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."
Please, lormand, tell me what kook conspiracies you are talking about. I re-read what you posted and NR had, and I have no idea what conspiracies Ron Paul is propagating. You may have mentioned it in some other thread, but not in this one, so far. I’d like to understand your view, but I haven’t an idea of what you are talking about, yet.
I have been reading everything I have found from Paul, and I’ve never noticed any conspiracies. I’ve been following his political career since the 70’s, and think I would have seen something like that, but haven’t. Please take the time to enlighten me. I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I do listen(read). Take a few minutes, please, and tell me.-Glenn
Alex Jones: "How much danger are we in of some new Gulf of Tonkin provocation?”
Ron Paul: “Well, I think we are in great danger of it. We are danger in many ways
I will make you Paulistinians eat these words until there is no longer a Ron Paul 08 campaign and beyond.
America is too great to turn it into France.
Actually, the alternative is to believe in an amazingly improbable set of coincidences.
I was reading about the Tobin tax today.
And yet National Review thinks your attack is unfair and idiotic. And they’re no fans of Ron Paul either.
I would almost say was shaping the GOP. They've had their run and frankly shot for the moon on Iraq. The 2006 election combined with 25% that are 'undecided' (to the pollsters meaning that 25% did not give a positive on any of the candidates chosen by the media) is a pretty clear statement that many Republicans gave Bush and Friends a chance and now they want to return to old conservatism.
Some here can spin it any way they want but the evidence points in a clearly different direction
I am serious. You haven’t found me to be serious before, because I haven’t been posting on FR for 2-3 years, other than a few weeks ago, with some evolutionists.
I’m not sure what you mean. I have been following his political adventures since the 70’s. I am impressed with him, because he actually wants to use the Constitution and the intent of the framers of same. You seem to have some insight to some other intention he may have, that I haven’t read or heard. If so, I’d like to know what they are. As far as I know, he has:
-Kept any promise he’s made
-Always looks to the Constitution for any votes
-Tries to determine original intent
-Votes according to his principles, even if it looks bad for press and enemies to bash him
-seems to be willing to roll back unconstitutional programs
I don’t know if I’m one of his most ardent supporters, but I think after all the years of following his votes (as opposed to his speeches, as with most other pols), he says what he means, and does what he says. I just can’t find any reason to disbelieve him. Since his first term in congress, he has been true to his word. I’m not sure I can name another pol that I can say that about, including R. Reagan. You may have some info I don’t but on this thread, I haven’t seen anything other than guilt by association, for wackos posting his articles, and innuendo. If you have some info I don’t know about, please post it.
I’m not sure what you mean by your last paragraph:
“Are they wrong, in their collective estimation of Ron Paul, and where he stands on the issues nearest and dearest to their hearts? If so, then how, specifically? (If not... well, then: the next logical step becomes rather self-evident from there.)”
I think he’s been clear on issues. Some don’t like some things, but that’s the same with any candidate. Over the many years, I’ve read a lot of his articles, and lately, seen a lot of his talks, and I don’t think he holds back on any subject.
I don’t mind if folks don’t like his ideas, but I would like to know why they don’t. Otherwise, I’ll never be wise as to the other side of the argument. Just calling him a nut or kook doesn’t teach me anything. Tell me where he’s wrong or dishonest. After reading through this thread, I get the impression other candidates’ workers are here trying to slime him, but I keep asking, “Where’s the beef?” I can’t see why he’s anti-American, for trying to apply the Constitution to determine US law, policies and programs. That’s pro-American, to me.-Glenn
The New York Times trashes a constitutionally conservative Presidential candidate. Are we supposed to be surprised?
Has the msm NYT times suddenly become credible? Are anti constitutionalist “freepers” actually so fearfully challenged now that they must resort to the NYTs to justify their despise of an actual strict constructionist like RP?
This is getting better all the time.
In 1998 when we discussed allowing such posters as you to share this conservative forum some of us complained that allowing posters with misconceptions or just plain ignorance about conservatism to post here would just lower the level of debate to, well, what it has become here. You are an example...and a case in point against lowering the playing field to promote debate dialog in quantity while neglecting the quality and accuracy of debate.
You are right but some of our slower thinkers are a little behind on the curve. And their reaction to the repudiation of neo-conservatism is rather shrill.
I will make you Paulistinians eat these words until there is no longer a Ron Paul 08 campaign and beyond.
America is too great to turn it into France.”
I guess you are saying the idea of an incident to cause an expansion of war is a faulty fear? Is that your assertion? Is the idea beyond consideration? The gulf of Tonkin made congress give permission to Johnson, the authority to do what he saw fit without further approval from congress. Bush already has that. The only result from an incident now, would be an expansion of war, presumably with Iran.
I have to ask. Is that beyond reason?
I’m just wondering why you seem to think that statement is something that would be detrimental to Paul’s candidacy.-Glenn
Sounds like you has a vendetta. Not sure what it is but it's sure sounds personal. You are on every Paul thread simply trashing, thrashing and reaching. You say you "doesn't have a dog in this hunt" and Won't support anybody other republican or say who you likes. But since it's Paul, you is constantly attacking, I guess the mods don't care about it as much, since he is only a "fringe" Republican candidate, if he was any other Republican me thinks it wouldn't be allowed... But that's fine. I believe in the 1st amendment and all, so keep on trashing. Hmm, you are not Guliani or someone close to him are you?
Wow, just Wow...
Speechless.
It was like taking a straight road that would often make an inexplicable sharp turn then go right back. It would leave you going “What the hell was that all about?”
The problem came in separating the organization from the members. The wackiness made the rest hard to take seriously for most people and caused them to to dismiss the whole. Hence why the Birch society has never really taken off.
That's nothing. FReepers sided with the UN just because Paul didn't support another worthless non-biding resolution against Iran. I mean, the U.N. They were probably wearing the light blue berets too ROFL
I ask this because another poster with more time in than myself told me that all “True Conservatives” would only vote for Hunter. Now you as a Paul supporter seemed to have the inside track on all things conservative. So you will have to pardon my confusion...
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.