Posted on 07/20/2007 4:27:18 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
NEW YORK A feature piece in this coming Sunday's New York Times Magazine on Republican candidate for president, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, portrays his followers as including a wild mix of "wackos" on both ends of the political spectrum. Paul, a libertarian, has been gaining media and public attention of late.
The cover line reads: "A Genuine Radical for President." The headline inside: "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul."
The article closes with the author, Christopher Caldwell, attending a Ron Paul Meetup in Pasadena. The co-host, Connie Ruffley of United Republicans of California, admits she once was a member of the radical right John Birch Society and when she asks for a show of hands "quite a few" attendees reveal that they were or are members, too. She refers to Sen. Dianne Feinstein as "Fine-Swine" and attacks Israel, pleasing some while others "walked out."
Caldwell notes that the head of the Pasadena Meetup Group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headquarters: "We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country....We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next 'Star Trek' convention or whatever."
Asked about the John Birch Society Society by the author, Paul responds, "Is that BAD? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They're generally well-educated and they understand the Constitution. I don't know how many positions they would have that I don't agree with."
The writer concludes that the "antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left" may have "irreconciable" differences. But "their numbers -- and anger -- are of considerable magnitude. Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together."
Among many other things, we learn from the article that Paul had never heard of "The Daily Show" until he was a guest and referred to the magazine GQ as "GTU." It also notes that he was the only congress member to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act and a medal to honor Rosa Parks, among many others tallies, based on principle, not politics. He also is praised by liberal Rep. Barney Frank as "one of the easiest" members to work with because "he bases his positions on the merits of issues."
Every time I have seen this subject come up, it was because some anti-Paul FReeper was trying to accuse Paul of anti-semitism. When Paul supporters discuss it, its because they're defending him; not because of a "fixation".
If you guys are going to post a link to a site like that, I wish you’d label it as a warning. Those kind of sites are on FBI watchlists and I don’t like to click into such sites. Thanks.
What’s the “other agenda” to which you so coyly alluded, back in #108? Man up. Make with the specifics.
LOL, you think that do you? Whose word will you take for that? Oh of course Fox News and the administration. Who cares if it's true or not?
Hate to break it to you but Iraq and stability aren't in the cards without a secular strong man and no democracy. I could explain why that's the case but I've found true believers in the police action I've learned don't like history lessons.
You want to believe three separate sects (and two of Islam) are just going to get along in a nation created by Western powers after WWI be my guest. But it's not going to happen.
John Birch was NOT 100% accurate, it was more like 90%..
“Let’s do the math.
Which one weighs more?
A) Ron Paul’s own words?
B) an article written by someone else?
I have a degree in Engineering, but I think this is 4th grade logic math.”
Seems like the math is OK, but the logic is lacking. I too have engineering degrees, but you lost me. What you posted and what was in the NR both included Paul’s own words. Can you please explain to me what it is that Paul said that is not true?
I keep seeing lots of references to Paul being nuts or stupid, or enemy of America, but I don’t see any quotes that seems to indicate lies or errors. I’m still trying to find out why any pol that wants to use the Constitution again is beyond the pale of Freeper thinking.
I notice, some of the “haters” are supporting him. They have to support some one. Maybe they wouldn’t be haters if the US Constitution was being used for governance. That they might post his (Paul’s) articles on their web site seems to bring hate from freepers. I’m not sure who those sites are, but I am very curious why an article by Paul, warning folks we’re about to be taxed by the UN is an object of scorn by anybody who claims to be a conservative. Can you please do that math for me?
The communists always support the democraps, but that doesn’t make them bad. (Well, maybe that’s a bad example). Point is, that some group you may dislike, hate, feel disdain for, are also voters. You may not like them, but I’d still rather have them vote for Paul than say, Hitlery Klinton, or for that matter, the other democrap, Rudy G.
What about Ron Paul scares freepers? -Glenn
I think we were in cross-post mode, and if I responded to the wrong post or poster, I apologize. I get to typing fast and do not do it that well.
You've been saying that on every Paul thread, and not getting an answer. Perhaps the answer is in your own perception of Paul, not everyone else's.
LOL, you think that do you?
I'm glad you put up the "LOL". I really wasn't sure whether or not it was in good taste to laugh at that.
Huh. Doesn't explain the "editorials" and whatnot you mentioned seeing there (Wiki articles don't have "editorials" and suchlike accompanying)... but: let it go, either way.
There is no longer any uncertainty on your part, I take it, as to which specific link is under discussion in this sub-thread. You will need to familiarize yourself with at least a statistically significant portion of same, in order to converse knowledgeably on said topic from this point forward.
The posters upon said thread (and they are numerous) are all extremely vocal and upfront as to what it is they happen to like and admire most about Ron Paul... and it is not, demonstrably, his position on fiat currency, say. What do you make of it all, then?
Sounds a whole lot like Ronald Reagan, to me. He used to say, “Remember, government isn’t always the solution, it’s the problem.”-Glenn
[::shrugs::] Suit yourself. As the original topic at hand was (and remains) Ron Paul's supporters -- as opposed to Ron Paul himself -- the presence of complete lack of "RP articles" is crashingly irrelevant, either way.
I think we were in cross-post mode
It happens.
Should read: “ [...] the presence OR complete lack...”
Which of the collection of socialists, fascists and big-government candidates running on the Republican side would be your choice?
“I wonder if I should ping the person who claimed all Paul supporters were such”
No need. And I thought I had revised and extended my remarks to say that of the Paul supports I HAD TALKED TO OR READ the MAJORITY (not all) were foul-mouthed jerks.
Not ALL.
Understood.
You know what I said.
We both know what you said. My only interest, at this point, is whether you genuinely have a pair adequate to the task of stating it plainly and forthrightly.
So now you Paul haters are getting relying on the politically leftest Wiki and NYT for you ammunition?
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.