Skip to comments.Attack Dogs Unleashed on Ron Paul
Posted on 12/28/2011 11:40:14 AM PST by Kaslin
Attack dogs have finally been unleashed on Ron Paul. Those barking dogs caused Andrew Sullivan to Re-Think The Paul Endorsement
Time Magazine even launched a headline Paul Walks Away
No Need to Rethink Endorsement
There is no need to rethink endorsements. Here is the deal: Ron Paul did not say the things attributed to him. He denies them, disavows them, and most importantly, his voting record proves it!
Can anyone honestly tell me why things Ron Paul did NOT say over twenty years ago should be news today?
Paul Missed Best Tactic
How many times does he have to deny he wrote those things? Still, Ron Paul did not handle the CNN setup in the best possible manner.
This is what Paul said to CNN.
Why dont you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what Ive said for 20 something years. 22 years ago? I didnt write them, I disavow them."
That answer was perfectly fine, as far as it went. Then Paul walked out. It was a missed opportunity.
Rather than walking out, Paul should have followed up with ...
"I'm not here to discuss imaginary topics or things I never said. Now, do you want to discuss my position on the economy, on the Fed, and on spending, or is your only point to this interview to discuss things I did not say 20 years ago and have explained to CNN countless times?"
That would have smashed the ball down CNN interviewer Gloria Borger's throat, right where it belonged.
OK. Admittedly, Ron Paul did not respond in the perfect manner. So Ron Paul is human. Who isn't?
Is a transgression 22 years ago of something Ron Paul never said, and whose track record in congress proves it, any reason to drop support of Ron Paul?
In favor of who? Flip-flopper Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney, the man that practically wrote the Obama Health-Care legislation? The Mitt Romney who wants to starts a trade war with China? Another Republican candidate that has no chance of winning?
If case you are a misguided Mitt Romney fan please consider President Obama and Mitt Romney are Nearly One and the Same!
Anyone "rethinking" their Ron Paul endorsement based on things Paul never said is not thinking clearly.
Attack Dog Plus Side
Here's the plus side to the attack dogs: Ron Paul is now considered a serious candidate or the attack dogs would not have been unleashed on things he never said 22 years ago.
Interestingly, The State Column reports Ron Paul still holds a lead in Iowa.
Thus, a majority of voters have decided that 22-year-old never-made statements are irrelevant, even if some misguided souls can't.
Paul had been shown time and time to be a nut job here and you paulitard keep doing the “We are so smart you guys don't understand how brilliant Paul is, he is the only one who yada yada yada...
At some point the you stop debating the dense and just point and laugh...
Extremists are extremists, are extremists. bttt
"....One cannot simply blindly apply first principles to every situation, for this ends in a dogmatic and false absolutism.
"This is, for example, what creeps people out about Ron Paul.
"He says plenty of things -- derived from first principles embodied in the Constitution -- that make perfect sense. However, he always goes too far, in that half of what he says results from a blind application of first principles, irrespective of empirical reality.
"The same moral confusion afflicts leftists who wouldn't waterboard a known terrorist with information about an imminent attack, owing to an unthinking allegiance to the principle of "non-torture" -- which any normal person shares, up to a point, the point of suicidal insanity. ..."
He’s no more a Republican than Obama is. In fact, he’s to the left of Obama on a number of issues, including the offing of UBL. His “Blame America First” foreign policy is a better fit in the party of Soros than the party of Lincoln and Reagan.
I totally agree with you.
LOLOLOLOLOL! Excellent. :)
He did say this:
“Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq,”
“...Sullivan supports Paul as a way to cripple the republican party. I doubt hes the only leftist to do so. RATS are well known for sabotaging republican primaries.”
You couldn’t be more right:
‘Mischief’ voters push Paul to front of GOP race
by Byron York Chief Political Correspondent
“Blue Republicans”: an Idea Whose Time Has Come
Posted: 07/13/11 By Robin Koerner Publisher, WatchingAmerica.com
“Many people of independent, liberal or Democratic sensibilities voted for Obama in 2008 in the hope of jolting America toward civil liberties and away from war, only to find themselves in 2011 disappointed .....” [snip]
Robin Koerner: If You Love Peace, Become a “Blue Republican” (Just for a Year)
Since you can’t change the Democrat ticket, why not act where you can make a positive change, by telling the Republican party where you really want it to go. I offer you a special moniker to set yourselves apart: the “Blue Republican.”
What is a Blue Republican?
We are former non-Republicans who are joining the Republican party for one year to help Ron Paul win the GOP nomination for President in 2012. Who We Are
Anti-war Ron Paul attracting support from local left
By Michael Kitch
Nov 22, 2011 12:00 am
LACONIA Amid polling last week that showed Ron Paul running into the money in both Iowa and New Hampshire there were also signs that he was tapping support from an unexpected quarter the left-wing of the Democratic Party.
Lynn Rudmin Chong, former chair of the Belknap County Democratic Committee, has publicly endorsed Paul and said that “I have found other kindred souls.” The Sanbornton resident said that she left the Democratic Party and changed her voter registration to “undeclared” in anticipation of taking a Republican ballot in New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary and casting her vote for Paul.
“He is the only one saying no more war,” Chong said. She spent two days in Washington with the “Occupy DC” movement, where she said that she was encouraged to see so many young people holding signs supporting Paul.
“I would definitely call myself a progressive,” said Will Hopkins of Belmont, who returned from a tour as infantryman in Iraq to become executive director of New Hampshire Peace Action, a group seeking to end foreign wars and cut defense budgets. “I supported Obama in 2008, but I’m supporting Ron Paul. That’s where I’m putting my eggs this year,” he said. “A lot of folks in the peace movement are taking a close look at Paul.”
Signs that liberals and progressives were flirting with Paul appeared last spring, when Robin Koerner, a British national who founded “Watching America,” which publishes foreign news about the United States in English, and blogs for the Huffington Post, described Paul as the “conservative champion of liberalism.”
He coined the term “Blue Republican” to brand progressives for Paul, which was promptly promoted on Facebook, where his article was shared 11,000 times in less than a week.
In July. Koerner posted “If you love peace, become a ‘Blue Republican’ (Just for a Year),” telling progressives they do not have to like the GOP “to sign up as a Republican for a year to help make sure that the Republican primaries are won by the one representative who has always been for peace, has always voted against bailouts, and has always opposed the reach of government into your bedroom, your relationships and your person.”
On their website Blue Republicans describe themselves as “people who have never before thought of joining the Republican Party . . . who identify as Democrats or Independents and/or supported Obama in 2008.”
Jim Forsythe of Strafford, the state senator from District 4 and chair of Paul’s campaign in New Hampshire, said that he was aware of independent voters, both conservatives and liberals, either eying or backing Paul. He said that some some liberals and progressives share Paul’s opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, eagerness to reduce the defense budget at home and military footprint abroad, hostility to the Patriot Act and distrust of corporate power.
“I’m being pragmatic,” said Chong, explaining that she would vote for Paul in the primary without showing her hand in the general election. However, she admitted “I am feeling way distanced from Obama.”
Hopkins vowed to support Paul in the both the Republican primary and the general election. However, he said that if Paul loses the nomination to another Republican, he will throw his vote to a third party.
Polls conducted by Bloomberg News last week put Paul in second place behind Mitt Romney in both New Hampshire and Iowa with 17-percent and 19-percent respectively. Unlike several other GOP candidates Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich whose polling numbers have waxed and waned, Paul has polled consistently, without, however, significantly expanding his support.
Another Bloomberg poll indicated that if Paul bolted the GOP to run as a third-party candidate, he would capture 18-percent of the vote, effectively throwing the election to Obama, who would top Romney with 44-percent to 32-percent.
So, if many Republicans & many Democrats support Ron Paul, why couldn’t he take Obama? I think he has the best chance of doing just that.
Ross Pirot. Paul will implode. (1) He’s 75; (2) He’s unhinged; 3) HE’S 75!!!
[I am grateful for the important ideas that he has introduced into the public forum during the debates.]
You mean where Paul said that we were responsible for the attacks on 9/11?
Or where Paul said that Iran deserved a Nuke like everybody else? Oh, (almost forgot) where the USA did not have the right to stop Iran from getting a Nuke?
Yes, I can see where you would see these “ideas” as “important”.
Are you saying he's not nuts? Being nuts seems a pretty substantial problem to me.
But, just because I agree with a lot of his financial positions doesn't mean he would be a good president. I oppose Libertianism on moral grounds as any nation that legalizes the killing of babies and marrying of homosexuals will not last long. God is not mocked.
I work in finance and find that most finance guys can't see beyond money. They are obsessed with money and, therefore, believe that our current financial problems can only be addressed by a militant libertarian like Ron Paul.
There are worse things than a bad economy.
NO! It is because he is a racist crackpot. It is because conservatives do not accept the lunacy of his decades of vile newsletters, promoting the screwing up more lives with easily obtainable dope, 9/11 trutherism, friendship with radical supremacist and conspiracy nut types, calling traitors heroes, supporting the OWS parasites, believe that there was “glee” in the Bush White House following 9/11, don't care about terrorist nukes, ignore Islamic terrorists, cripple the military, being anti-Israel, etc.
Ron Paul is NOT GOP, NOT conservative and NOT Tea Party. He is a libertarian nut. KICK HIM OUT NOW!
Here kitty, kitty, kitty....
Only other walnuts would see a walnut as normal.
“Ending excessive foreign entanglements”
Paul is a selective ender of foreign entanglements -— only avoids them when it might help his agenda of killing Jews.
Yes, that is what I said.
He’s clearly a virulent anti-semite. You can dismiss one or two things, but collectively the picture is very clear.
Here is a quote from Paul’s own campaign site;
[”Can you think of one Ron Paul supporter who isn’t a pot smoker?
Because I certainly can’t.”]