking points we’ve come to expect from the hard-left “progressive” establishment, blaming America for Iran’s efforts to go nuclear.
In defense of Islamic terrorists, not unlike those responsible for Sept. 11, Mr. Paul said, “Yeah, there are some radicals, but they don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous. … They come here and want to do us harm because we’re bombing them.
“I don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” he continued, all the while demonstrating to everyone watching that a President Paul would be unwilling to lift a finger to prevent it.
His pacifist ruminations prompted fellow presidential candidate Michele Bachmann to respond: “With all due respect to Ron Paul, I think I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one that we just heard from Ron Paul. … I’ll tell you the reason why, the reason why I would say that is because we know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally Israel off the face of the map, and they stated they will use it against the United States of America. Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up a worldwide caliphate. We would be fools to ignore their purpose and their plan.”
Mr. Paul evidently is one of those fools. Iran is today’s version of Nazi Germany, and Mr. Paul’s obtuse strategy of reckless inaction affords him the dubious title of this generation’s Neville Chamberlain. Like Chamberlain’s fruitless appeasement, Mr. Paul’s similar strategy simply feeds the insatiable beast.
Don’t get me wrong. I personally like Ron Paul. He’s that affable - if not a little “zany” - uncle who has the whole family on edge at Thanksgiving. “Oh boy; what’s Uncle Ronny gonna say next?”
Still, you wouldn’t give Uncle Ronny the carving knife for the turkey, much less the keys to the Oval Office.
Mr. Paul is many things, but conservative is not one of them. He’s a died-in-the-wool libertarian. That’s one part conservative, two parts anarchist.
Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by strong free-market economic principles, a strong national defense and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.
Mr. Paul is relatively conservative from an economic standpoint, but in true libertarian form, has snapped off the legs of national defense and social values.
The libertarian is a strange and rare little animal – a bit like the woolly flying squirrel. It spends its days erratically darting to-and-fro atop this teetering, one-legged stool in a futile effort to keep it from toppling. America witnessed Ron Paul doing this squirrelly libertarian tango on the night of December 15th. Cute but unstable.
Ron Paul never had a chance; but now, with the possible exception of his most committed devotees, I suspect most people will finally admit it. Regardless of what happens in Iowa, the Paul engine has run out of steam. During the debate it pulled into the station and released its final wheeze right alongside the Cain Train.
Sorry bud. Paul is not an appeaser. He is a strict Libertarian who follows the Founding Fathers’ warnings about involving ourselves in “foreign entanglements”. It’s an economic strategy.
We are broke in case you haven’t noticed and at this point any time we get sucked into some foreign war, it further weakens us. So, no you are wrong about the motivation, and yes, Ron Paul has principles unlike the ruling elite who are all over the place.
Dittos. Get rid of the Federal Reserve? Put a stop to the 12.5 million per day we waste on Israel? Music to my ears....
Look for the “dark horse” Rick Santorium looking a WHOLE LOT GOOD.
Amen.
I love Ron Paul. By the constitution. Period.
You hit it right out of the ball park!
You Paulitards are as clueless as your hero.
A Paulitard named Dubie...
Wow, you just can’t make that up...
Hey, I do not know all fo the guy’s views. I was answering an attack about his views on foreign entanglements.
Does he love Muslims? If so, he shouldn’t. Does he want to harm Israel? I don’t agree with harming the only Western-style country in the Middle East.
Does he think we shouldn’t be sucked into foreign entanglements? Yes and he is right about that. Libertarians have always been isolationist.
You saw how much credit we got for the massively expensive fight against the Nazis, the French asked us to leave. Really grateful they are not speaking German these days. /sarc
Now the administration has actually quietly sent OUR TROOPS INTO UGANDA!!!!!!!!!!!What interest is being pursued there at huge taxpayer expense, red expense.
Ridiculous. I can remember when I was in about 2nd grade hearign “Six cents out of every dollar is spent on national defense.” Heaven only knows what it is now.
Dont really agree with his policy that we should do nothing and just let Iran have the bomb. But.. Can we afford a war with Iran? We are over $15 trillion in debt. We are on our way of going the same route of the Soviets...spending so much on our military while domestic economy collapses under the heavy entitlements.
We need to start considering the national debt to a serious threat to the stability of the nation. Now if you balance the budget and you have money to spend on the war, then by all means, bomb the sons of bit**es. But you know... I really dont know if we are any healthier taking out another multi-trillion dollar loan to take down a 3rd world country on the other side of the planet. Not quite sure the public would be in favor of that.
Its a serious dilemma.
I have long believed that by looking at Paul’s eyes, he is either as nutty as a fruitcake, or he self-medicates.
Read a few biographies. The Founding Fathers were not "strict Libertarians" who are about the most dogmatic people on earth. Having said that, I'd vote for Paul over Obama, no question. I'm sympathetic with a lot of his positions and trust that at least when he says he'd cut 1 trillion he'd actually mean it (that is..he would insist on it not that the congress-critters wouldn't just over-ride him).
Don't forget Paul thinks that traitor Bradley Manning is a hero and a patriot. He also opposes building a fence along the southern border because of some bizarre idea that it would be used to prevent American's from fleeing to Mexico. The list of Paul's loopy ideas is really too long to list.
You Paulitards are as clueless as your hero.
Yup. Unfortunately FR is infested with paulbots these days.
The problem with Americans these days is that they have been led so damn far from the edicts of the constitution they don't even recognize it when slapped in the face with it.
Ron Paul as far as I can tell uses the constitution just as our founding fathers intended. A guidepost for all legislation and policy.
I don't agree with everything Paul says, but when he speaks about a subject, utilizing the constitutional guidepost I refer, folks have this dumbfounded look on their face.
Regardless of a Paul win, his input in this process is CRUCIAL to our freedom. There are those that want to shutdown this voice. Calling him a nut, loony and so forth.
Paul's positions are clearly listed on his website. I've read them all. Unlike many, they parrot crap they here without first doing simple research for themselves.
One of the reasons our republic is dying, instead of thinking for themselves, they act like lil parrots.
Paul's comes from a Christian family, served in the military, successfully completed studies to become a physician, then have served in Congress with a pretty damn good conservative voting record.
Win or lose, Paul is an accomplished, principled fella and as far as I can tell, the closest person to a true constitutionalist as I've seen in years.
I realize that the Founding Fathers were not Libertarians..........don’t confuse what I said. What I said was Paul is a Libertarian. AND that as such, Paul was following the Founding Fathers’ warnings about foreign entanglements.
Now do you see?
That is about the limit of thinking through their vision of the world.
It is a helluva list...
But that manning thing, its a good one as well...
Sorry ass SOB...
So the decades of racist newsletters does not matter to you? Ron Paul calling a traitor a hero, being a truther, participating frequently on fringe conspiracy nut shows, wanting to gut the US military, supporting Iran getting nukes, being a extreme isolationist, saying the Bush White House had “glee” after 9/11, and supporting the destruction of even more families and neighborhoods from dope don’t matter either?
See, the big problem with Paul is that the actual good stuff Paul advocates such as massive and immediate cuts to domestic spending, eliminating cabinet agencies, etc, will never get through the congress. The very bad, naive and isolationist foreign and defense positions Paul represents he could actually do largely on his own. The net result is Paul's accomplishments would end up being a loony foreign and defense policy that would be far to the left of Obama.
No, I don't agree. His positions are his positions because he is a dogmatic libertarian and being such it is coincidental that Washington gave that speech. Libertarians are guided completely by Libertarian dogma. If you look into the Founding Fathers you will see that some of them were all for getting into "foreign entanglements".
Good response and I tend to agree that RP’s adherence to Constitutionality is reason enough for many to support him. I am amazed by how much defamation he has received from so many ‘Conservatives’...it is very disappointing as this will tend to drive a wedge between all who want to limit government.
I don’t know what a proper response to Iran should be however our previous non-response during the last Iraqi War was almost null even as Iranians actually killed US servicemen.
If that did not elicit a response then what would?
Where did you get any of that from the limited scope of the subject I commented about?
I believe on the newsletters he should establish that he must have been soft in the head when he wrote that and certainly doesn’t believe it today.
Gut the military? Well, if we don’t have foreign entanglements perhaps we can streamline some things, it can’t be any worse than what the current administration has ham-stringed the military with and the military has to watch its pennies just like everybody else, yes.
I highly question your inane assertion that Paul “supports” nukes for Iran, the “glee” issue I have never come across and I certainly doubt Paul “supports” destroying families and neighborhoods.
Sheesh, you can’t make this stuff up. Settle down. Take a warm bath and have some oatmeal or something.
“By the constitution. Period.”
Wrong! The United States Constitution says “provide for the common defense”. History has shown Ron Paul’s isolationist and appeasement crappola would be a national disaster and the number one duty of the federal government, as spelled out clearly in the Constitution, would be ignored. He is a crackpot.
The constitution is dead and meaningless without a moral, spiritual standard.
Something your idol obviously has yet to comprehend.
Kinda...
Can't blame you, Paulbots are seeing extremely short life spans here...
Nuttier than a California breakfast bar.
Ok, now as for being a “truther” the use of that word indicates you are perfectly satisfied with having in the White House an executive with all closed records, unaccounted time in Pakistan and no conceivable means of support....who published two obviously fake birth certificates in answer to demands for something I showed on behalf of my kid so he could play Little League.
And Manning releasing all those documents, I do not for one single solitary New York second believe that he did it on his own, he is the fall guy used by forces larger than him. Having been in the military myself, I am aware of haw absolutely powerless a PFC is and he doesn’t have the right clearance either.
The loud ‘cheering’ for Paul at the debates and other places could be the ‘phenomenon’ of fan chasers who follow him much like Broadway ‘stars’ giving them the longest and loudest applause. Ron Paul is an angry little man and that in its self is dangerous.
“I highly question your inane assertion that Paul “supports” nukes for Iran, the “glee” issue I have never come across and I certainly doubt Paul “supports” destroying families and neighborhoods.”
Perhaps much of the support comes from people like you who have not studied what Paul has said.
Iran Nukes: Watch and listen to the crackpot himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN2gEixPvoA
“Glee” in White House: Watch and listen to the crackpot himself:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57340277-503544/ron-paul-9-11-prompted-glee-in-bush-administration/
On pushing drugs out to destroy even more families and neighborhoods; watch and listen to the crackpot himself talk about legalizing heroin, cocain, pot, prostitution :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz6MEU4_HFs
A Paulitard named Dubie...
I am still LMAO...
Don’t twist it to spin Ron Paul being a Truther nut. It has nothing to do with Obama. He has blamed the United States for 9/11, appeared repeatedly on truther conspiracy nut shows, encouraged truther nuts with obscure answers to their questions about more “investigation” into 9/11 and said that there was “glee” in the Bush administration following 9/11.
And you dancing around the Paul calling Manning a hero sounds like some conspiracy crap that Alex Jones would come up with. Try again. Ron Paul called Manning a hero. Ron Paul is a crackpot.
OK, watched the Iran nukes video. What he says is that for a country surrounded by nukes, wanting nukes is natural. (I don’t see this as support for the Iranians getting nukes.) And that sanctions make it more likely we will fight them, which may have been true a few years ago, when we had them surrounded, but now that we have left Iraq, that danger is fading.
Then he says, just view foreign countries as trading partners and ignore their internal doings, bring troops home which dovetails with his no foreign entanglements position.
Ok, the “glee” video is not being happy 9-11 happened. He is saying the White House jumped on 9-11 as a reason to invade Iraq, which it did.
Absolutely. Paul is not my first choice, Cain is (I don't care if Cain dropped out, I'm still writing him in).
But Paul has many good ideas, particularly about strictly adhering to the Constitution. The Republican plank should it least reflect that.
“Ron Paul as far as I can tell uses the constitution just as our founding fathers intended. A guidepost for all legislation and policy.”
RPaul ‘cherry picks’ the constitution to support his positions. Like for example, when he proposed, as the only constitution response to 911, issing Letters of Marquis and Reprisal.
Yeah and your characterization of the getting rid of federal laws on drugs as “supporting destruction of neighborhoods and families” is FALSE. What Paul says is we don’t have enough prison space for all the drug offenders and he supports decriminalizing drug usage which has only been criminalized in recent years. He is primarily suggesting that these are states rights/jurisdiction issues and the federal government need not be involved.
I could support his stance. As he says, most, if not all of the audience is not going to run out to buy heroin the instant it gets decriminalized. But the decriminalization will have the effect of reducing drug murders, won’t it? And that would actually be good for neighborhoods and families, now wouldn’t it?
Quit muckraking.
Ron Paul is a complete wackadoodle. Creepy wackadoodle! And too old. I hope he just goes AWAY! That’s my sincere prayer.
LOL! Crazier is right!
“Paul was following the Founding Fathers’ warnings about foreign entanglements.”
You must be referring to those Founding Fathers who fought an undeclared war on France (The Quasi War), the War of 1812, sent the US Navy into the Med to invade Tripoli, and established the Monroe Doctrine? Those Founding Fathers did a lot of ‘entangling’, didn’t they?
You’ve got Obama as President and you’re telling me Paul is dangerous? Give me a break........
Yes or Jefferson’s threat to resign his post because he couldn’t budge Washington on supporting the French revolutionaries against Britain.
Jaysus, Kaslin, you really brought out the Paulbots this morning! Complete with indefensible arguements and ad hominems.
Paul's supporters say that Paul didn't know what was in the newsletters and that he says he is not a racist. Disregarding the fact that Paul's previous defense was not a denial of knowledge, but that the racial facts were based on sociological studies, the man demonstrated he can't be trusted to run a country, if he runs a business by turning it over to crazies for twenty years with no supervision or oversight while collecting a million a year, signing promotional materials, providing content (see below), and just letting the lunatics free on his watch. There is no Get Out Of Jai Free card. He was either incompetent or a raging nut case. And it's not a case of one youthful indiscretion. When he made these comments in the 1970s and 1980s he wasn't a kid . . . and it's more like a few hundreds indiscretions than one.
And the fact is Ron Paul didn't just occasionally write about race and he didn't turn the content over to somebody else. His newsletters were a written form of Attention Deficit Disorder. They never stayed on subject, sometimes changing the topic from paragraph to paragraph. They included first-person notes about his wife and son, his Congressional colleagues, his medical advice, financial invest (buy gold!), and world events, with contrapuntal notes about blacks, Jews, militia, Trilateralists, Jews, blacks, conspiracies, blacks, AIDs, blacks, how-to-kill-a-criminal-punk-and-not-leave-evidence, Jews, blacks, the New World Order, and blacks. These were personal investment and political newsletters from Paul that suffered from Tourettes attacks of an unseemly kind. Did you notice I mentioned blacks and Jews a lot? Well, so did Paul.
I've been 'blessed' by a friend with all or parts of over 50 Ron Paul newsletters. Some of you may agree with parts of these, but take the work as a whole. Remember it was written by a Congressman. Try to imagine that nobody ever said anything to Paul about this content and he didn't know it was being written, over a period of twenty years. Imagine trying to run against Obama while defending the soundbites that come from this stuff. Consider the juxtaposition of some of these comments (I particular love how 'buy gold!' pops up, including the "guy gold! those d*mn black! buy gold! segments). Or the "hey, I have a Jew friend and he done told me that them Massad fellas are the ones what blowed up the World Trade Center" segment. And for anything I have here, I have 100 more. Yeah, run on that, Ron.
(no, didn't look like Ron Paul had anything to do with that newsletter)
("I'm a physician and a Congressman, so I should spread this rumor about government-made AIDs") 
(Keep those gay Republican colleagues of mine from having sex in the Congressional gym!)
(Faulty medical advice; BUY GOLD!)
If Paul wins Iowa, it's a black eye for the Republican Party.
That certainly shows how naive (and wrong) Paul is. Crime would increase significantly as easier and no-penalty dope purchase and use would push an even greater supply to an even larger demand. But then, easier dope use is the main platform issue that attracts most of his cult anyway.
Thanx, perfect example! The majority of the 911 attackers were Saudi....did we hold Saudi Arabia's feet to the fire?
During the Iraq war, it was well known that Iranians were knee deep in killing our soldiers. I mean we have hard evidence, how did we respond?
Sure, we took out some Al Queda training camps at the onset of our response to 911, but 12 years later? Hundreds of billions later, scores of wounded/dead Americans...really, I mean seriously.
Look at Iraq plummeting back into chaos. I watch Bolton (which I respect) talking last night that leaving Iraq was failed policy.
Huh? How long are we supposed to stay? How many billions do we pump into this barbaric society? How many lives lost?
I say, enoughs enough already. Hell, if anything, can we as a nation just freakin pause and regroup?
A sinking lifeboat helps NO ONE. As far as I can tell, this lifeboat called America is in serious trouble of sinking.
ha ha ha.
You are funny
Okay. I left out a bunch of New World Order, “Jimmy Carter is a Trilateralist and part of the conspiracy”, “this George Bush meeting proves the New World Order’ images. Do I really need to post that? I already feel as if I have to soak my computer in bleach just from having Ron Paul’s newsletters on the hard drive.
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.