Skip to comments.Paul faithful flock to Spartanburg appearance (sixteen standing ovations!)
Posted on 07/23/2007 7:58:41 AM PDT by George W. Bush
Paul faithful flock to Spartanburg appearance
A little-known Texas congressman seeking the Republican nomination for president visited Spartanburg on Saturday and seemed to arrive with all the makings of rock-star candidate for his party despite polling low, little name recognition and a relatively small campaign staff.
Supporters call it the Ron Paul Revolution. You mightve seen it on signs or T-shirts. Or MySpace.
Paul received no less than 16 standing ovations during his hour-plus speech and question-and-answer session at the Summit Pointe Event Center first, when he entered the room, a second one when a re-entered after doing a quick television interview and a third when he was formally introduced.
Thunderous applause also followed when he decried the Patriot Act (ovation No. 4), when he said America should never go to war without a declaration from Congress or because of a United Nations resolution (ovation Nos. 8 and 9), and when he attacked President Bushs foreign policy and handling of the war in Iraq (ovation Nos. 11, 12 and 13).
No nation building. No policing of the world. Peace is popular, Paul said. The sooner we get out of Iraq, the fewer Americans will die. And I say, its time to come home.
About 400 people half from out of state were shoehorned into Summit Pointe for a barbecue luncheon that doubled as a fundraiser for the Spartanburg County Republican Party. The local GOP, after expenses, made an estimated $5,000 on the event.
Paul was invited to speak to the local party faithful (they numbered about 80 in the crowd) after county chairman Rick Beltram took offense at Pauls explanation of the 9/11 attacks as blowback from Americas past intervention in the affairs of other countries during a GOP debate. That led to a widely distributed online tit-for-tat between Beltram and Paul supporters, and Beltram eventually invited Paul here to explain himself.
Blowback, in and of itself, was not mentioned Saturday, though Paul often alluded to it, going as far back as World War I, which (President) Woodrow Wilson got us into unnecessarily, and drew the lines in the Middle East that were suffering for today.
Beltram said he agreed with Paul on most issues except foreign policy, and that he believes the Texan converted some Upstaters to his revolution with Saturdays speech.
I left feeling like a hero, Beltram said. I got more positive comments after that event than all the other presidential events combined.
The question isn't so much why Ron Paul is doing so well with this message as it is why the rest of the GOP so steadfastly refuses to offer it boldly, just as Ron Paul is doing with such positive results.
Maybe the rest of the GOP should stop celebrating the genius of the Chappaquiddick Killer and return to the winning message of Ronald Reagan. As Rush says, it works every time we try it.
Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday]
• Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
|Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave|
Run Fred, Run.
I’d rather not have a loony for a president, even if half the things he says actually make sense.
My only real problem with Paul is his apparent disregard for the words of those saying they want to kill us. Their history has proven that they keep their promises to slaughter.
100 years ago they couldn’t do it unless we were there. Today they’re gaining the means to kill us at a distance and ignoring them only means our children will die at their hands.
Perhaps Rick is starting to realize there are far more non-interventionists in the Republican party than the RNC would have the media and the general public believe. Thank you Mr. Beltram for giving Rep. Paul a fair shake.
Ron Paul’s big problem is that his messages simply can’t be understood by human beings with IQ’s less than 100. And in these times, that’s about 80% of the electorate. ;)
Who is Don Paul?
Anyone who doesn’t recognize the we are at war with radical islamic fascist in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places known and unknown is a non starter in my opinion.
Dictators and mullahs in the middle east use proxies to attack the USA and western countries. Anyone who can’t understand that will never get my vote.
Haha...bunch of dummies.
Personally I fail to see how the world will have improved after Iran nukes Israel and intimidates the rest of the mideast into allowing Iran to control the flow of oil.
I’ve got a bit of an isolationist bent myself but simply looking the other way is insanity.
So Ronald Reagan was against any US troops in Saudi Arabia especially including any jews, so as not to rile them up and create terrorists?? News to me. So if Ronald Reagan could speak to us today he would endorse Ron Paul, eh?? Including the part about let’s not be over there in their countries and/or do anything that offends them or riles them up to terrorize us. I don’t think Ronald Reagan would. Why don’t you ask his son, Michael? Got the guts? Tell you what. I don’t think you belong here. That’s my view.
As always there should be a paulette buffon alert on these threads
BUT PUHLEEEEEEZE refrain from imagining even privately much less in public that paleoPaulie is anything vaguely resembling Ronaldus Maximus. Our enemies generally refrained from attacking America while Ronaldus Maximus was president because he gave them every reason to believe that he and we were to be feared by our enemies. PaleoPaulie is part and parcel of our enemies. And, no, it does not matter that paleoPaulie endorsed Reagan in 1976 because as Reagan said of Birchers in California in the 1960s: "They may endorse me but I don't endorse them." Reagan is entitled to the fine reputation he earned and the continuing dishonesty of suggesting that paleoPaulie's foreign policy of "flee in terror" has anything to do with the finest president of our lifetimes is inexcusable.
Before El Ron Paul ran for president, he forgot that he needed to have surgery implanting steel rods in his wrists, an actual backbone and, of course, a whole brain transplant. For starters......
What will you do with your spare time after we hang the Wonder Wimp by his thumbs in next years' primaries? Has he broken above 1% in any poll yet that is done by a reputable pollster polling random voters? Remember: not those on line polls or their equivalents where you and his little platoon can join with leftist moonbats, moveon.org members, McGovern lovers, Howard Yeeeeargh Dean's family members, et al., each voting a couple of hundred times to make the wimp look almost vaguely memorable.
You are filling that role quite nicely, I should think. Are you getting tired of it or something?
Ronald Reagan was pretty openly hostile to Ron Paul, especially after Paul and the other cowards and/or anti-semites got together with the Democrats to betray Israel and force our retreat from Lebanon.
And that’s only cause of the “Free Bongs!” sign out front.
Ah, I now see. You have competition. Get lormand in here and we will have Curly Moe and Shemp as a triumvirate.
We are capitalists here, and thus believe that competition among the clowns raises buffoonery to its sterling apex.
We applaud you.
Reagan knew who our enemies were. Carter lost to him because of the Iran hostage crisis. Carter tried appeasement and it didn't work. Clinton ignored them and it didn't work. Pauls stand shows that he does NOT understand radical muslims.
I will tire of it when paul apologizes to America for blaming her for 9-11 until then he will be the BUFFOON
Uhh...err...Paul is the only one who is actually listening to their words.
Word! CC, where ya been?
Paul and his supporters have been flamed for saying "he is listening" to the Islamo-facists.
Now here you come with that! LOL!
BTW; since some folks seem to keep on forgetting the fact that the Islamo-facist terrorists actually started out killing our troops OVER THERE, but naturally, the globalists have refused to learn anything from that.
So we shouldn’t fight them in Iraq? Is that your answer?
Look I don’t trust or absolve the Saudi’s anymore than anyone else, That is why I think the middle east has to be reformed and I agree with the opinion that Iraq is the place to start.
What I'm asking these days is: "Why don't they fear us?"
Under what name is Hanoi Jane contributing to paleoPaulie?
Will Noam Chmosky be his White House Chief of Staff or Secretary of State? (no, because paleoPaulie won't be hiring anyone for positions in an administration not his own.
As Ronaldus Maximus himself would say: There they go again, trying to compare the paleowuss to Reagan.
So, what you are basically saying is that US foreign policy should be dictated, not by our own national interests, but by the whims and desires of Islamist thugs?
I vote for the Thomas Jefferson approach instead: Take the war to theIslamists, use whatever force is necessary to achieve victory, and then come home.
That is true. So, Ron Paul is actually even worse than how cripplecreek portrays him to be because Ron Paul listens to what the Islamists have said they want to do to America and the West, and purposefully chooses to bury his head in the sand. Which is why I would never, in a million years, support a first-rate cowardly idiot like Ron Paul.
"Whether they want it or not!"
This is a good example of the globalist type of thinking that has gotten us into the mess we are in now.
Congratulations, federal, for adhering to the globalist line.
I'm sure there will be some sort of "reward" waiting for you in the New World Order.
“Take the war to theIslamists, use whatever force is necessary to achieve victory, and then come home.”
So you agree with Ron Paul then.
So you agree with Ron Paul then.
No, because Ron Paul leaves out the very necessary first part - taking the war to the Islamists. Ron Paul and other paulolibertarians want the Islamists to come here and car bomb a few shopping malls, so that we can then have a nice low level guerilla war all over the country for about ten years.
Hey I no globalist I’m a American if you knew me you would know that. Take your weak a$$ BS somewhere else.
This must be a rhetorical question, correct?
The obvious answer, should anyone care, is this:
Where suicide in the act of retribution is considered an honor, fear does not enter the equation.
No he doesn’t want us to wait. He wants to hunt them down.
He wanted an actual ‘war’ so we can declare ‘victory’ and come home. But that’s not happened since the 1940s in this country.
Let us wackos and buffoons have our fun, OK?
Bump for Dr. Paul
Draw a border around our Kurdish allies' territory in Iraq in pig blood as well. It will keep both other factions of Iraqis and Al Qaeda out. If the Islamoloonies have other taboos, use them too until we get to eliminate the Islamofascist enemy altogether. Medina? The Dome of the Rock? Any and all.
You do make one good point (stopped clock...twice a day) that the Saudis are still funding Wahabi terrorists (to keep the royals of Ibn Saud's family in power) so let's take over Saudi Arabia before the real nutcases of Wahabi and Al Qaeda and paleoPaulie's other love objects do.
If you, in the cause of paleoPaulie, want to cite the CIA, the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 Study Group or other blue ribbon, establishment elitists of the internationalist (not isolationist and certainly not interventionist persuasion) as sources of truth, perhaps the facade of paleoPaulie and his little gang being conservative at all ought to be dropped altogether. Do you know who John Flynn was? He would not have cited such sources. Nor would Colonel MacCormack. Nor would Charles Lindbergh. You are living proof that the paleos are really nothing more than rootless phony"cons."
If it's shooting, it's a war. Semantics, schmenatics. Regardless of what the Paulistas think, there is NOT a Constitutional requirement that something be called a "declaration of war" before it is legitimate. If Congress "authorises the use of force" then it's a constitutional war. And we're in a constitutional war in Iraq. Against a bunch of Islamist terrorists who have already told us time and time again that they want to destroy the United States. The only think keeping large numbers of them from infiltrating the USA is the fact that our troops are occupying their mythical "capital of the Caliphate", thus attracting the Islamists to Baghdad so that they can be killed in record numbers.
And Ron Paul opposes all of this.
Ron Paul is a collaborator. When all of this is said and done, the American people will shave his head and parade him through the streets to be ridiculed and mocked, just like those Dutch women who used to sleep with the Nazis.
Is that why his speech from Oct 2002 is posted on Lew Rockwell and Antiwar.com?
"Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have."No one can predict what Reagan would have said or done in the present situation. But his public remarks and recently published diaries don't give much support to the idea that he had much confidence in invasions, occupations, nationbuilding, etc. Especially in the Mideast.
"In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today." -- Ronald Reagan, 1983
"That is why I think the middle east has to be reformed.."
EEE: If you want such fun, take it to Demonratic Underground where the antiwar antiAmerican pacifists play.
Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan.
Could you give us some ballpark figures on how much aid in $$ we send to Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi, Kuwait, Dubai, Jordan, Lebanon, every year (military + humanitarian + whatever else).
As with his appearances everywhere, Ron Paul is bringing excitement and moonbattery ...
Yeah, that explains why Ron's poll numbers are so low in every poll. :::rolls eyes:::
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.