Having just finshed "Ron Paul Stands With Totalitarianism" here on Redstate, my rebuttal reached diary size.
The premise of that diary was that Ron Paul is a complete and total embarrassment to the party as well as being a crazy totalitarianist becuase he was the only congressman not to vote yea on a resolution to honor Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, thereby apparently clearly the way for the allegation that:
Ron Paul has decided to make sure everyone knows that he is the only Member of Congress not opposed to brutal totalitarianism
At first, I thought, this post just seems pretty ridiculous. I admit I like Ron Paul. I also find him kooky, an ineffective debater, disagree with him on many issues, and pray that he supports an electable candidate in 2012 versus attempting another doomed run at the White House.
But a hit piece on such a trivial issue? A hit piece because he failed to vote to congratulate a worthy winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, drawing the conclusion that he therefore supports not just totalitarianism, but brutal totalitarianism? To me the whole definition of the tinfoil hat crowd is or should be people who illogically believe something despite evidence to the contrary. Attempting to infer totalitarian support from the lack of support for a particular anti-totalitarian is about as tin hatish as it gets in my book.
At a second glance, I realized a potential reason why Ron Paul voted as he did. I have no actual idea why Ron Paul refused to vote for this particular gesture. But if I had to venture a guess, I would suggest that it had more to do with the award itself than winner of the award, and if any all the people wasting their time analyzing this haven’t addressed that possibility, then they are either stupid or intentionally avoiding the possibility to further the impact of the hit piece. If they are leaving it out for impact then they are dishonest, and yes, you can count me in for someone who ranks honesty higher on the character determination scale than kookiness.
If it isn’t obvious that the Nobel Prize has become a bastion of progressive self congratulation and propaganda with the prize going to Al Gore for promoting a wealth redistribution fraud on the grandest of all levels, or going to Barak Obama for his sheer potential to create peace, then I guess it will never become obvious. But I will suggest that this belief regarding the prize has been circulating for several decades amongst conservatives. It should also be rudimentary logic that any award recipient Congress takes the time to honor equally honors the award itself. Just because the Nobel committee might be seeking a little legitimacy after the Gore and Obama debacles of late, does not redeem nor legitimize the committee itself. I certainly would not condemn anyone who refuses to prop up the Nobel Committee. In fact, I would rather all conservatives in Congress refuse to endorse the Nobel Commitee. How about an amendment to congratulate Liu Xiaobo for what he did versus the award he won? My guess is Ron Paul wouldn't be opposed to that.
Then on third glance, my ire got up on a slightly different tack, which is that no matter how much Ron Paul derangement syndrome one may have, it should be remembered that Ron Paul’s rise in the 2008 primaries was the pre-cursor to the tea party. We are going to have arguments, some heated and some not about those in our party. But it is snide and petty to waste time with ridiculous hit pieces on a man who has, despite his flaws, contributed greatly to where we now find ourselves. I had the very same feeling reading the recent hit piece on Sarah Palin’s Alaska found in the Weekly Standard. Why in the world are they wasting their time going after someone who has just done so much for the party and for conservatism, based on her stupid TV show?
So ultimately, I guess I am calling for a moratorium on hit pieces of helpful but controversial conservatives, especially based on trivialities. I am not saying if you cant say anything nice, dont say anything at all, but attacking Ron Paul for a vote this trivial, or discerning Sarah Palin can not win a nationwide election becuase Bristol is a bad dancer, don't seem to get us anywhere but a 200-300 comments filled with ad-hominen attack.
It would seem more productive towards our stated goals of conservative victories to figure out how to assimilate the Ron Paul republicans, the Sarah Palin Republicans, the Newt Gigrich Republicans, the Mike Pence Republicans, the Bobby Jindal Republicans, and all the rest into our common conservative beliefs, and then do the heavy lifting and arguinng on the ideas that we diverge on, and the truly salient skill sets of the candiates. Thinking of more creative and personally demeaning ways to call each other Ronulans and Neocons just doesn't get us anywhere.