« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Ron Paul is Crazy, Part 4,018,663

Know what I’m curious about? I’m curious as to whether there is any video out there of some citizen journalist shoving a microphone in Ron Paul’s face and asking him about some conspiracy theory – any conspiracy theory at all – and Paul just flatly tells the person asking the question that he’s being ridiculous. We already have Ron Paul on the record grousing aloud about the grassy knoll and (under the most charitable possible interpretation of the facts) humoring 9/11 truthers. I guess I really shouldn’t be surprised to find this in response to “Hey, what about those Bildebergers?”

Of course, if you REALLY want a chuckle, fast forward to the 8:40 mark of this clip for a chance to hear Ron Paul literally say, verbatim and without irony, “Yeah, well, that sure is a sign that [Rick Perry] is very much involved in the international conspiracy!”

Look, it isn’t just that Paul is uncomfortable embarrassing questioners by disagreeing with their entire premise. If someone asks him, “Hey, the Iranians are pretty close to having a nuke, shouldn’t we do something?” or “I know you are non-interventionist, but wouldn’t you have at least supported doing something to stop Hitler from exterminating the Jews?” then Paul is willing to flat out give answers he knows will disappoint the questioners. However, whenever an obviously paranoid nutter approaches him and asks him about something almost no unmedicated people believes, he starts sounding a lot like this:

At this point, I think we should try to find if there is honestly a conspiracy theory he will flatly shoot down – “Do you think the moon landing was staged?” You know, absolutely crazy stuff, like, “Do you think the United States Government is going to build a wall to keep people from escaping to Mexico?” I want to know if there are any that he will flatly dismiss out of hand.

You know, other than the conspiracy wherein there are Muslim terrorists who are trying to destroy the United States.

COMMENTS

  • mikeymike143

    In the last few weeks I?ve been called a neo-con, a Zionist, and a warmonger in various online forums. All by ?liberty? supporting Ron Paul fans who insist that history is calling Ron Paul to step forward and rescue America from itself. While I?ve always been on the right I was at one time a Libertarian so I?ll accept the term neo-Con, and since I believe in the historical claim of the Jewish people to Israel I?m fine with being called a Zionist. But it is Ron Paul and his followers who are leading us down the path to world war, not people like me.

    The philosophy of Ron Paul and his supporters is simple, straightforward, and ultimately anti-American. They say if we allow evil and depravity to flourish at home and abroad then evil and depraved men will respect us and leave us alone. During the cold war this philosophy was put forward by the left and called accommodation; now it?s been re-branded as ?Constitutionalism? but it is no less destructive then it was when voices in our own country called for total surrender to the forces of communism.

    Ron Paul believes if we abandoned Israel and let Islamists worldwide take over country after country that Jihadists would never again target America or its citizens. But why would this be? Does Muslim culture respect weakness? Do the mullahs of Iran look favorably on those that kneel before them? Did the Taliban treat women and children with respect? Are the cities of Europe that bowed to Islamist pressures free of Islamist violence?

    Paul and his supporters tell us that we should be willing to accommodate Occupy Wall Street, that we can find common ground with the rank and file Occupiers. But what common ground is there between freedom and socialism? Where has accommodating this communist-led attempted coup gotten the cities that tried? How many businesses must be closed down before we stop accommodating them? How many people have to die at these encampments in the name of accommodation?

    And when does our accommodation of violent radicals end? After their first murder? After the first riot? Or do we wait for a city to fall to them before drawing a line in the sand?

    They say if only we legalized drugs gangs would lay down their arms, put on suits and ties, and become productive members of society. If we legalize prostitution pimps would throw up their hands and go work at K-Marts as women were ?empowered? by the legal sex trade. After all, the Mafia all but disappeared after Prohibition, they will argue, ignoring the almost 100 years of murder and extortion the Mafia partook in after the repeal of Prohibition. During their still ongoing reign of terror the Mafia?s activities are partly funded by legal business interests they maintain. Why would today?s gangs do any differently?

    Mexican cartels are feudal warlords who control entire sections of both Mexico and America. But if we allow them to sell their drugs legally they?ll give up that power? They?ll give up kingdoms they carved out themselves through murder, rape, and mayhem? Did the Mafia give up control of unions, nightclubs, and gambling?

    A 19-year-old girl named Carina Saunders was found dismembered in Oklahoma. A prostitute came forward to tell police that she was kidnapped and taken to a warehouse where she was forced to watch as Saunders was tortured to death. This was a scheme by human traffickers to force the girl and some others to work as their prostitutes. According to the Ron Paul philosophy, legalizing prostitution would turn these animals into productive citizens and prostitutes would be safer. But that view accepts the Marxist theory that criminals are being victimized by an unjust society. In reality our laws don?t create criminals, criminals create the need for our laws.

    For 5,000 years Western Civilization has understood that it is strength?strength of character, strength of culture, and strength of arms?that makes it possible for all our other virtues to flourish. It is our willingness to battle those forces that seek to extinguish the light of civilization burning a a world of darkness that has led to this moment in history where one country, America, embodies the highest ideals of the Western tradition. At this moment we stand at a crossroads where we choose for future generations the continuance of our most sacred traditions or surrender all that we are to criminals, communists, and militant Islamism?all in the name of peace.

    But there is no peace in anarchy, class warfare, and theocracy. As Ronald Reagan said in his Rendezvous with Destiny speech, those voices of accommodation don?t speak for the rest of us. To avoid conflict with the Muslim world will you allow a second Holocaust? When the last Jew is dead in the middle east will the Islamists stop there? Or will they turn their eyes to us and our Jews? What then? What accommodations will Ron Paul and his followers be willing to make to avoid war then?

    What demands will you accommodate from OWS? Will you allow changes to our election laws to suit their masters? whims? Will you allow them to seize private property for their new society? Maybe they?ll just want to kill off 1% of us?isn?t that a small price to pay for peace?

    Here lies is the path to war. War becomes inevitable if we adopt Paul?s philosophy because it promises the world that the rest of us will abandon our morality, our honor, and our patriotism in return for the illusion of peace. Americans will not sit idle while a second Holocaust plays out no matter what promises a craven government makes to the Islamists. We will not cede our streets to the radicals, the gangs, or the pimps. When the last barrier between the American family and the great night our enemies seek are torn down we will have two choices; fight or be overwhelmed. Americans will fight.

    Weakness encourages aggression from our enemies. Ron Paul?s fantasy will lead us on a collision course with those forces who have been waiting for the right moment to seize what they see as their destiny. America is the last stand for Western civilization and now is the time when we must be willing to fight every battle to keep our values and country strong. We cannot accommodate those who wish to destroy us anymore than we can accommodate those that seek to help them in the name of peace.

    http://www.redstate.com/robtaylor/2011/12/27/ron-paul-is-the-real-warmonger/

    • Leon H. Wolf

      I mean… this is RedState.

      • mikeymike143

        the people in my facebook political group are reposting anti ron paul articles on all the various political pages and sites. so if i repost this article somewhere and a person reads this article, and they then read the comments, they will see the other article too. and maybe they will like the other article click on it and repost it elsewhere.

        we are doing the same thing that redstate is, working to elect a conservative republican for president by attacking that left wing nutcase ron paul.

  • mikeymike143

    RON PAUL WAS OVERHEARD TALKING AT HIS CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS

    I guess Ron Paul?s new campaign strategy is??..I have the same foreign policy ideas that Jimmy Carter had. I also have the same ?F? rating on immigration policy from NUMBERS USA as Barack Obama. And I openly declare that conservative groups and other people who oppose Islam or the mosque at Ground Zero are racist. Not to mention that I have publically endorsed far left anti business and anti american candidates like Ralph Nader and Cynthia Mckinney when they ran for office. And to top it all off, I am a career politican who knows how to bring home more wasteful pork for my constituents than any other congressman. Vote for Ron Paul for the DEMOCRATIC nominee for president in 2012.

    What do you mean I am running as a Republican??? Oh, you?ve got to be kidding me.

    Ok, I guess I need a ?Ron the Con? super strategy that will get people to pay attention to the conservative phrases I utter, instead of my actual voting record. I know, i will attract all the ?conspiracy wackos? by starting a catchy mantra. Let?s go with????.Audit the Fed. And hopefully if I say this mantra long enough people wont figure out that I have been on the take in Washington since dinosaurs roamed the earth, and I still havent been able to get that darn Fed audited.

    And I will naturally point out my impressive track record of getting legislation passed during my time in congress. Umm, on second thought maybe I better skip that idea.

    And I got absolutely destroyed the last the two times I ran for president. In fact, 19 OUT OF 20 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY VOTERS REJECTED MY CANDIDACY LAST ELECTION. That is because I am a total loser and not really a conservative republican. But I need to sucker the people that live in their parents basement to send me some more money. My paulbots will be easy to fleece for more money if they think I can win the presidency. Hmm, I have just the angle. I will get my paulbots to spam up all the presidential internet polls so I appear be a viable candidate. I will then run a ?moneybomb? asking for donations from those very same followers since the polls now show that I can win.

    Finally I will point out the many ways that I have helped the economy grow. Hmmm, there must be something i can point out. Anything? Ok, my followers have caused Alcoa stock to double in value. Alcoa makes Reynolds Wrap(used to make tinfoil hats).

    http://www.redstate.com/mikeymike143/2011/07/17/an-inside-look-at-ron-the-nt-pauls-presidential-campaign-strategy/

    • wjm3

      Theodore Roosevelt was no pacifist but he was no hero to humanity either.
      From http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/cr/moro.htm – “This incident burst upon the world last Friday in an official cablegram from the commander of our forces in the Philippines to our Government at Washington. The substance of it was as follows: A tribe of Moros, dark-skinned savages, had fortified themselves in the bowl of an extinct crater not many miles from Jolo; and as they were hostiles, and bitter against us because we have been trying for eight years to take their liberties away from them, their presence in that position was a menace. Our commander, Gen. Leonard Wood, ordered a reconnaissance. It was found that the Moros numbered six hundred, counting women and children; that their crater bowl was in the summit of a peak or mountain twenty-two hundred feet above sea level, and very difficult of access for Christian troops and artillery. Then General Wood ordered a surprise, and went along himself to see the order carried out. Our troops climbed the heights by devious and difficult trails, and even took some artillery with them. The kind of artillery is not specified, but in one place it was hoisted up a sharp acclivity by tackle a distance of some three hundred feet. Arrived at the rim of the crater, the battle began. Our soldiers numbered five hundred and forty. They were assisted by auxiliaries consisting of a detachment of native constabulary in our pay — their numbers not given — and by a naval detachment, whose numbers are not stated. But apparently the contending parties were about equal as to number — six hundred men on our side, on the edge of the bowl; six hundred men, women and children in the bottom of the bowl. Depth of the bowl, 50 feet.

      Gen. Wood’s order was, “Kill or capture the six hundred.”

      The battle began-it is officially called by that name-our forces firing down into the crater with their artillery and their deadly small arms of precision; the savages furiously returning the fire, probably with brickbats-though this is merely a surmise of mine, as the weapons used by the savages are not nominated in the cablegram. Heretofore the Moros have used knives and clubs mainly; also ineffectual trade-muskets when they had any.

      The official report stated that the battle was fought with prodigious energy on both sides during a day and a half, and that it ended with a complete victory for the American arms. The completeness of the victory for the American arms. The completeness of the victory is established by this fact: that of the six hundred Moros not one was left alive. The brilliancy of the victory is established by this other fact, to wit: that of our six hundred heroes only fifteen lost their lives.

      General Wood was present and looking on. His order had been. “Kill or capture those savages.” Apparently our little army considered that the “or” left them authorized to kill or capture according to taste, and that their taste had remained what it has been for eight years, in our army out there – the taste of Christian butchers.

      The official report quite properly extolled and magnified the “heroism” and “gallantry” of our troops; lamented the loss of the fifteen who perished, and elaborated the wounds of thirty-two of our men who suffered injury, and even minutely and faithfully described the nature of the wounds, in the interest of future historians of the United States. It mentioned that a private had one of his elbows scraped by a missile, and the private’s name was mentioned. Another private had the end of his nose scraped by a missile. His name was also mentioned – by cable, at one dollar and fifty cents a word.

      Next day’s news confirmed the previous day’s report and named our fifteen killed and thirty-two wounded again, and once more described the wounds and gilded them with the right adjectives.

      Let us now consider two or three details of our military history. In one of the great battles of the Civil War ten per cent. Of the forces engaged on the two sides were killed and wounded. At Waterloo, where four hundred thousand men were present on the two sides, fifty thousand fell, killed and wounded, in five hours, leaving three hundred and fifty thousand sound and all right for further adventures. Eight years ago, when the pathetic comedy called the Cuban War was played, we summoned two hundred and fifty thousand men. We fought a number of showy battles, and when the war was over we had lost two hundred and sixty-eight men out of our two hundred and fifty thousand, in killed and wounded in the field, and just fourteen times as many by the gallantry of the army doctors in the hospitals and camps. We did not exterminate the Spaniards — far from it. In each engagement we left an average of two per cent. of the enemy killed or crippled on the field.

      Contrast these things with the great statistics which have arrived from
      [page 172]
      that Moro crater! There, with six hundred engaged on each side, we lost fifteen men killed outright, and we had thirty-two wounded-counting that nose and that elbow. The enemy numbered six hundred — including women and children — and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States.

      Now then, how has it been received? The splendid news appeared with splendid display-heads in every newspaper in this city of four million and thirteen thousand inhabitants, on Friday morning. But there was not a single reference to it in the editorial columns of any one of those newspapers. The news appeared again in all the evening papers of Friday, and again those papers were editorially silent upon our vast achievement. Next day’s additional statistics and particulars appeared in all the morning papers, and still without a line of editorial rejoicing or a mention of the matter in any way. These additions appeared in the evening papers of that same day (Saturday) and again without a word of comment. In the columns devoted to correspondence, in the morning and evening papers of Friday and Saturday, nobody said a word about the “battle.” Ordinarily those columns are teeming with the passions of the citizen; he lets no incident go by, whether it be large or small, without pouring out his praise or blame, his joy or his indignation about the matter in the correspondence column. But, as I have said, during those two days he was as silent as the editors themselves. So far as I can find out, there was only one person among our eighty millions who allowed himself the privilege of a public remark on this great occasion — that was the President of the United States. All day Friday he was as studiously silent as the rest. But on Saturday he recognized that his duty required him to say something, and he took his pen and performed that duty. If I know President Roosevelt — and I am sure I do — this utterance cost him more pain and shame than any other that ever issued from his pen or his mouth. I am far from blaming him. If I had been in his place my official duty would have compelled me to say what he said. It was a convention, an old tradition, and he had to be loyal to it. There was no help for it. This is what he said:

      Washington, March 10. Wood, Manila:- I congratulate you and the officers and men of your command upon the
      [page 173]
      brilliant feat of arms wherein you and they so well upheld the honor of the American flag. (Signed) Theodore Roosevelt.

      His whole utterance is merely a convention. Not a word of what he said came out of his heart. He knew perfectly well that to pen six hundred helpless and weaponless savages in a hole like rats in a trap and massacre them in detail during a stretch of a day and a half, from a safe position on the heights above, was no brilliant feat of arms – and would not have been a brilliant feat of arms even if Christian America, represented by its salaried soldiers, had shot them down with Bibles and the Golden Rule instead of bullets. He knew perfectly well that our uniformed assassins had not upheld the honor of the American flag, but had done as they have been doing continuously for eight years in the Philippines – that is to say, they had dishonored it.

      The next day, Sunday, — which was yesterday — the cable brought us additional news – still more splendid news — still more honor for the flag. The first display-head shouts this information at us in the stentorian capitals: “WOMEN SLAIN MORO SLAUGHTER.”

      “Slaughter” is a good word. Certainly there is not a better one in the Unabridged Dictionary for this occasion

      The next display line says:

      “With Children They Mixed in Mob in Crater, and All Died Together.”

      They were mere naked savages, and yet there is a sort of pathos about it when that word children falls under your eye, for it always brings before us our perfectest symbol of innocence and helplessness; and by help of its deathless eloquence color, creed and nationality vanish away and we see only that they are children — merely children. And if they are frightened and crying and in trouble, our pity goes out to them by natural impulse. We see a picture. We see the small forms. We see the terrified faces. We see the tears. We see the small hands clinging in supplication to the mother; but we do not see those children that we are speaking about. We see in their places the little creatures whom we know and love.

      The next heading blazes with American and Christian glory like to the sun in the zenith:

      “Death List is Now 900.”

      I was never so enthusiastically proud of the flag till now!”

  • kowalski

    Ron Paul is one of those people who if he wasn’t a politician would be a turn-of-the-century Carnival ringleader, or a Mystery Liniment salesman/guru, going from town to town peddling his hooch-in-a-bottle and his Amazing Cures and Potions.

    Yes, many of our politicians are, but it’s a difference of degree. There is no snake oil Ron Paul won’t sell. And you’re dead on to ask whether there’s any conspiracy theory he won’t entertain – although at this point it’s a rhetorical question because he’s going to play it straight for a while, he’s clever enough to change tack. He baits the hook with his freedom talk and reels ‘em in with the paranoid conspiracy theories, and he has it down to a science that very few others can match. He’s more than Janusian.

    Extremely manipulative. Really a cult leader masquerading as a politician.

    And his approach to politics takes terrible advantage of the people he exploits for support, moreso than anyone on the national scene right now. Well, almost. But he’s right up there with the best exploiters the Democrats have among their ranks.

    • lineholder

      I know the likelihood of his winning the nomination is probably slim to none, but the impact he is having at the moment, the kinds of qualities the man possesses, along with his positions on so many different issues…it’s like looking at another Obama, isn’t it?

      • kowalski

        I hope that a lot of people will take a closer look at the totality of what Ron Paul really thinks and how he really thinks and realize that voting for him is a mistake.

        In most cases, it’s an honest mistake – it’s a matter of paying selective attention to the things he really says. He’s completely unqualified to be President and honestly, he’s much worse than Ross Perot was. I don’t understand why the Republicans are afflicted with this problem every few election cycles except that Ron Paul has done an exceptionally good job manipulating people this time. But absolutely nobody should vote for him for President.

        I can’t say enough for Leon and the other Redstate front-pagers this week who have really performed a public service and a service to bonafide Conservtism and the Republican Party through everything they’ve written. They all deserve medals.

        Ron Paul isn’t a Presidential candidate – he’s a Carnival huckster and he exploits all the suckers who follow him, every step of the way. He makes Romney’s tendency to insulate himself to trusted advisors and Gingrich’s occasional bomb-throwing tendencies look like minor pecadilloes.

        There are a million things he *could* do and *could* say to change that, but he won’t, because he’d instantly lose his base. And it is *his* base – that soured cream of approximately 20% of the American population who are jew-haters, conspiracy theorists, etc., etc., and [sigh] college students who want to smoke dope.

        The instant he was elected he’d be recognized all across the world as a Crank President, and the international consequences would be swift and enormous. Absolutely nobody, anywhere, ever again, would trust America’s word, or believe in America’s strength. And I can’t even imagine what a Department of Justice under a Ron Paul administration would look like. I half think they’d open a tattoo shop and start putting stars on people’s bodies again…with a lot of justification.

        Amazing that he’s gotten this far, and a shameful statement really.

        As far as the larger contest is concerned, I’m not going to comment on that until we get through this current crisis and arrive at a nominee who isn’t demonstrably crazy. I recommended three the other day: all of them can win the Presidency.

        • lineholder

          One of my biggest concerns right now is that we do have a significant number of people within our society who are (1) disenfranchised with gov’t and (2) economically vulnerable. That makes for a bad combination when it comes to those manipulators and cultist-type individuals who operate under the guise of politicians.

          I’d like to say that I had all the confidence in the world in Americans that they would turn away from such posers, but…we did get Obama in 2008, didn’t we?

          I’d rather our nation not make the same error again, and just approach this situation with the Ron Paul candidacy as “better safe than sorry”, so like you, I’m extremely grateful and thankful for what our mods and writers at RS have been contributing here at the site of late.

        • kowalski

          Some of the people who support him are not really aware, or it just hasn’t filtered up to the level of importance for them, how misleading Ron Paul is and what a waste of a vote he is.

          I know a guy who is a civil engineer, former Military, Libertarian, and a great person and a consummate professional. He wants to vote for Ron Paul in protest because he doesn’t think any of our Presidential candidates are any damn good in one way or the other. The problem is that he’s very selective with his attention and he doesn’t realize that Ron Paul is worse than *anyone*.

          It’s funny I had an argument with him recently. He said (I’m paraphrasing): “I like the purity of his ideas…the way they sound.”

          And I said:

          “Yeah. I cuckoo clock has a nice purity of sound too. As does a toilet when you flush it.”

          • lineholder

            Yeah, there’s something about Ron Paul, just like there is about Obama, that dulls people’s senses into a state of mind-numbing complacency where no awareness of caution or prudence exist. It’s just a trait that they both possess.

            Reminds of how Tolkien described Saruman in The Lord of The Rings…that power of voice and the way people could be easily deceived by it.

          • kowalski

            With a razor-sharp message of what I call his “theory of inconsequential neglect” of America’s responsibilities combined with a freaky paranoid twist that really drags in the Coast to Coast listeners, the 10% of Coast to Coast listeners who aren’t smoking dope, and the College students who don’t want to be identified with a Party, don’t believe ‘nuthin nobody says, but want to smoke dope. Then there are the closet Bilderberg Believers, the Bohemian Grove watchers, the Trilateralist Commission Keepers, the disheveled Race Purists, the Jewhaters, a couple of clapped-out white supremacists, a few neo-nazis, and a handful of assorted people who NEED HELP among the Stricken and Malcontented wasteland.

            It’s easy to get 15-20% of America into that category right now, unfortunately, and Ron Paul knows the Choir he’s preaching to. It’s a lucrative bunch of ….

            I’m sorry, I can’t use words like that here on Redstate.

          • kowalski

            Sorry it should have been: “…that really drags in the 90% of Coast to Coast listerners as well as the other 10% of the Coast to Coast listeners who aren’t smoking dope…” ;)

          • lineholder

            of the general public, I can understand. Just like I understand Obama’s appeal to the hard-core liberals. It’s when they cross-over into other territories, to that group of people who are normally relatively rational but because of circumstances are desperately seeking for SOLUTIONS, that I see it being something we should be concerned about.

            I keep thinking that if Repubs did a better job presenting a cohesive message, we’d pull in more of these people, kowalski.

            Just a thought, but I wonder how much crossover there is between those who support Obama and those who support Ron Paul?

          • kowalski

            Obama’s pull with liberals was and still is a “feel good” movement. His candidacy was a messianic movement and a very well orchestrated one, where everyone who loved ’60s liberalism and who still believed could bask in the afterglow of America finally electing a Black President, an articulate, intelligent man from Harvard, a thinker, a liberal, someone dedicated to being “His Brother’s Keeper”.

            Ron Paul’s movement by contrast is a “feel bad” movement. It’s a group of people who can agree on just one thing: they feel awful, and they’re paranoid about something, and they’re worried it’s going to get worse. And the “afterglow” of a Ron Paul victory will be a lot like that: It’s a hopeless group of people, really. They want to cocoon themselves and turn inward.

            America can’t turn inward. For better or for worse, we’re already out there.

            There is a kind of messianic belief common to both of them but Barack Obama’s movement was warm, joyous and even gleeful and Ron Paul’s is basically cold, afraid and reclusive.

          • kowalski

            America needs a different President but it cannot lose its sense of optimism and its presence in the world. Ron Paul believes that our presence there is a waste. I very deeply disagree.

          • lineholder

            You’re right about the extreme contrast of the type of people they each appeal to, kowalski.

            I don’t trust either them to stand up for this nation or its people. They’re two peas in an anti-American pod in that respect, regardless of their differences in other ways.

          • kowalski

            I’ve said what I wanted to say in this thread and I really believe most of it, too. :)

            America doesn’t need the thumbsuckers. Ron Paul is a thumbsucker. We need an optimist Conservative/Republican or Republican/Conservative who can help America get back on its feet by doing the things we all know need to be done. We need someone stable in our national conscience. It is true that at this point we’re looking for someone who can manage competently.

            We don’t need conspiracy freaks and reclusive and weirdo foreign policy. Have a great night.

          • tngal

            Rand is not quite as, shall we say, eccentric, as his father. Rand does have a following. I could imagine some people following Ron (without digging deep into his history) just because of Rand. I only mention this because likewise there were some people who did not vote for Rand because of his father.

            Yes, I agrees the lack of complete knowledge by some supporters as playing a role in his level of support. Similarly guilt or benefit by association with his son also plays a factor.

        • tomatin

          Actually your whole post was on point. I could not have said it better.

          The thing is some of Ron Paul’s ideas sound good for a couple miliseconds until you really think about them but most of them are just the ideas of a radical.

          I can’t express enough who this man is not qualified to be POTUS. He’s as disqualified as Kucinich to be POTUS. In fact most of his social ideas and about ll of his foreign policy ideas match Kucinich. The first duty of CIC is to keep America safe and Paul just proves time and time again he would not do what it takes to keep America safe.

  • Bill S

    @DavidChalian: Gingrich tells CNN that he won’t vote for Ron Paul if he is the GOP nominee.”

    Good on Newt. I won’t either, although I suspect it won’t be an issue…

    • tomatin

      I agree kudos to Newt for this.

    • tngal

      Laying cards on the table like that is brazen. I care not one wit for golfer-in-chief but to vote for someone just because they were allowed to put an R by their name and get on a party line is wrong. I realize that will cause me to get hit with a chocolate pie from RS, which is a “conservative in the primary, republican in the general” perch, but in my heart I do not believe the man is a republican.

      • romansdaughter

        yes, I hope and pray Ron Paul does not become the nominee as I don’t really think I could vote for him. I am not seeing too much difference between him and Obama. Just think it would be a big mess. Yes, Newt has guts to just come out and say it. I admire that!

  • tomatin

    It was a brave move by Newt because it may work against him politically.

    When are people going to understand that Paul is not a conservative. His ideas are all radical and many left wing on foreign policy. Legalize ALL drugs, legalize prostitution, legalize gambling, disengage from the world entirely, alienate Israel, not prosecute terrorists, he doesn’t mind Iran having a nuclear bomb etc.

    How is that being a conservative?

  • lizzie

    from Ace of Spades on Ron Paul as the candidate for all conspiracy theories:
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/325080.php

    and Ace quotes and links to what I think is truly unhinged – that Ron Paul believes ANTI-counterfeiting changes to US paper currency is/was a “New Money” totalitarian conspiracy:

    http://weaselzippers.us/2011/12/23/transcription-of-ron-pauls-solicitation-letter/

    Just read that CNN post about Newt saying he would not vote for Paul as the GOP nominee, and it may hurt Newt in Iowa, but it was the morally courageous thing to say.

    When is someone going to analyze Ron Paul’s FEC donation reports?

    Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian. He is NOT a Republican by any measure (and, as an outsider, I actually DO analyze the range of factions that fractiously cohere in the GOP, which is easier than to do same for the Femocratic, oops, Democratic Party now that they are expelling every Blue Dog fiscal conservative that give the Dems any chance at being a majority)

    Ron Paul is a weapon of mass destruction, of everything that the U.S. Constitution stands for. Charlatan is too kind.

    I do not understand a GOP that shuns Senator Tom Coburn, but allows Ron Paul to claim to be a Republican. He is to the left of Dennis Kucinich, who has more integrity, and is more coherent.

    What happened to wanting someone who can stand on the debate stage with Obama?.

  • lizzie

    from Ace of Spades on Ron Paul as the candidate for all conspiracy theories:
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/325080.php

    and Ace quotes and links to what I think is truly unhinged – that Ron Paul believes ANTI-counterfeiting changes to US paper currency is/was a “New Money” totalitarian conspiracy:

    http://weaselzippers.us/2011/12/23/transcription-of-ron-pauls-solicitation-letter/

    Just read that CNN post about Newt saying he would not vote for Paul as the GOP nominee, and it may hurt Newt in Iowa, but it was the morally courageous thing to say.

    When is someone going to analyze Ron Paul’s FEC donation reports?

    Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian. He is NOT a Republican by any measure (and, as an outsider, I actually DO analyze the range of factions that fractiously cohere in the GOP, which is easier than to do same for the Femocratic, oops, Democratic Party now that they are expelling every Blue Dog fiscal conservative that give the Dems any chance at being a majority)

    Ron Paul is a weapon of mass destruction, of everything that the U.S. Constitution stands for. Charlatan is too kind.

    I do not understand a GOP that shuns Senator Tom Coburn, but allows Ron Paul to claim to be a Republican. He is to the left of Dennis Kucinich, who has more integrity, and is more coherent.

    What happened to wanting someone who can stand on the debate stage with Obama?.

  • marktx

    RP will not be the nominee, we need to focus on defeating the socialists in the white house and senate.

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

      Right now, it’s more important to disavow this racist nutjob. He has potential to really damage the Republican brand and it’s important to treat him line the Zombie he is.

      • mikeymike143

        paul is not a conservative, and he is not a republican. ron is a liberal loon, just like his cult followers. and redstate is doing the honorable thing by continung to attack him.

  • lineholder

    Daily Beast is plugging Ron Paul for a win in Iowa and NH. And smearing all other Republicans in the process.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/26/peter-beinart-how-ron-paul-will-change-the-gop-in-2012.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+thedailybeast/articles+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles)

  • alfrombayshore

    Yeah I said that! For all the critiques of Ron Paul, which are valid and necessary, what’s up with the silence on his articulation of a economic theory that goes hand in hand a limited government political philosophy? Of course, I am fully aware that the crickets’ sound is about to come in for the GOP has big government/ statist tendencies they won’t own up to. My point? While you guys are properly vetting Paul you are also paying little, if any attention to the political and economic theories that endow him with appeal – something that few GOP candidates give serious committment to. Keep doing this and see where it gets you. Ron Paul’s crazy behind will run as a third party candidate, pull away the conservatives who are free market theory nerds and BINGO! The 2012 Inauguration will have Barack Hussein “The Marxist” Obama as its central figure. I like the criticism but what I detest is the failure of the GOP to see a relationship between Austrian economic theory and Classical Liberal thought. Go on wit’ ya’ bad selves and wonder why your “limited government” declarations are no longer believed.

    • Dave_A

      There is no separate ‘government money supply’, and thus contractionary monetary policy (as mandated by Austrian economics) would result in the abject destruction of the private sector through deflation.

      In an economy where people, by their own free-market choice, prefer buying things and borrowing to the hoarding of cash-money, you simply cannot adopt a ‘hard money’ monetary policy without causing massive economic destruction…

      No one cares about ‘price stability’ or how much ‘value’ the dollar has supposedly lost (using arbitrary measures) since 1913, when faced with the specter of lower wages or unemployment, and an across the board collapse of personal-property (not just real-estate, but EVERYTHING) values.

      Who cares if the $200 left in the bank from your last paycheck is gaining value, when everything else except your debts are losing value?

      The only way ‘hard money’ can choke off the growth of government, is if it’s allowed to choke off the growth of the entire economy.

      And that is a losing proposition.

  • lizzie

    Saw Gary Johnson on FOX late last night, and really hoping he does announce, and that might distract the Iowans for Paul who are attracted by his official platform.

    yeah, a Ron Paul win in Iowa will truly damage the GOP.

    I want to believe the Libertarian Party will reject Ron Paul, and then there is no way for Ron Paul to run as a third party candidate because time has run out for some state ballot access.
    No Labels has been assiduous on 50-state ballot access, but even they are smart enough to have a ‘super-committee’ to vet the online nomination process, which would be swarmed by the Paulbots.

    • tngal

      But he looks so lonely over there. :( While the GOP has gobs of people on its line. Maybe somebody could convince Ron Paul to join Johnson.

      http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/28/gary-johnson-announces-libertarian-presidential-bid/

  • heraklios

    I know the Libertarian Party has a ballot spot here in Kentucky but not sure how many states he will affect. I think he has the potential to pull 8-10& of the national vote, at least in the states where he is on the ballot. Since most of these will come from voters who usually go Republican this is a problem for Romney. Of course, if we would nominate Perry, Johnson is irrelevant in the race…..but of course as Republicans we’re too dumb to do the intelligent thing…

  • lizzie

    RCP linked Leon Wolf’s RS Post late Wednesday, so, congrats!, and mikeymike’s added commentary and RedState get a wider audience.
    Despite the risk to my health, I delved into Ron Paul news.google world in the wee hours.
    Jamie Kirchik, whose in depth 2008 The New Republic analysis on the Paul newsletters have been so widely noticed in Dec 2011, had a detailed blogpost at the NYT, intent on shifting the focus from the newsletters to Ron Paul’s welcome support from the extreme far-right. Without noting that GOP debate where Ron Paul downplayed the McVeigh Oklahoma City mass casualty bombing.

    The far left, what I label Code Pink/Free Gaza because the two groups have common founders/members, and extends into the anti-war far left convinced of the, their wording “AIPAC/Zionist/Neocon/Israel conspiracy that controls US foreign policy” drove me away from the Obama campaign in May 2008. (The resulting abandonment of any pretense to fiscal conservatism has driven me away from the Pelosi-Obama-Reid Democratic Party since 2009)

    So, after reading Kirckik’s post nine hours ago, I strated to wonder what will happen when Ron Paul’s extreme far left il-liberal post-modern transnational multicultarlist totalitarians discover they are in the same room with extreme far right ‘destroy the UN/NATO armed to the teeth militias’.

    from Kirchik http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/ron-pauls-world/

    “…As [Ron] Paul told The [New York] Times last week, he has no interest in dissuading the various extremists from backing his campaign, which is hardly surprising considering he?s spent three decades cultivating their support. Paul?s shady associations are hardly ?bygone? and the ?facts? of his dangerous conspiracy-mongering are very much ?in evidence.? Paul has not just marinated in a stew of far-right paranoia; he is one of the chefs.

    Of course, it is impossible to know what Ron Paul truly thinks about black or gay people or the other groups so viciously disparaged in his newsletters. What we do know with absolute certainty, however, is that Ron Paul is a paranoid conspiracy theorist who regularly imputes the worst possible motives to the very government he wants to lead.”

    James Kirchick is a contributing editor for The New Republic and a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
    http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/ron-pauls-world/

    For RedState readers who think The New Republic is ‘another liberal rag’, I have been reading TNR since 2008. Yes, on domestic US policy, TNR is definitely mainstream liberal, with a more storied legacy from the 1920′s when Walter Lippman was TNR’s voice.

    But, on foreign policy, TNR endures considerable screaming from the left, because Martin Peretz has been the owner for some time. His now rare blogposts/articles are always the most commented online posts.
    I am about to decide whether to renew for one more year, solely because of the foreign policy issues. Only place online where one can wrestle with nuance with a few other brave independents, about US foreign policy at this moment in history.

    Well, I still want to see the Youtube when CodePink meets AryanNation at a Ron Paul event :)