« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

What, If Anything, Could Convince a Ronulan Not to Vote for Ron Paul?

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  December 27th, 2011 at 07:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The latest Ron Paul revelation of the day is that, apparently, he would not have sent American troops to Europe in World War II to stop the Holocaust. I mean, we’re getting to the point where this sort of thing isn’t even surprising anymore. To me, the key passage in this particular story is this:

Paul then looked at me, and I politely thanked him for his time. He smiled at me again and nodded his head, and many of his young followers were also smiling, and nodding their heads in agreement. Clearly, I was the only one in the room who was disturbed by his response.

I think we are long past the point where supporting Paul has become a status symbol of sorts for his supporters. Supporting Paul doesn’t say as much about Paul as it does about you and how hip you are. You are not “Establishment,” you reject conventional thought about how a Presidential candidate should look and act, you are blazing the path for future third way candidates. Consider this fawning and servile piece by Tim Carney in which we are informed that it is the “GOP Establishment” that has improperly drawn “the bounds of permissible dissent” at excluding racist cranks, 9/11 truthers, and propagandists for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Yes, Ron Paul is the Barack Obama of 2012, and Tim Carney is playing the part of Andrew Sullivan.

As the hits keep pouring in (and they are not nearly done), I am left to honestly wonder what would convince his supporters of the truth – that they are actually on the butt end of a cruel joke wherein instead of looking cool and hip the world at large is appalled at their willingness to smile and nod at literally every crazy thing he says. I have long theorized that the base of Paul’s support is hardcore anti-war leftists who find Barack Obama insufficiently dovish. However, at least some of his support is ostensibly Republican and/or non-insane Independent. What would it take at this point to convince these people that they’re just embarrassing themselves by holding fast to this flawed vessel? Compromising pictures of Paul with a male goat? Video footage of Paul suggesting that the Government wants to build a wall on the Mexican border to keep United States citizens from fleeing to Mexico? What?

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Crash71234

    Virginia Republicans are telling me I can only vote for Romney or Paul.

    I will not vote again in any election until I retire to Savannah in 2021.

    Out.

    • tercel

      Romney = Big Wall Street
      Gingrich = Big Washington
      Paul = 9-11 was our fault, Iran deserves a nuclear weapon because Israel has one, legalized drugs, legalized prostitution, doing away with age of consent, doing away with Social Security and Medicare
      Bachmann = Washington and no executive experience
      Santorum = Washington and no executive experience

      Washington and Wall Street are what got us into this mess in the first place.

      Rick Perry is all three legs of the conservative stool and a proven winner.

      Economic conservative: 45% of all the jobs created in the entire US in the last 2 years have been created in Texas under Governor Perry’s leadership of low taxes, low regulation, and tort reform. Businesses are flocking to Texas and bringing their jobs with them. He has been a successful executive of the world’s 13th largest economy and the 2nd largest state for 11 years. http://www.willisms.com/archives/2011/11/perry_versus_ob.html

      Social conservative: Perry’s convictions are genuine and he has always been pro-life. Under his leadership, Planned Parenthood has been defunded in TX and Parental Consent laws have been passed. He will choose strict constructionist judges as he has proven to do in Texas.

      National Security conservative: Perry is the only candidate running who volunteered and served in the US military. This was during Vietnam. Not drafted and no deferment. He attained the rank of Captain in the US Air Force. He understands the border issues and the threat that enemies of our country want to come in through our porous border. He is not the least bit afraid to stand up to a mad-man like the president of Iran. He is pro-2nd amendment. Conceal and carry laws were passed under his watch.

      He is a winner. He has been re-elected Governor 3 times. He has never lost a race and he has been down in the polls and counted out before.

      For those that want a “not-Romney” convictional consistent conservative with a proven track record of winning that is not the least bit afraid to take it to Obama, Rick Perry is the man for the job.

      • romansdaughter

        I agree that Rick Perry is the only candidate that has the three legs of the conservative stool and cannot understand what in the world conservatives are thinking with their support of some of the other candidates. I am still praying and hoping the conservatives wake up and realize that there is many other issues way more important than if you can debate good. Besides Rick Perry has even gotten better at debates. I would rather have a President that thought a bit before he spouted out than someone who spouts out and then thinks about it later.

      • edmundburkeconservative

        Personally I’m a Mitt Romney man to the core, but I see old Newt and I just lick my chops.

        These two men are strong, with character and will stand up to Washington, and won’t let Iran hurt us no more.

        I have spoken.

        • acat

          The Persians aren’t nearly the threat that the tribal Pakistanis are…. and the tribal Pakistanis aren’t nearly the threat that fools like Ron Paul are.

          Mew

          • edmundburkeconservative

            well ain’t you just a paultard, boy?

            We got a name for you people, and it ain’t conservative!

            Its traitor.

            Well, I bet you just want Amanadinajad to have nukes, huh?

            You want to see a mushroom cloud over NYC?

          • acat

            (null)

          • jakeofalltrades

            n/t

          • acat

            At one point, gekster and I were comparing who’d been called what.

            I think this one’s going in the record book.

            Mew

          • snowshooze

            But it was soo bad, I don’t know if it should be honored or simply ignored.
            Yeah, I am thinking it is humor.

          • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

            Fear not, we shall defend your honor!

          • romansdaughter

            Wow, that is a new one. LOL

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

            Stupid.

            Ignorant.

            Fool.

            Pick one or use them interchangeably.

    • tercel

      Romney = Big Wall Street
      Gingrich = Big Washington
      Paul = 9-11 was our fault, Iran deserves a nuclear weapon because Israel has one, legalized drugs, legalized prostitution, doing away with age of consent, doing away with Social Security and Medicare
      Bachmann = Washington and no executive experience
      Santorum = Washington and no executive experience

      Washington and Wall Street are what got us into this mess in the first place.

      Rick Perry is all three legs of the conservative stool and a proven winner.

      He is a winner. He has been re-elected Governor 3 times. He has never lost a race and he has been down in the polls and counted out before.

      Economic conservative: 45% of all the jobs created in the entire US in the last 2 years have been created in Texas under Governor Perry’s leadership of low taxes, low regulation, and tort reform. Businesses are flocking to Texas and bringing their jobs with them. He has been a successful executive of the world’s 13th largest economy and the 2nd largest state for 11 years. http://www.willisms.com/archives/2011/11/perry_versus_ob.html

      Social conservative: Perry’s convictions are genuine and he has always been pro-life. Under his leadership, Planned Parenthood has been defunded in TX and Parental Consent laws have been passed. He will choose strict constructionist judges as he has proven to do in Texas.

      National Security conservative: Perry is the only candidate running who volunteered and served in the US military. This was during Vietnam. Not drafted and no deferment. He attained the rank of Captain in the US Air Force. He understands the border issues and the threat that enemies of our country want to come in through our porous border. He is not the least bit afraid to stand up to a mad-man like the president of Iran. He is pro-2nd amendment. Conceal and carry laws were passed under his watch.

      He is a winner. He has been re-elected Governor 3 times. He has never lost a race and he has been down in the polls and counted out before.

      For those that want a “not-Romney” convictional consistent conservative with a proven track record of winning that is not the least bit afraid to take it to Obama, Rick Perry is the man for the job.

  • btpull

    Too many Iowanians will be concerned about losing their first primary position if Paul wins.

    • tercel

      Ron Paul has served in Congress three different periods totaling 24 YEARS! If that doesn’t make you Washington, I don’t know what does.

      Paul has added earmarks but routinely votes against most spending bills returned by committee that he knows full well, will pass. He can claim “purity” of voting against spending bills while “bringing home the bacon” to his district. Paul compared his practice to objecting to the tax system yet taking all one’s tax credits: “I want to get their money back for the people.”

      41 earmarks requests totaling $157,093,544

      hyp?o?crite? ?[hip-uh-krit] noun a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

      In 1987, Paul’s years between congressional terms, his news letter business added the more controversial Ron Paul Political Report. Many articles lacked a byline, yet often invoked Paul’s name or persona. Critics have cited statements in the newsletter that they described as racist, such as 95% of black men in Washington, DC being “semi-criminal or entirely criminal”, and the advice about using an unregistered gun to defend against black criminals.

  • renl57

    I think Ron Paul is a jerk,

    but the question asked is rather dumb.

    FDR didn’t send troops to Europe to stop the Holocaust either.

    In fact, once our forces got back onto continental Europe and we had more intel on what was happening in the concentration camps, some Jews in America urged FDR to bomb the camps and stop any further killings of Jews there.

    FDR refused.
    And he was right to refuse.

    We didn’t start the war to save the Jews or do nation-building in Europe. We started the war to put an end to the Axis powers. Anything else would have been a distraction.

    There have been other ethnic cleansings since–in Biafra, in Darfur, in the Balkans. And I have been generally opposed to putting U.S. forces in harms’ way in any of these. At least not without a vital U.S. interest at stake.

    Now: FDR was absolutely right to go to war against Japan because Japan had attacked us directly first.

    Had Adolf Hitler not stupidly declared war on America, I can’t see what rationale FDR could have used to declare war on him first. (Germany’s treaty with Japan required Germany to come to Japan’s aid if Japan were attacked. It did NOT obligate Germany to aid any Japanese aggression.)

    • skorrent1

      The question almost demanded a negative answer. Should we invade any country “purely as a moral imperative” without any “threat to the US”? The UN-created “R2P” doctrine is based on an affirmative, if selective, response to a “moral imperative” irrespective of national interests.

      Without getting all Buchannon-like about the causes of WWII, it’s pretty clear that the FDR administration considered it a “vital national interest” to side withe Allies against the Axis, which they did, more or less subtly, before 12/7/41.

    • separatewayz

      The intervention of the U.S. against Germany and Japan prior to the declaration of war against Japan (on December 8, 1941) had nothing to do with preventing the Holocaust, in the most narrow sense. Viewed in its broader context, the Holocaust was a *part* of the total war (totalitarianism) waged by one Axis power (Nazi Germany), being one of the two primary Axis powers (Germany and Japan), against the subjugated peoples of Europe and Asia, respectively. The U.S. intervened (prior to the declaration of war against Japan, and prior to Germany’s declaration of war against the U.S. on December 11, 1941, and vice versa) to prevent the expansion of Axis hegemony in Europe and Asia and protect its national interests. Defeat of German totalitarianism and Japanese imperialism was the goal, not the prevention of the Holocaust.

      So the question posed by the author of the original post is a bit irrelevant. Ron Paul is wrong on a whole host of foreign policy issues, but I’m not sure this question achieved the “gotcha” effect it intended, for the reasons I gave above.

      By the way, I’m not sure Adolf Hitler’s declaration of war against the U.S. was entirely impetuous. In early December 1941, the German armies were at the gates of Moscow, just as winter was setting in. Hitler needed the Soviet armies in East Asia (who had crushed the Imperial Japanese army in the Battles of Khalkhin Gol in 1939, resulting in the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Agreement) to remain exactly there, tied-down, and not brought to the Soviet western front, to relieve the Soviets. Hitler’s declaration of war against the U.S. was probably a strategic agreement between Germany and Japan: Germany would attempt to split American forces between the Pacific and Europe, just as Japan would attempt to keep Soviet forces split between the Russian Eastern front and the Western front.

      As it turned-out, if this is true, Hitler’s fears would be entirely well-founded. After the German armies turned south to Stalingrad (in an attempt to choke-off Russian oil supplies), it was some of these same Soviet Asian forces that were brought to Stalingrad and used to crush the German armies.

      If you look at close-up photos of Soviet soldiers after their Stalingrad victory, a large number of them are clearly Asian.

      http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=6240

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Review the cult like followers of most extremists in history. You will largely find a fanatical thread whereby ignominious revelations about their leader generally bring an even deeper fanaticism.

    These people are not rational thinkers and therefore won’t be dissuaded by facts. They develop what I would call an almost surreal, paranoid. God-like vision of their leader. He can do no wrong. Nothing can stop the mission. There are no wrong actions, only inaction is destructive, etc.

    We have engaged enough of these cultists to know they are ill-informed, exhibit extraordinarily poor judgement, irrational and not deterred by factual arguments. Hence the reason they are banned in places like RS where most reasonably expressed, rational points of view are welcomed.

    I have said it before. If Ron Paul finishes in the top three Iowa contenders, it is time to rethink their “first in the nation status”. That placement in the caucuses would be neither representative nor even closely related to what most GOP members believe. It will damage or eventual candidate and the image of our party at large.

  • gonzo55

    Extremists demagogues often ride a wave of popular support to power (Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Dear Leader Obama). When they actually take office and are proven to be wildly incompetent (see esp. Dear Leader Obama), their supporters just double down, claiming their idol is hamstrung by the opposition, or just waiting for the right time to give the rest of us the benefit of their wisdom. So this crowd (i.e. Obama and Paul voters) are not especially responsive to (blindingly obvious) facts, even the fact that their leaders are not fit to run a Wendy’s, much less the largest democracy in the world.

  • rec0n

    than Ron Paul engaging in an incoherent rambling diatribe that begins with “if only we had a strong economy we wouldn’t attract illegal immigrants” and ends with “we shouldn’t have a fence because the boogeyman behind Bush #3 will use it to keep us in”.

    The man is not only a paranoid loon that creates conspiracies where none exist and has repeatedly revised history to exclude any reality that doesn’t serve his narrative – he’s fecking senile.

  • aesthete

    …

  • Pingback: click here