« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Ron Paul Hates Republicans and Everything They Stand For

Most people already know that Ron Paul refused to endorse John McCain in the 2008 general election. While I don’t necessarily agree with that decision, especially from a contender for the GOP nominee, I can certainly understand it. Lord knows I hated every nice thing I had to say about John McCain and wasn’t entirely pleased about pulling the lever for him (which is a dramatic understatement). Most people assume that Paul endorsed Libertarian candidate Bob Barr in 2008, which is partially true. However, that is not the entire story. Paul also endorsed three other candidates.

The first of those was Chuck Baldwin. I don’t really know a lot about Baldwin except that he has been on record early and often in support of the proposition that the South should have won the Civil War. This sort of thing would ordinarily disqualify most normal people from endorsing Chuck Baldwin, but Ron Paul is not most normal people. And given what most Ron Paul supporters seem willing to forgive, a little Confederate sympathy (or even a lot of Confederate sympathy) seems like small potatoes.

The second was Cynthia McKinney. Yes, you read that correctly, Ron Paul endorsed Cynthia McKinney in 2008. For those who do not know, Cynthia McKinney is a certifiably insane anti-American anti-Semitic lunatic. She first came to widespread public attention when she was arrested for punching out a member of the capitol police who tried to stop her when she wasn’t wearing her pin. Cynthia McKinney is so crazy that she got defeated in a primary by a guy who thought Guam might tip over and capsize. McKinney was once arrested by the Israelis while trying to give aid to Hamas and penned a bizarre anti-American and anti-Israeli screed. See more of her anti-Americanism here.

Now, I know that the above is not necessarily persuasive to the average Ron Paul fan – after all, if they were bothered by siding with terrorists, they’d have probably jumped off the Paul bandwagon already. What is perhaps more important is that Cynthia McKinney is also next door to being a communist in terms of her domestic policy. McKinney is an open and avowed enemy of free market capitalism, preferring instead Ghadaffi-style socialism. Seriously, she literally and openly favors dictatorial socialism. McKinney ran on the Green Party ticket, whose platform explicitly includes guaranteed open-ended welfare (at a living wage) for everyone regardless of their ability or willingness to work, among other quasi-communist and far-left economic policies.

The fourth and final candidate Ron Paul endorsed for President was Ralph Nader. Yes, the same Ralph Nader who was so far to the left on economic matters that he could see no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. The same Ralph Nader who also longs for the day when the last vestiges of capitalism have died in America. Nader, you remember was the guy who made running as the Green Party candidate famous.

Why, you might ask, would Ron Paul, champion of economic freedom and limited government, endorse two avowed socialists for President? Well, you see, they signed a document:

Paul will offer this open endorsement to the four candidates because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,” the Paul aide said.

You see, despite a lengthy and public history of supporting massive government expansion and infringement upon personal liberties, and despite running on a party platform that explicitly calls for the massive expansion of Government welfare, these people would clearly have been better at shrinking the government than the Republicans on the basis of signing this absurd pledge. To be fair, Paul was probably just following the Golden Rule here – after all, Paul had just spent the last two years being a truther in front of truthers and denying trutherism in front of the media, so he doubtless was extending the sort of blind eye towards Nader and McKinney’s insanity that he wished everyone else would turn towards his.

For whatever his failings as a Presidential candidate and conservative (and they were legion), no reasonable person would say that John McCain was worse than any of these clowns. It was one thing for Paul to not endorse McCain – but we have to ask what sort of person affirmatively supports anti-American avowed socialists and confederate sympathizers over a Republican? The answer: Someone who, like Howard Dean, hates Republicans and everything they stand for.

COMMENTS

  • buddyp

    This would be closer to sanity than Paul has ever actually come.

    • buddyp

      nt

    • dagnaytaggard
      Red State is becoming RED in more ways than one. Another socialist site supporting anti-constitutional candidates. They repeat the talking points of the establishment. Now they are after Ron Paul. He is the most honest, ethical and knowledgeable candidate running. I would rather see ten Ron Paul in Washington than anyone of the other candidates runing. I’ll take my chances with a true constitutionalist than with these closet socialist Republicans. Both parties are the same and they are destroying out country. A vote for any one else is a vote against the U. S. Constitution. So for those that buy all of this crap, remember that their stragegy is to divide and conquer. These establishment hacks want only one of the NWO candidates to win and the hell with the country. RON PAUL 2012 BECAUSE YOU EITHER ACCEPT THE CONSTITUTION IN ITS ENTIRETY OR YOU ARE HELPING THE TRAITORS TO SHRED IT. You only have one choice to make, either Ron Paul or another socialist! You decide.
      • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

        We’re dedicated to supporting conservative Republicans (it’s in the rules), we’re hostile to socialism, and we don’t appreciate raving conspiracy theorists addicted to the caps lock button that say, falsely, that Ron Paul is the only candidate that cares for the Constitution. In fact, Ron Paul is a nutty racist hypocrite who loves to rob the American people with one hand while he’s pretending to honor the constitution with the other. If you believe his act you’re a tool and a stooge, and that’s about the nicest thing I can say about the matter. Moderators, the boomstick please?

        • rcastonjr

          It’s statements like these that cause YOU to lose ALL credibility. That may be your opinion but certainly isn’t backed up by facts. Not a very good thing to say about a man that has been re-elected time and time again by his district. You should take some time and actually READ The Constitution. Then come back here and tell us exactly where does Paul fall short of following it by his views. I dare say Chuck Baldwin was right, the south should have won the war because if they had maybe the 10th Amendment would still actually mean something and this overly oppressive, intrusive, and massive federal government would not exist. In spite of repeated attempts by leftist historians to paint it as such the War Between the States was not about ending slavery. It was about states rights under The Constitution…..period. If not so, then why did Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation only free the “southern” slaves? ALL of the federal entitlement programs are unconstitutional IF one actually believes in and supports The Constitution as it was intended. While I do not intend to vote for Paul I will adamantly support his knowledge of and defense of The Constitution. And especially his desire to end the FED.

          • nhbuckeye

            Actually, the Civil War was in fact about slavery. Read the Confederacy’s constitution. Check out Art 1 Sec 9 Part 2 particularly, but slavery is all over their constitution. The South used the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution as grounds to assert their ability to have slavery without federal interference. Now I agree with the idea that the federal government ought to stick to the powers enumerated by the Constitution and leave to the people and the states the rest of it regardless of how much nicer some think the world would be with a strong central government. Let people vote with their feet. But slavery was a problem beyond the 10th amendment. Blood was shed in territories becoming states in order to disrupt the balance of power between slave and free states. It was a terrible and terrifying problem as was slavery itself.

            avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp is a link to the Confederacy’s constitution.

      • soljerblue

        in the white coats come to your door, go quietly. They’re your friends.

    • rogerfgay
      How to Become a Paulbot
      http://www.libertarian-examiner.com/2011/12/how-to-become-paulbot.html
      • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

        …is to listen to Paul spout off nonsense about Iran being perfectly okay with nukes, or his troofer nonsense, or anti-Semitic rants about the new world order. If you listen to his squirrel poo nutty rants and aren’t appalled by them, you (probably) lack the moral sense to deserve the vote.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        You know the drill.

  • buddyp
  • BigRedConservative

    But an excellent article nonetheless. Ron Paul is as much a threat to conservatism as Obama. At least Obama admits that he’s a liberal.

    • darfor

      Leon personifies the term neoconservative. Like that clown you sent me the article from this morning (who at least not only admits, but is proud to be a neoconservative) Leon is a strong believer in a large controlling government who, for the good of society, sets the rules of morality and life style which all Americans must conform to. He believes that we should aggressively pursue “American” interests oversea through preemptively invading and kicking ass.

      Also, like those “conservative Republican heroes,” John McCain and Lindsay Graham, he believes that if someone is believed to be a threat to America, even American citizens, they can be designated as enemies and held indefinitely without habeus corpus nor legal recourse for as long as deemed necessary — and they can order the execution of anyone in the world based on suspicion that they are active against the security of America — in other words, the government has the right to suspend the Bill of Rights when those in power believes it’s necessary.

      Unfortunately, people like these have persisted in corrupting true conservatism in the public mind so much that many one-time conservatives are parroting neoconservative police state philosophies that it’s accepted thought — nay, demanded thought for “true patriots and conservatives.”

      Like progressives, neocons like Wolf believe that the state is all important and should be the definitive authority controlling all aspects of societal and personal life. They both embrace the welfare-warfare state and only differ on the extent of each (progressives lean heavier on the welfare aspects while the neocons lean heavier on the warfare aspects) and believe that their respective approach to totalitarian rule is better than the other. Unfortunately they have blurred the lines between them so much that it’s confusing to the average person as to what the differences are.

      That’s why someone like Ron Paul scares the hell out of both — he offers a clear third way, a Constitutional way — that if ever tried will be the end of both progressivism and neoconservatism in America. That’s why all the big guns on in both camps are turning to Paul now — they’ve got to blow him out of the water or we will have a true revolution in this country — a nonviolent one, but a revolution none the less.

      By the way, in this article Leon cherry picks points of various discussions and then embellishes them to paint Paul into ideological corners. People doing their own research will soon discover the breadth and depth of the bullshit, but the “average conservative” who reads “Conservative” websites and articles will swallow it hook, line and sinker — that’s the whole point to the bilge presented.

      • Leon H. Wolf

        Watch me suppress your free speech by frogmarching you off this site in my jackboots. Now, where did I put my favorite brown shirt?

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          I’d be proud to help. I stand ready to waterboard the ignorant SoB and ship him off to an unknown location in the desert for rendition.

      • mjnellett

        It seems that Ron Paul, in his own words and on video tape, believes that the United States can be “friends” with Muslim extremists. He says that he believes that they aren’t really a threat if we leave those poor misunderstood Islamofacists alone. Ron Paul is living back in the 1920′s Isolationist movement with NO thought as to WHY we cannot adapt ourselves to that position in an age of nuclear tipped missles! Wake up Paulinians, utopia does not exist this side of heaven!

  • ffritz

    Ron Paul is like a crazy relative. 99% of what he says is completely loony. Every once in a blue moon he says something that makes you go, “What? That actually made sense!” And then he goes straight back to loons-ville.

    Love that bad lip reading soundbite.

    • rcastonjr

      If you truly believe in our Constitution, our constitutional form of government (Republic), and the rule of law then 99% of what Paul says in right on the mark. It’s that 1% that concerns me as our founders would never have envisioned nuclear weapons. However, other than Iran, I can see no reason to have troops stationed on somewhere around 1000 bases worldwide. That number varies slightly depending on what article you read but it is an astounding number nonetheless. We have quite simply become the worlds patsy, err I mean, policeman, and the fact that we are 15 TRILLION in debt and and climbing proves it. And yes, neocons are indeed warmongers. I am a 55 year old conservative (notice I did not say NEOCON) and there have been very few years when the US was NOT engaged in war somewhere on this planet. That is a fact that cannot be refuted.

  • geoph

    Would I hate what they “stand for” too?
    Maybe.

    When I hear Mr. Paul speak on some topics – I get the feeling I am glimpsing how the Libs see my TEA Party. Heaven help us! It appears he and his supporters share the same convictions and fire, but (much like the Left) want to make policies that work in a vacuum, but not complicated National and international Environment.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      >>>>want to make policies that work in a vacuum

      And it gets even worse w/ LaupNor. If he’s in the same room w/ The Truffers, he’s a Truffer. If he’s palling around w/ !CORNELL UNIVERSITY ARCHITECTURE PROFESSOR! Cynthia McKinney, he’s a jew-hater. And then when he hangs w/ other whack-jobs, he’s all in w/ auditing the Fed. He not only has that tunnel vision, the hallucination changes depending upon whose tunnel he crawls through.

      • tailfins1959

        I see lots of “you were raised in rural America, of course you would be a Republican”. Many, many Dems I have met recently treat being a Democrat like being a Red Sox fan. They don’t even think about how it affects their life or community. It doesn’t leave much room for discussion, does it?

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          The Congressional district I live in elected it’s first GOP Rep since The WAR ended. No kidding. People were so engrained with the custom of voting against the GOP over the War of Northern Aggression, that they didn’t even know who the GOP was running until they showed up to vote against them.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      It’s not hard to find out what Republicans believe.

      Try being one for starters. Show up to our meetings. Read our platform. Listen to our candidates.

      • tailfins1959

        I remember being at a GHW Bush election results watch party. They cheered when Democrat Joe Lieberman beat Republican Lowell Weicker. Read our platform? The platform is a consolation prize to soothe the egos of people who lose in candidate selection!

        My advice is to study the history back to the origin of ANY ideological persuasion that interests you. Just be careful to know the agenda of any source you use in your research. There must be a way to distill what forces cause a dominance of an ideology. Sixty years ago, New England was a Republican stronghold and the South was less hospitable to Republicans than San Francisco is today.

        • postanalog

          “I remember being at a GHW Bush election results watch party. They cheered when Democrat Joe Lieberman beat Republican Lowell Weicker”

          And well they should”ve! Lowell Weicker was a Democrat in Republican clothing, Lieberman was much more conservative.

      • milesquarenj

        I don’t think it’s all as simple as that Neil. Didn’t Bob Dole famously quip in ’96 w/r/t the platform that he hadn’t even read it?

        In 1988 after 8 years of prosperity we got a candidate who informed us that we needed a “kinder, gentler nation”. I don’t t think the prior years were cruel. His son won the nod in 2000 by accusing the sitting Republican congress of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.

        W’s “compassionate conservatism”, of the Weekly Standard variety proved disastrous. First it implied somehow that genuine conservatism was somehow mean and identified the Republican Party with costly ward, bloated budgets, and bailouts for wealthy bankers. This resulted electoral disaster, Obama, Obamacare and the rest.

        The tea party is the response to this but, “tea party” means different things to different people. The fact is there is a wing of our party that sort of likes some or all of the following and there is also a faction that doesn?t:

        Bush’s open borders
        NCLB
        The Federal Reserve and TARP
        Medicare D
        Gov’t funded faith based initiatives
        The Iraq War
        The ownership society

        These are not insignificant issues. So we’ll which direction the party takes. As Yoda says “Always in motion is the future”.

      • geoph

        I’m sorry, but my response to you seems to have not posted.
        To make a previous, Loooong post short – I was very active in the GOP, (MI and NY) but experiencing the changes sucked the passion right out of me (even when i tried again after 9-11). Locally it’s the TParty that is active and pressing ideals, not the Republican Party.

  • kinghenry

    Paul has the backing of his cousins on the hard Progressive Left for good reason.

    http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/

    • tailfins1959

      If you visit Stone Mountain near Atlanta, GA SR 10 is (or was) “Cynthia McKinney Highway”. Has anyone EVER fixed this?

  • kinghenry

    http://www.aim.org/aim-column/ron-paul-says-accused-traitor-is-a-patriot/

    Everyone tweet this story to major Media.

    Paul not only hates Republicans, he hates America and actually defending her. Just like his friends on the hard Progressive Left.

    • renl57

      I remember 1975, when many American libertarians were actually happy at the fall of South Vietnam. They said “This is a defeat for the welfare-warfare state.”

      Ron Paul is of that vintage, and he’s the same way. These libertarians feel so strongly that the U.S. is on a disastrous course that they’re willing to side with anti-Americans (either domestically or foreign regimes) to oppose their own country’s policies. In that sense, they’re not much different from the far left.

      Whereas a conservative may well feel that President Obama is damaging the country–but he wouldn’t side with Julian Assange or Iran against President Obama.

  • jkines

    it is frustrating that Ron Paul is the candidate chosen to ostensibly articulate our position. Gary Johnson was a highly successful and very popular governor, and his views are far more in the libertarian republican mainstream, whereas Paul is more of an outlier. I do, at times, find myself appreciating Paul’s unapologetic defense of free markets, but others have my head in my hands as he descends into conspiracy quackery or unrealistic foreign policy paradigms.

    As a traditional foreign policy realist I have my own qualms about current GOP foreign policy stratagems, which in my opinion place too great an emphasis on ideology at the expense of national interest. However, I find Paul’s disengagment strategy equally dangerous and unrealistic.

    I don’t expect any candidate to conform to my philosophy on every issue, and I have long taken the position of voting GOP as the lesser government alternative. I think the reason many of us are frustrtated this primary season is as of yet none of the candidates have attempted to unite the various factions of the party as Reagan did in 1980. Cain was perhaps doing the best job of this before he was railroaded and his campaign derailed. Perry is also capable of uniting such a coalition I believe, but previous poor debate performances have necessitated that his campaign go into defensive mode. Huntsman could have been the guy, but as Erickson has delineated in detail, his staff has buried his chances with a fundamentally flawed primary strategy.

    It is my hope Perry can recover and unite the party, as the rest of the field seems either unwilling or incapable of doing so.

    Libertarian Republicans, Paleos, Neos, Social, and National security conservatives may not agree on every issue, but the importance of our unity in opposition to the clear and present danger of the Obama presidency is paramount.

    • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

      …I happen to be aware that conservatives exist on a variety of different levels (I happen to be very strong as a social conservative, quite temperamentally conservative in seeking gradual but far ranging change, and a fiscal conservative in seeing our country as headed for a debt catastrophe like most of the rest of the developed world). I just think that Ron Paul is a rainbow bridge of lunacy too far for Republicans to bear. I tend to be loyal myself, and I expect the same degree of loyalty from others who desire to be part of this Republican “tent.”

      • jkines

        I will at admit that, at times, when he delineates a Hayekian free market rationale, I do find myself cheering him.. Of course, 5 minutes later he delves into foreign policy, or conspiracy theories and sends me into cardiac arrest. This is happening more so than usual due to the fact that many of the other candidates this time around have thus far failed to articulate a vision for economic growth. Marco Rubio is outstanding at this, and I sincerely wish he had thrown his hat into the ring. Not coincidentally, Rubio polls well among all factions of the party.

        While I have my disagreements with social conservatives on some issues, I do respect their opinion and what they bring to the party. It just boils down to a difference of perspective. On abortion, for example, pro-life social conservatives see it as infanticide whereas a libertarian such as myself sees it as the state attemtpting to regulate a woman’s reproductive rights. While we disagree on the issue, both sides are approaching it from a natural law and/or limited government perpsective. Hence, I can respect their perspective even when I don’t always agree with it, and use it as a barometer to test the limits of my own position from time to time.

        Likewise, when it comes to national security conservatives, the neo-wilsonian urge of a push for global democratization is the mainstream ethos at the moment. On the other hand, old school reaslists such as myself believe that at times idealism and national interest can be at odds if not mutually exclusive. Examnples of this would be “democratic” Iraq potentially finlandizing to Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhoods exploitation of elections in Egypt to consolidate power. Here too, Kissingerian realists such as myself are at odds with the Max Boot/Elliot Abrams mainstream.. However, while we differ on policy the end goals are the same, and hence I can respect their position and what it brings to the party even when I do not entirely agree with the policy prescriptions.

        Unlike the collectivist group-think that comprises the democratic party, we on the right believe in free markets and free minds. As such, we may never possess totality of concurrence across party lines on every issue. However, it is incumbent upon us to remember that although our policies may at times differ, our ends are almost always the same, as is our philosophical rejection of ascendant statism.

        • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

          But I don’t see the national government as necessarily the best place to make those social judgments. After all, I see government as only one of several proper institutions for rule: like the church, the local community, and the family. All of those institutions have a responsible for policing their members and supporting standards of godly morality. It should not be the government that is left to do anything, as that is a massive failure of society.

          And for the record, I consider abortion infanticide and anyone who supports or tolerates it as automatically suspect in my book. But that said, I recognize that there are plenty of other branches of conservatives with whom I share a great deal of similarities, enough not to endlessly harass about our differences.

  • chrysostom15

    I agree that Paul is not perfect. That said — even he — would be an improvement over Obama.

    • Tbone

      that actuarily he will die of old age sooner.

      • jkines

        his embrace of free markets and rejection of the entitlement state, Paul is still preferable to Obama, especially since the aforementioned are the central issues of our time.

        • Tbone

          doesn’t protect them?

          I think that holding the position that Iran and every other state is “entitled” to nuclear weapons is entitlement statism at its worst.

          Would Ron Paul have ordered the death of Bin Ladin?

          • Bill S
          • milesquarenj

            That dont think it is their responsibility to unilaterally disarm Iran (take Brazil for instance) that are perfectly safe, growing and prosperous. This view that we need to start a war with and that we have the sole responsibility for disarming Iran may seem mainstream on this blog, but it is well out of step with the voting public. Just read a poll.

          • flguy

            The reason that most nations stand back (and have done so for many decades now) when it comes to taking down bullies and threats around the world is their knowledge that WE will do so for them. Brazil can sit back and relax because they know that WE will do the right thing and keep insane fanatics from having nukes if we possibly can.

            “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” – George Orwell

          • Tbone

            I’m sure there are charter flights leaving every day filled with disgruntled Americans.

          • milesquarenj

            You’re the one who should have to move since you’re the one who holds the minority position favoring war with Iran. So by your reasoning you’re the unpatriotic one here.

            Either a foreign policy position is in our country’s intereest or it isn’t. Polls and foreign critics be damned. I happen to think war with Iran is not in our interest. That’s why I oppose it. I’m not a peacenik. In fact the only thing I liked about Iraq, is that W acted in what he believed to be in the country’s interest, UN be damned.

            This interventionist, police the world policy is not only unwise, I believe it is unsustainable for our country practically and for our party politically. Yet I am able to treat those who hold it with respect.

            If I am a cook than George Will is a cook, and William F. Buckley, RIP, was a cook. Heck even Donald Rumsfeld, no dove, asked the question of whether our footprint was creating more terrorists than it was taking off the field. I think the answer to that question is yes and a lot of people smarter than me have arrived at the same conclusion.

          • Tbone

            “So by your reasoning you?re the unpatriotic one here.”

            No Sparky, you would sell our Country down the drain to avoid a war.

            “In fact the only thing I liked about Iraq, is that W acted in what he believed to be in the country?s interest, UN be damned.”

            Are you so ignorant of the numerous UN Resolutions that you would post tripe like this?

            You reveal yourself to be a Ron Paul turd polisher when you claim that we create terrorism. While doubtlessly the vast majority of people are smarter than you, only the ones who may be marginally smarter have arrived at that erroneous conclusion.

            Now, go cook some burgers, genuflect to your Ron Paul bobble head shrine and please use a condom should you actually improve your sex life by finding a sex partner .

          • flguy

            So we just let Iran have nukes, and see what happens? Hey, why not have a fire sale and get rid of some of our excess missiles and warheads and open up trade with Iran, North Korea, Hamas, and anyone else who wants a nuke? If we’re not going to do anything to stop them, hell, we might as well make a few bucks off of it before one of them blows up a coastal U.S. city!

            /sarcam off

            No one is saying go to full-scale war with Iran, stop that red herring right now please. But something must be done to stop them from getting their hands on nukes, because, while Iran having them would be bad enough, we all know they’d sell them to terrorists.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            Too many cooks will spoil the broth.

          • milesquarenj

            That’s embarrasing. Spell check is not always your friend.

          • jkines

            I find many of Paul’s foreign policy positions indefensible. On the other hand, I find Obama’s foreign policy little better and his economic policy downright destructive. When in doubt I will always err on the side of capitalism.. It is the bedrock that makes all else that is good about this nation possible.

          • Tbone

            to be a “realist”, I have found that they are living in a reality solely of their own making.

          • aesthete

            the foreign policy school of realism, not the “reality based community” or any variation thereof. I.e, Kissinger in China, not Al Gore in Kyoto.

          • jkines

            n/t

        • Duke

          If RP is the Republican candidate he’ll get my vote WAY before I’d sell out America and vote for the current unqualified thug that bought his way into the White House. If, on the other hand, he lights-out and runs third-party, I’ll stay home on election day.

          RP splitting the Republican vote would most certainly hand the election to Barry Soetoro, the communist Kenyan. And it won’t matter if the Conservatives bring Ronald Regan back from the dead, Obozo will win.

          • davesinsanantonio

            because fools like you “stay home on election day.”

            The way to defeat “the current unqualified thug that bought his way into the White House” is to go out an VOTE AGAINST HIM. NOT staying home.

            So, stop with the idiocy, and work, and when it comes times vote, against Obama, not just whine about a third party.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          Jonah Goldberg has a great column this week in the LA Times about just how impotent Paul would be as POTUS. Bottom line, he can embrace anything he wants, but it won’t get done. And he’s got 20+ years of getting exactly zero done to support that conclusion.

          Jonah’s money quote…

          Paul has been in Congress, off and on, for nearly 30 years. [...] During all of that, he took to the floor and delivered passionate speeches in protest convincing ? nobody.

          Paul’s supporters love to talk about how he was a lone voice of dissent. They never explain why he was alone in his dissent. Why couldn’t he convince even his ideologically sympathetic colleagues? Why is there no Ron Paul caucus?

          Now he insists that everyone in Washington will suddenly do what he wants once he’s in the White House. That’s almost painfully na?ve. And it’s ironic that the only way the libertarian-pure-constitutionalist in the race could do the things he’s promising is by using powers not in the Constitution.

          Ron Paul is a failed Congressman. He has exactly zero accomplishments to his name. Of course, Jonah Goldberg is a Jooooooooooo, so I suppose you could expect one of THEM would be pointing it out.

        • ricks

          I understand the frustration with his FP here but given the choice between small government and large government at a time when our spending is out of control I will talk small government any day of the week.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        It ranks right up there with “He’s been consistent – since he changed his mind.”

    • Leon H. Wolf

      Where I said otherwise but happy for someone to point it out.

    • Bill S

      Unless something changes dramatically (and I don’t see how it would, considering Paul has been insane for years), and I were required to vote for one or the other (versus sitting home, not voting, and mourning the destruction of the GOP), I would vote for Obama. Obama’s damage to the country is reversible. Paul could wind up irreparibly harming the world, even beyond this country.

      • jkines

        reversible, consider the fact that we are still suffering from the economic destruction of FDR’s New Deal eighty years ago. Even the Reagan revolution, fantastic as it was, was more of a speed bump than a detour.

        • izoneguy

          That does not bode well for Brazils future.

          Brazil stats

          Brazil is a source and destination country for women and girls trafficked for sexual exploitation within Brazil and to destinations in South America, the Caribbean, Western Europe, Japan, the US, and the Middle East, and for men trafficked within the country for forced agricultural labor; child sex tourism is a problem within the country, particularly in the resort areas and coastal cities of Brazil’s northeast; foreign victims from Bolivia, Peru, China, and Korea are trafficked to Brazil for labor exploitation in factories


          Why are the taxes in Brazil so high?

          Brazil’s high tax burden that surpasses 33% of the country’s GDP is loved and hated by foreigners as well as locals. Hillary Clinton has even been stating that she admires the Brazilian tax policies while Apple CEO Steve Jobs has put the opening of a retail store in Brazil on hold due to the high tax burden.

          Despite having one of the highest taxation regimes in the world, public investment levels in Brazil is one of the lowest.

          The Brazilian government spends money as fast as it collects it. Socialism has for long been the most secure way for politicians to be re-elected in Brazil. Even the most conservative politicians in Brazil will have to talk about social inclusion in order to stand a chance to be elected.
          The general trust in politicians in Brazil is remarkably low, only 14% of the population state that they trust the parliament.
          It is mandatory to vote in Brazil and as in any other democracy, every vote counts the same and since a large part of the population belongs to the poorer social classes socialism is a secure way for re-election.
          Social welfare programs like Bolsa Fam?lia were a direct reason to ex-president Lula’s re-election in 2006. While Bolsa Fam?lia has reduced short-term poverty for 44 million Brazilians by direct cash transfers, investment into public health system and other public tasks are not prioritized.
          Bolsa Fam?lia alone is estimated to cost about 0.5% of Brazil’s GDP each year and is collected through taxes. Parts of the country with lower income also tend to have other problems that need to be addressed using tax payers money:
          High crime rate
          High unemployment rates
          High adoption of underground economy
          Reduced health conditions
          A large portion of the tax money collected from the legitimate part of the economy is used to improve life quality for poor people.

          The simple reason why the overall taxes burden in Brazil are so high is simple: The government needs the money and Brazilians do not produce enough value per capita to handle the country’s challenges.

          As an underlaying problem, Brazil has not managed to achieve institutional stability. Courts, schools, hospitals and specially law enforcement are struggling to bring solid bases of stability to Brazil.

          The Brazilian tax burden will not decrease before the country manage to find a solid bases of stability. This might only happen when the majority of the Brazilian population is lifted out of poverty or when social diversity be commonly accepted.

          At the moment a big portion of the Brazilian population provides a minimal contribution to the overall tax revenue, making it easy for the politicians to justify high taxes as a majority of the population see increased tax revenue for the government a way to improve their life quality.

      • acat

        Vote GOP for Senate, House, dog catcher, etc. … but vote Green for POTUS.

        It’s better than a vote for Obama, it’s better than a vote for Ron Paul…

        Mew

        • JSobieski

          I would vote for Johnson.

          But we are obviously talking about a highly unlikely scenario

          • Bill S

            Call me a daft dodger.

          • Common_Cents

            oh wait! He never moved after GWB won. hehe

            I’d think I’d move somewhere tropical at least.

          • acat

            has Mitt Romney in the George H. W. Bush role (reprised by Bob Dole)…

            has Gary Johnson in the H. Ross Perot role…

            has Barack Obama in the Bill Clinton role …

            In that scenario, Romney is sufficiently bad on the economy that Johnson (who actually shrank a state budget in real dollars) could attract enough attention to give the election to Obama.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            I don’t think a guy who had 1% R support in the primaries can reach Perot levels unless the Ron Paul fanatics endorse him—and they won’t.

            I so wish that Johnson did a bit better and help split off some of Paul’s voters. Plus, he would have added specificity to the debates in terms of cutting.

            When Johnson says that he would propose a balanced budget in year 1—I absolutely believe him.

            A sharp contrast to Bachmann who promises the world and delivers butkis.

  • turkeyotooley

    I don’t find your argument persuasive.

    Before I explain, I should mention that I support Rick Perry. Perry is clearly the best candidate in the field and it is a shame that so many conservative voters are being so easily herded by the pundit class from one sham candidate (Cain) to another (Gingrich). The aversion to Romney is healthy, but the inability to appreciate what Perry offers reveals that we conservative voters are blind. Fear of Obama is motivating conservative voters to act irrationally.

    That said, Ron Paul is not a loon. He is not crazy. That is silly propaganda. Ron Paul is being taken seriously because of the failure of the Republican party to represent conservative values. Republicans and “conservative” media are pulling out all of the stops to hand Romney the nomination against the wishes of nearly 75% of the conservative electorate. The Republican Party is not just ignoring conservatives, it is actively fighting against them. The Republican Party is now comprised of entrenched politicians who have no problem maintaining and growing the State.

    Ron Paul hates what the Republican Party has become. I’m sure he hates that neoconservatism has so weakened conservative principle. I respect his challenge to the statist views of established Republicans, of whom John McCain is one.

    Again the opposition to Ron Paul seems to be fueled by fear. His views are a clear threat to established power on both sides of the political aisle. It is perfectly consistent with Paul’s views for him not to support a statist like John McCain. And you admitted that Paul’s basis for supporting those other candidates was the other candidate’s agreed to balance budgets, bring troops home, protect personal liberties, and investigate the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul has talked about these four issues for nearly his entire political career. His support of a candidate like Cynthia McKinney was based on her agreement on the importance of the issues that Ron Paul considers important, not her socialism.

    And any suggestion that Ron Paul is racist should be examined in light of his many pronouncements of the unfairness of our criminal justice system in that minorities seem to be over-represented in correctional facilities. Also, Cynthia McKinney is black. If Paul was the rabid racist that many try to paint him as, then why would he support her.

    Again, I am supporting Perry and I hope conservative voters wake up in time. (Hello, Evangelicals — Way to go supporting Santorum! /s Ridiculous.) But Ron Paul deserves much more respect than he is given. And people are turning to him because they perceive that the Republican party is rejecting their concerns.

    • Leon H. Wolf

      We aren’t morons. A for effort though. Tell all your friends at the Daily Paul that this doesn’t work either.

    • Bill S

      represents “conservative values”. The guy is the dictionary definition of an ideology (libertarianism) taken to it’s logical, and extreme, conclusion. And that’s what makes him nuts. He’s dangerous…to the country and the world, if the idiots who vote for him somehow succeed in extending his influence.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      Ron Paul is an unabashed bigot and a hypocrite of the first order to boot. He’s also not, as Leon notes, a Republican.

      He should have been tossed from the Republican House Caucus a long time ago, he’s a blight on the Party and the last thing he deserves is respect. I wouldn’t walk across the street to piss on him if he were on fire. That goes for his supproters and apologists as well and in many ways, they’re (you’re) even worse.

      Say hi to Alex Jones. Don’t bother coming back, you bring filth to the site.

  • PGDeFreese

    but would you be willing to send your kids out on a camping trip with the “crazy grampy” knowing that the 5% might just occur while he has a hatchet in his hand?

    Paul would have been marginalized beyond the point of ever being able to hold office again if the MSM media didn’t so relish his foolishness and ability to maintain such a large herd of tunnel-visionists.

    • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

      ….he is a “useful idiot” to the media, which means we are stuck dealing with him until he retires to the happy farm.

  • geoph

    Hi Neil,

    I used to do just that. In fact, the hours I dedicated to the GOP in the late 80′s and through the 90′s – were some of the best. That we let Hillary claim that Senate seat still bugs me.
    It was tough watching things start to change, and then when I moved my family to a new State, I just didn’t get back into it. Now I look at my representation (MI) and am very disappointed. Who is rallying to defeat Stabinow – the TEA Party (though I’m not thrilled with this “unify behind a candidate” effort), and who did Boehner appoint as negotiators for this payroll tax/unemployment insurance/doc fix debacle? Upton and Camp; both from the Super Committee , both with failed ideas.(neither supported the Senate bill, but Upto especially is highly suspect)
    The GOP in my area just is not very active!

  • boonerdan

    It only takes 5 seconds of listening to Ron “Who stole my medication” Paul to figure out he is a certified lunatic. There’s no way he would ever get elected. Wait a minute, Obama in got elected in 2008.

    Sorry for the interruption. Please return to your regularly scheduled episode of “Dancing with the Stars” .

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    1. “Turkey”-man can’t shroud his prejudices in a “I like Perry” shroud; he is a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing.

    2. Sabato on PMSNBC said Paul could win Iowa…and then NH…and then everything; does not this serve as a disqualifier for any further punditry from him?

    3. Sabato on PMSNBC said only one of these three [PerrySantorum/Bachmann] will “get a ticket out of Iowa.” Knowing that Perry has $ [a slide had just been shown that depicted the millions spent on negative-ads], and that one of the other two could break 10%, does not this serve as a disqualifier for any further punditry from him?

    4. A description of the caucus-system revealed how very public it is; presumably, enough people [like, at least 99, one for each county-caucus] will be available to educate the voters BEFORE they announce their postures [in front of friends/family/neighbors/pastors].

    Perry will flip-back to his 10%-tithe, Mitt may do reasonably well by default [as The Newt continues to slide] and Perry will surprise the pundits.

  • Return to Revolution

    How anyone can speak favorably of Bab Barr and Cynthia Mickinney in the same breath and still claim to have principles is beyond me. And so it is bothersome that Paul is put up as the pinnacle of purity and principle by so many.

    But it leads to something that has always bothered me about libertarians in general. Why do we get disillusioned with republicans? Some are incompetent and some compromise away conservative principles. It is very frustrating. However, what makes libertarians think that the exact same thing wouldn’t happen if libertarians were elected in large numbers in congress?

  • aesthete

    The unanticipated rise of Ron Paul, while disturbing, is entirely the product of a broken party which has delivered nothing but empty promises, spiraling deficits, and a moribund foreign policy for 14 years. Ron Paul is crazy, but he is rising for the same reason that Christine O’Donnell in DE rose: he represents a departure from the status quo. That’s basically it in a nutshell: conservatives have soured on “nation-building”, tax cuts without spending cuts, democracy’s prospects in Middle Eastern countries, and much of the agenda of supposed “conservatives” from ’98 onwards. Even those who agree with some of that agenda (i.e., Iraq and Afghanistan) are disillusioned with the way that it was carried forth. This is why a candidate who proudly touts ignorance on foreign policy (Cain) looked so good to primary voters. This is why there is so much primary voter unrest and rancor. (IMO, it also has something to do with why Rick Perry is not doing all that well, but that’s neither here nor there.)

    Fix the party, and Ron Paul goes back to being a blathering, but harmless, idiot. Keep putting people like Boehner in power, and pursuing the same strategies that were pursued in the ’00s, and you can be sure that a whole bumper crop of candidates (both of the nutty and non-nutty variety) will be there to take Ron Paul’s place on the debate stage when he departs.

  • gator_hoo

    Paul supported her in 2010 for gov, although he did fall shy of endorsing her, he wrote letters on her behalf.

    Ron Paul calls Debra Medina “a role model for Texans”

  • clowngirl

    The lesson here is that if somebody like Ron Paul wants to run as a Republican ever again they should be denied the privilege.

  • agapejohn

    Mc Cain (while I did vote for him begrudgingly) and Newt are both progressives both very big on NWO, US being the world police and and that is just plain wrong. While Dr. Paul may not get elected a second term , he will get us turned around and start shrinking our government. Paul will stop or try to stop several things Obamacare, patriot act, the added sections in the NDAA and what was that new bill that already changes the meaning of terrorist combatant to any one who can be linked to the drug cartels? Oh yes lets not forget the FEMA prisons that are popping up everywhere!!! they would be closed down and so would the FED! DR. Paul just wants us to get back to our constitution. and back off the world stage.
    Woof the only hatred that I have seen is in your writing!!! It’s obvious that your establishment and want to keep things pro quo..(My god who would pay you if it didn’t?). .

    • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

      …because he’s a grandstanding hypocrite with no convictions who likes to deceive people into believing he’s the only Republican who cares about the Constitution, when he porks up more than almost any other congressman (and that’s saying something) and blatantly supports socialists and bigots simply because they aren’t Republican.

    • Leon H. Wolf

      Anyway, blam.

  • cyndezu

    Your confused or deliberately trying to mislead.
    In 2008 candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agreed with Ron Paul on four key principles:

    Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

    Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

    The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

    The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

    It was an agreement of four principles, not an endorsement.

    Ron Paul did go on to endorse one candidate, Dr. Chuck Baldwin.

    BTW.. Bob Barr originally agreed to the four principles, but, later reneged on the agreement and didn’t bother to show up.

    Ron Paul on “The Principles” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZEdyiSTmjI

  • georgehill

    The Republican Party, unfortunately, has been a big government tax and spend party, distressingly similar to the Democrat Party.

    If Ron Paul could change this, it would be a good thing.

    I would prefer to have Ron Paul in the White House to its present occupant.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      We still ban Ronulans.

    • Scope

      Ron Paul doesn’t even belong in the Republican party. Even the Libertarian party doesn’t agree with him. Paul and his supporters don’t get to redefine the Republican party into what he and they want it to be. The only reason Paul has an R after his name is because he knows it’s a two party system in this country, and those running on third party tickets don’t get very far. Thankfully he will be retiring from his useless and wasted more than 20 years doing nothing more than warming a seat in Congress. His rocking chair is calling him.

  • williamjameson

    he’s a devote admitted socialist who in 2008 said Obama is a Plutocrat who would ruin the USA. Just someone I met at a party,, weird and talkative. Never knew RP backed her, that makes him as scary as 4 more years of Obama.

  • jobyweeks

    If you don’t want him to split the vote like Perot and get another 4 years of oBUSHma than the answer is simple, Nominate him and he won’t run 3rd party.
    Your confused or deliberately trying to mislead.
    In 2008 candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agreed with Ron Paul on four key principles: National Debt, Privacy, Foreign Policy and the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul only endorsed one person, Pastor Chuck Baldwin.

    • gekster

      You guys sure are coming out of the woodwork.
      So why should any sane person vote for RP.

    • Scope

      but keep wishing on rainbows pixie dust, and unicorns.

      The only ones confused is you, and all his moonbats crazy creeps. You people really do incite the willies in rational people.

      Ron Paul is nuts, crazy, irrational and senile. Get over your dumb selves and just go and buy pot. It’s available out there everywhere.

  • http://republicaninthearts.blogspot.com incognito73

    I love how people claim Paul is a conservative, perhaps fiscally but that’s where it ends. And he’s definitely not a Republican.

    That said,
    love that video. Ha! Pretty much sums him up.

  • Pingback: hier

  • Pingback: Azalee Duby

  • Pingback: bgdfgdfgdfgdf

  • Pingback: lecteur carte vitale

  • Pingback: Zachery Tesar

  • Pingback: Wilmer Ammirati

  • Pingback: facebook blog

  • Pingback: haccp zachodniopomorskie

  • Pingback: mold inspection services

  • Pingback: Luanne Courtney

  • Pingback: "????? ????? ????"

  • Pingback: Rottweiler

  • Pingback: abc blinds

  • Pingback: Dumpster Rental

  • Pingback: Dumpster Deliveries

  • Pingback: buy real instagram followers

  • Pingback: Delivermydumpster

  • Pingback: Zella Asher

  • Pingback: Luanne Courtney

  • Pingback: weight loss diet

  • Pingback: land of nod coupon codes

  • Pingback: Youtube Make Money

  • Pingback: babys r us registry

  • Pingback: target baby registry

  • Pingback: Organo Gold Scam

  • Pingback: make money online

  • Pingback: cheap cell phone service

  • Pingback: bear grylls messer

  • Pingback: super cheap car insurance

  • Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: Auto Forum

  • Pingback: travel

  • Pingback: executive jacket

  • Pingback: sexy latina babe

  • Pingback: ldlhdlcholesterollevels.org

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: Medical Marketing

  • Pingback: facebook chips for sale

  • Pingback: payday loan store

  • Pingback: website logo design

  • Pingback: here

  • Pingback: arts and crafts

  • Pingback: lida satis

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: randki internetowe