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.
At the very least, Paul references the constitution at least to some degree even if your statement were correct.
That is much more than I can say about the current and former occupants of the White House and current candidates.
Hell, they don't even mention the constitution. The reason? They are all a part of the perverted status quo that cares little about personal freedom and liberties. It's about power, greed, status.
Paul's positions are out on his website for all to see. His voting record pretty closely matches all that is posted.
He is the MOST fiscally conservative candidate in the race...period and without rival.
Not another candidate talks of auditing the (not so) Federal Reserve. Not one of’em.
We keep fishing from the same ol pond, we keep catchin the same ol big mouth bass. Election cycle after election cycle.
The republicans are a bunch damn weasels...with the exception of a few.
It is no damn wonder we keep marching toward socialism, “alarming” loss of civil liberties and personal freedoms.
Folks vote for establishment republicans...well, cause their republican and well, so am I.
How bout we have another heaping helping of John The Maverick for Change McCain. Hell, why not Jeb Bush? Mitt Romney? Newt Gingrich?
I feel like I'm in a re-make of ground hog day. The same thing, over and over.
Get out of the boat people and have the go-nads to facilitate real change, cause what were doing...ain't workin.
We need an air strike...
Amen! He is a 9/11 Truther, and that just doesn't fly with me. And, I would think that shouldn't fly with anyone on FR; but, I guess I'm mistaken. His opinions on Iran's nuclear ambitions is also a no-go for me. He is either incrediably naive, or stupid, or anti-Israel. Or all three.
Occupy Mom's Basement folks are like that...
I reject UN agency reports too. Am I dangerous?
Iran is different.
Iran will not care about Mutually Assured Destruction.
Iran’s leaders WANT to martyr themselves.
So, your argument is weak.
You need to read Jim's position on Ro Paul
Yes, Ron Paul is a whackjob nutcase Alex Jones truther. All 911 truthers can go straight to hell as far as I’m concerned. You too if you push that crap.
Post that nutjob crap here on FR at your own peril. I’m hereby giving the mods the greenlight to whack your account if and when you go over the line posting Ron Paul/whackjob truther nuttery.
FURP
You did us a brave thing by risking the cleanliness of your hard drive in saving all the Paultard memos.
I agree with you, and with The Boss. Paultards, post at your peril.
We seemed to have a “foreign entanglement” in north Africa in the early 1800’s. Seems like the writer of the Declaration of Independence was President at the time. Then of course we did the “Louisiana Purchase”, same Prez. So a dogmatic line didn't seem to be part of the Founders thinking. Those men were wise and practical and experienced, not dogmatic.
What is troublesome however is that there just doesn't seem to be anyone on the election circuit who profoundly supports the idea of smaller government.
Then exactly what is allowing an avowed enemy of the United States of America, who has threatened not only us with nuclear destruction, but also our only ally in the Middle East with a Democratically elected government, threatening to wipe them off the face of the map called?
You Paultards just aren't funny anymore. You're as dangerous as your candidate is. You can't hide your anti-semitism in Paul's candidacy anymore, you've all been exposed for what you are.
I knew the job was dangerous when I took it. (Parroting my tagline since February 1998)
We need a president that understands the Constitution AND the job. We don’t need an around-the-bend lunatic. Paul is a lunatic.
Nope. I am NOT by any stretch an antiSemite. As I said in a previous post, if Paul doesn’t support Israel, I do NOT agree with him. You are wrong and mean and a hothead.
It doesn’t matter if RPaul references the constitution if makes claims that aren’t true. When he makes these claims he’s guilty of re-writing the constitution.
ooooh, I'm so hurt! You're a poopy-headed anti-semite Paultard.
All of you are. You can't hide it.
Take THAT, you poopy-head!
[smile]
Love your homepage, BL.
Thank you ...
“Iran is different.
Iran will not care about Mutually Assured Destruction.
Iran’s leaders WANT to martyr themselves.”
Leaders rarely want to be martyrs; they want their followers to be martyrs. The war between India and Pakistan has been going on for years; I remember wailing the Pakis would use their bomb, but they didn’t after all. Not that long ago, we feared that Kim Jong Il would bomb South Korea before he died. He’s dead and South Korea stands.
Follow the money. Who benefits from our continuing escalation of wars. (We’re now boots-down in Uganda...)
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.