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.
I decided in ‘08 that Paul was more dangerous than Clinton. Paul refuses to acknowledge that jet planes and missiles make the world a different place than the one that George Washington knew.
Yeah, even they had some ‘help’ from foreign allies, such as the French,(biggest ally) Spanish, Dutch, Polish, a few Germans (Von Steuben), etc.. Although some of them were a few individuals. Some were entire governments like the French.
I’m wondering if Washington might have advised that about the “foreign entanglements” because at that time, America was still such a little nation? He didn’t want it to become “helped” by another country, that could easily taken over it in it’s infant stage! Who knows if he would’ve advised that in this day and age?
“I don’t the Paultards ever think much past smoking dope, never paying any taxes, and perhaps sex with farm animals.”
I’ve heard that if Paul dropped legalizing dope from his platform, he’d lose 50% of his supporters. Not a joke.
If Paul himself ever stopped smoking dope he would realize where he was and go home.
You are ridiculous.
There is a HUGE risk, in Iran having nukes, a larger risk than what we have faced with any other country.
Iran WILL use the nukes.
Iran WILL sell nukes to terrorists.
Ron Paul is not fit to be Commander in Chief.
You are ridiculous.
There is a HUGE risk, in Iran having nukes, a larger risk than what we have faced with any other country.
Iran WILL use the nukes.
Iran WILL sell nukes to terrorists.
Ron Paul is not fit to be Commander in Chief.
The words “provide for the common defense” do not imply that the U.S should be the policeman for the world. Defense is different than offense.
There always has been and always will be a dominant world military power. What country would you like for that to be?
Whether it is a winning sports team, athlete, company, employee, or miltary power, “defending” their standing or title comes from a combination of defense and offense. A fighter just standing with his gloves covering his face get the living crap beat out of him.
I just cannot decide who I should listen to on the national defense, an isolationist crackpot politician like Paul or centuries of history and our military leadership.
Then you agree the United States was responsible for 9/11, and you are for legalizing drugs, and you agree with Iran wanting a Nuclear program and agenda to destroy our nation,.. and you agree Obama isn't so bad after all...and the lists goes on and on of Paul being anti- American and using the Constitution as a smoke screen to further dumbdown his supporters and hurt this nation.
If you don't agree then you need to pull your support for him...if you do..then find another country that adheres to Pauls isolated and anti-American agenda.
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.