« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Why Ronald Reagan would STRONGLY OPPOSE the candidacy of Ron Paul

By: mikeymike143 (Diary)  |  September 8th, 2011 at 07:19 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

If he were alive today, Ronald Reagan would STRONGLY OPPOSE Ron Paul. Reagan believed in spending generously on our national defense and certainly had an interventionist foreign policy. And according to the Ron ”The Nutjob” Paul’s playbook, that would make the greatest president of my era ”a neocon”. Their policies and beliefs are totally and completely different.

Naturally Ron Paul’s followers will attempt to hide that fact by showing you an old video of Ronald Reagan praising Ron Paul as a candidate and using that as proof that Ronald Reagan would support Ron Paul in 2012. Now watch me dismantle that silly argument!!! Does anyone remember Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania? Arlen was the senator that everyone on tea party and conservative sites called a liberal RINO. He was challenged by a tea party backed conservative in the primary named Pat Toomey and when Specter saw how opposed conservatives were to his candidacy he changed parties to Democrat. He voted for TARP, Obama’s socialized health care plan, and was pro affirmative action and amnesty. Yet, Reagan praised him as a true conservative back in the 1980′s and even cut a campaign ad for him. But go ask a Pennsylvania tea partier what they think of Specter today. LOL. If you were a House or Senate member, and of course running as a Republican, Ronald Reagan would praise you as a candidate for office. That’s part of what a sitting president does for members of his party.

But rather than look at a 30 year old video let’s look at Ron Paul has to say about Ronald Reagan. In 1987, Ron Paul wrote a letter to Frank Fahrenkopf, chairman of the Republican National Committee, stating that he wanted to totally publically disassociate himself with the policies of Ronald Reagan(funny but he yet to publically disassociate with the 9-11 truther movement or Code Pink). He later told the Dallas Morning News that the presidency of Ronald Reagan was a ”dramatic failure”. OK, let’s take a look at the political success of both politicians and decide if that is true. In 2008 Ron Paul ran in the Republican primary for president. He got 5% of the vote. In other words, 95% OF THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY VOTERS REJECTED RON PAUL IN THE LAST ELECTION!!!! In 1984, Ronald Reagan was reelected as the president of the United States in a landslide, winning 49 out of 50 states, and his 525 electoral votes were the the most of any candidate in American history. Hmmm, I think we have to score this one for the Gipper.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mikeymike143

    nutjob ron paul, of course

  • mikeymike143

    they must be slow today. LOL

  • http://www.reddit.com/user/pi_over_three/ Pi Over Three

    saying it is a good idea for Iran to have nukes, and saying that short of invading it, there really isn’t anything we can do stop them.

  • jpmd

    Too funny, the plural spin on a singular issue- it

  • pblumel

    Ron was considered pro-defense by other Republicans back then, because the focus was on defending the U.S. from an aggressive global power with nuclear weapons aimed at our country. This was a period when traditional non-inventionists and neoconservatives (yes, the movement pre-dates Reagan) were partners in the Cold War. It was after the Cold War that these distinctions between traditional conservatives and neocons became so striking.

    By the standards of our day, Reagan was no neocon. The invasions of Iraq and Afhanistan and bombings of neighboring countries have no parallel during that era. Reagan bombed in retaliation (Libya) and also withdrew troops quickly (Lebanon) when it looked like they were in danger of being bogged down. It is not accurate to treat Reagan like a 1980s of George Bush. They were miles apart on foreign policy.

    By the way, I just read that letter to the Republican Party from 1986. It is excellent. I wish they would have heeded him. We wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today.

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

    Please, if you agree with Ron Paul 86, do as he did. Leave the party, leave this site, don’t return.

  • http://www.reddit.com/user/pi_over_three/ Pi Over Three

    /

  • mikeymike143

    both ron paul and his paulbots are looney in the head

  • http://www.reddit.com/user/pi_over_three/ Pi Over Three

    I read RS several times a week, but very seldom post.

    Over the last two years I have seen this place turn more and more into an echo chamber.

    Of course, I don’t post here much (I gather facts from here and debate liberals on reddit.com) so I guess I am part of the problem, but it saddens me that this is the best the right has to offer as far an online base goes: an echo chamber filled with poorly written entries like this one.

  • aesthete

    I’d like to point something out for the record: Reagan’s presidency *was* mostly a failure, at least domestically. It is an understandable failure, but it was a failure that was pointed out sorrowfully by Reagan himself in multiple places. Tip O’Neill, and many Republicans, made it quite impossible for Reagan to cut spending — at least, given that he *also* wanted to end the Soviet Union once and for all.

    Second, it is impossible to compare Reagan’s foreign policy with that of the modern Republican party one way or another, because the threats faced by both are incomparable to one another. I will say this: Reagan was much more circumspect about placing troops in harms’ way than the Truman, JFK, Johnson and Nixon administrations were. He *did* favor both upgrading our arsenal and funding insurgency movements and client states abroad, and in such differed from the Paul/non-interventionist folks. IMO, the non-interventionists forget about the “strength” part of Reagan’s axiom, “peace through strength” — but Republicans as of late have discarded the “peace” part of that statement.

    I have no idea how Reagan would have played in a world with no Soviet menace, and a status quo in which the US is the unilateral superpower. Here’s the thing: neither do the Paul folks, or the neo-conservatives, or the moderates, or…

  • xtreat

    As a active duty Army veteran of 2 tours of Iraq I am proud to say I am a Ron Paul supporter. I recently went with my whole shop to the Greenville, SC rally to see him.. That

  • mikeymike143

    we dont need a left wing idiot with a bunch of low class supporters pulling the republican party to the far left.

  • jpmd

    milkeymuck, it may help if Tea Party Lauderdale would date their stuff so we can see if it is relevant as America

  • mikeymike143

    that number speaks volumes as to the unpopularity of your nutjob demigod ron paul. and i am also a veteran so i dont know what that proves. LOL

  • Aaron Gardner

    I am a veteran. I support Rick Perry. I have been to Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Korea. My father fought in Vietnam, my grandfather and his brothers in WWII.

    Quit chickenhawking.

    You don’t speak for all veterans.

  • jpmd

    Go pay your $10 and look at the

  • Scope

    then why did you join the military, and why do you continue to stay in the military. This is especially a bothersome comment from a current military member-

    “We are tired of fighting your unconstitutional undeclared wars of aggression. We should not be put in a position where our loyalties to our oaths are tested.”

    The military is all “volunteer” and has been for quite a few years. Why did you join up?

    More concerning is the fact that you still have access to other military members which you can take back Ron Paul’s message, especially from many of his non-military supporters, you are nothing but a sell out to even join. If everyone would quit the military, then there would be no one left to do all that war mongering.

    I cried at the scenes and thoughts of all the rabid anti-war mongers who spit on our returning military members coming home from Viet Nam. They were baby killers, and murderers, and despite being sent to do a job, and putting their lives on the line, they were at fault for not hijacking it to Canada, or some other country in protest.

    I always love to thank each and every one of our brave military members. That is one thank you I can’t extend to you.

  • Scope

    You know I’ve supported your positions against Ron Paul from the beginning. Unfortunately, you will never “win” the argument when so many unfortunately give him credit for being right at least twice a day. It also involves those that will pick apart what they think is the low spots in his record, and dismiss him for those low spots. Happens all day every day. Keep up your agenda, someone has to, as I don’t have the stomach to address those that want to nitpick every part of his record, and declare him as a failure. I guess I have to wonder why he has been the president that even Obama and Paul want to attach themselves to.

  • devereaux

    Back in 2001 on the House Floor, Ron Paul predicted the Housing crash. Just about every thing that has happened to the economy since 2007 Congressman Paul was warning people six years before it happened.

    Do you think it is a coincidence that the other candidates at the debates are talking his issues??

    http://tinyurl.com/3bc86x3

  • Aaron Gardner

    nt

  • Scope

    Paul was actually late to the part with the housing crash. There were some that not only knew it was oncoming, but predicted it long before Paul decided to talk about it.

  • devereaux

    Thought every thing was fine. Every thing was great

    Peter Schiff, being ridiculed on TV back in 2006-07 for saying the saying the same things Ron Paul said in 2001

    http://tinyurl.com/67otdk

  • devereaux

    Ron Paul predicted it back in 1981 when he was on Ronald Reagan’s Gold Commission. Without the restraint of Gold, the Federal Reserve would create endless bubbles.

    Reagan understood this issue as well.

    Ronald Reagan:

  • mikeymike143

    after ron paul got annhilated in the republican primary in 2008, he did not endorse john mccain. instead he endorsed ralph nader, bob barr and cynthia mckinney.

    nader is the one of biggest proponents of big government controlling every aspect of your life in order to ”make things fair for all”.

    barr was the libertarian party candidate and paul is a RINO(republican in name only) who is really a libertarian so i understand this one.

    mckinney is a noted anti semite and truther and an american hating far left winger.

    normally, the losing politicians in a primary endorse the winning candidate. its considered classy to do so(which of course leaves out ron paul). but why would a politican who claims to be for liberty endorse ralph nader? ralph nader!!!

    and why would a politician who claims to be for the constitution endorse cynthia mckinney for POTUS. she was considered by many to be the most liberal member of the CBC(congressional black caucus)? sorry, but the CBC is as anti constitution as it gets and arent its members the ones who are currently attacking the tea party with race baiting.

    and these endorsements were only 3 years ago. LOL

    at the bare minimum, i would say that these endorsements show a complete lack of judgement on paul’s part. but i think he was endorsing them because they are closer to his true leftist values than john mccain was.

  • lomein

    I don’t remember exactly (wasn’t important at the time), but I seem to recall that Ron Paul didn’t endorse any of those other nuts you named. He held a press conference or something with them, but ended up endorsing the far-right Constitutional Party nominee I think.

    Might want to Google stuff like that before making claims, just a suggestion. :-)

  • lomein

    should fight this one out amongst yourselves. :-)

    Has Paul really received more in contributions from members of the military than all other GOP candidates combined? And more than Obama even?

    I find that hard to believe. But I guess it would give more credence to what SGT Treat was saying, I dunno. Fact checker needed! :-)

  • lomein

    If SGT Treat really is an active duty Army veteran of 2 tours of Iraq like he says, he sure deserves more respect than THAT.

    Do moderators really ban people for being disrespectful? I mean, I know it says that below this little box I’m typing in, but I don’t think I’ve seen it actually happen… first time for everything, I reckon! :-)

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

    nt

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

    You really need to get a life.

    In point of fact Ron Paul is a complete nutjob. He’s a 911 Truther, he knows nothing about economics despite the protests of his ignorant supporters and, among a whole boatload of things, he’s the ultimate hypocrite on government spending, immigration and a rash of other subjects.

    You really don’t want to get into this, you won’t do well.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Too bad he didn’t teach you reading comprehension.

    Here is what Sgt Treat said:

    Or maybe those of us who have actually seen the middle east know something that you don

  • JSobieski

    and I am paraphrasing here “Why shouldn’t they have nuclear weapons”.

    Big difference between its a bad thing that we can’t stop without making things worse, and “eh, no big deal” and then from “eh, no big deal” to “they want them because we are driving the Iranians to fear for their security”

    Ron Paul thinks Iran wants nukes because we are driving them to it. On this issue, Ron Paul’s thinking represents the worst of lefties during the Cold War.

  • lomein

    My daddy taught me that calling someone a “chickenhawk” was disrespectful. I ain’t talking about Ron Paul, who cares about him. If I support the War on Terror and someone calls me a “war monger,” I’d consider that disrespectful. I don’t see how the opposite ain’t true.

    But I reckon the mods pick and choose who is disrespectful, and who gets banned, so have at it, it’s your sandbox! :-)

  • kinghenry

    When we were on Gold there were asset Bubbles, all the time. “Bubbles” have happened since the modern economy was started by the Dutch with the Tulip bubble and have a long history.

  • mikeymike143

    Ron Paul to announce presidential endorsement plans

    WASHINGTON (CNN)

  • mikeymike143

    she was considered by many to be the most left wing member of the CBC(congressional black caucus). i dont see how she is supposed to be representing liberty or the constitution? but ron paul must have thought so since he endorsed her. paul is a lefty nutjob

  • lomein

    http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/

    Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin for President
    125 Responses

    By RonPaul.com on September 23, 2008

    In this important message to his supporters, Ron Paul explains the
    new alliance that is forming among freedom-loving third party supporters, expresses his regret for Bob Barr

  • kinghenry

    in the famous Tulip bubble, currency which was tied to Gold at the time had nothing to do with that Epic Bubble. Asset Bubbles have little if anything to do with monetary policy and everything to do with capitalism and the irrational human forces that can be in the laws of supply/demand.

    A gold standard didn’t stop the tulip bubble, canal bubble, the railroad bubble, etc. With fiat, you end up with inflation and recessions instead of uncontrollable depressions.

  • aesthete

    you read Milt Friedman’s “A Monetary History of the United States”. Monetary policy can and has created asset bubbles in the past, and had a lot to do with propping up the dot.com and housing bubbles.

  • Scope

    though it is highly doubtful that once one falls under the Paul brainwashed spell that they will ever change their minds. From my research on detoxing from a thorough propagandizing, it takes years to get those people out of their belief spell, and some unfortunately never leave it. I thank you for backing up your charges though.

  • Scope

    have gone from college campus to college campus selling his SDS’s type of propaganda. They/he knows that you have to get them young, when they have little life experience, little political knowledge, and little ability to differentiate between real life, and living off mom and dad, who really just don’t understand them.

  • aesthete

    …

  • lomein

    …that Ron Paul supporters don’t give money to the GOP???

  • lomein

    nt

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

    RonPaul, like his acolytes, is a pathetic, hypocritical, ignorant idiot. He should have been tossed out of the Republican Caucus. The guy is absolutely shameful.

  • lomein

    Like I said I would, I went and Googled what the Ron Paul supporters here seem to be claiming – that he predicted the economic crisis, that he’s been right on all this stuff, etc. etc.

    So, the answer seems to be kind of overwhelming that it’s true. But I think that’s got to be BS, right?

    I mean, holy crap, the YouTube videos alone are ginormous in number. WTH?

    And then, it being 9/11 and all… I kept getting multiple versions of THIS video pop up on me, where he “predicted the 9/11 attacks”? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXYd5eHfRIE

    Yeah, right. Like this guy is Nostradamus or something.

    Something’s off here. I’m trying to call BS, help me out here.

  • lomein

    (I don’t really care)

    :-)

  • Bill S

    If not, you’ve violated fair use guidelines. Your response to my question is mandatory, otherwise I will wipe out that comment and you may well lose your posting privileges.

  • xtreat

    It is true.

    http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jul/23/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-members-military-have-given-him-far-/

  • Scope

    It seems that according to the DOD code of ethics, you have already breached your loyalty oath.

    4.1.2 A member of the Armed forces shall not:

    4.1.2.6 Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

    From the document a href=”http://cape.army.mil/repository/materials/WhenSoldiersSpeakOut.pdf”>When a Soldier Speaks Out on about page 12, there is a story about 2 Army privates, who spoke words eerily similar to the ones you posted in your original comment. I’m not so sure that the military ethics have changed much since that case, but in your case you can hide behind a screen name, without fear of any reprisal.

  • mikeymike143

    and if you look at the top you will see i have over 3000 likes of this blog since thursday. that means at least 3000 different people read this diary and liked it. although i suppose it is hard for a paulbot to grasp the theory of only voting once on any online poll.

  • aesthete

    that conservative military members ostensibly violate whenever they post something on RedState, HotAir or Allahpundit to the effect of, “Rick Perry is the bomb!”, or “Obama’s war in Libya is boneheaded.”

    In truth, wide latitude is granted to troop postings online — far too many have blogs, participate in online discussions, and the like to make it practical or reasonable to tell them not to say anything about politics. Typically, activities like the ones Sgt Treat is engaging in are up to his CO’s discretion — they bump up against the line, and won’t do anything particularly good for future advancement, but it is up to the CO in question to determine if the remarks harm unit cohesion.

    More strictly regulated is participation in political rallies or groups in military apparel. While a soldier can attend a political rally, or help a political campaign, in civilian apparel and as a citizen, he *cannot* attend either group or support it in such a way that it appears that the Armed Forces are supportive of said group. If Sgt Treat attended a Ron Paul rally in uniform, used military funds and equipment in said rally, or spoke at the event in such a way as to bring military involvement into question? That would be an offense that would be treated severely. Otherwise, it’s treated in a manner similar to how online postings are treated — it is up to the CO’s discretion, and most COs are very permissive when it comes to what troops do politically on their own time.

  • Scope

    Of course SGT Treat won’t be exposed, he is posting under a screen name that protects’s him from any threat of discipline from his CO. That’s a given. As a self described libertarian, free speech, even among our military members should trump all. It is far more important to protect the individual than the ethics of the country military members, Got that.

    I thought we had an agreement that we would avoid each other’s comments. We don’t agree on much, and for that reason, I had suggested a truce of sorts, where we would not be at each other’s throats, like comments calling out the poster, rather than what the poster said. You couldn’t help yourself, and have to call me out with my posts, such as “Stay classy Scope.” You never addressed my comment, just went after a comenter you have a very sour attitude of. Stop it aesthete. Your dissagreable attitude is showing, and it is obviously beneath your other posts, where you argue on content, rather than arguing against a particular poster. Aren’t you the biggest poster against personal attacks, yet here you engage in what you post against.

  • aesthete

    Nothing in my post said anything about foreign policy, Paul’s or otherwise. I am not at all enthralled by Paul’s foreign policy. For that matter, I didn’t agree with a word that Treat said. I agree with Aaron’s statement. There’s a difference between disagreement, even of the strident sort, and flat-out attacking someone’s military record and character based on their political affiliations. Calling someone who’s defending you a “sell-out” just because you don’t like what they have to say is juvenile: it’s the sort of thing used by the left when they know they don’t have an argument.

    As far as Sgt Treat being “exposed”, I’m a military brat, and I (very briefly) enlisted in the USAF. That by no means makes me an expert on the subject, but it makes me expert enough to know that your interpretation of the code of conduct isn’t close to real-world application. Heck, basic logic would have helped you out on that one: scores of active-duty military members post on RS and other political sites without repercussion, and so long as these postings don’t allege support from the military as an institution, use military funds or give their CO reason for alarm, it’s not a big deal. Ditto with rallies: plenty of active-duty military have been involved in the Tea Parties on their own time, their own dime, and in their capacity outside the military. Sgt Treat sure is gonna have a hard time getting promoted if that attitude of his is made public at his workplace (esp depending on which branch he’s in), but otherwise he should be fine. This has nothing to do with libertarian vs conservative; you’re just ignorant of what the code of ethics compels.

  • lomein

    It looks like you’re saying that if a Congressman is proven right, but he wasn’t able to convince all of the others who ended up being wrong, then he should be tossed out of their Caucus. Is that your argument?

    BTW, I’m not sure I agree that he was right, or predicted things correctly. I’m going to go Google this stuff, I simply have trouble believing that Ron Paul could have known any of this stuff was coming when no one else seemed to. I’m gonna call BS if I find otherwise.

    Off to Google! Google is my friend! :-)

  • aesthete

    a) Ron Paul supporters (or at least, the crazy ones that the internet produces in abundance) refuse to admit that Ron Paul makes many doomsday pronouncements, such that at least one of them is bound to resemble reality.

    b) While it is not relevant to the question of whether Ron Paul caucuses with Republicans, the question of Ron Paul’s effectiveness *is* relevant to his aspirations for the Presidency.

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

    you should spend more time with him.

    First of all, roughly a bazillion people predicted the collapse of the housing market as far back as 2002.

    Second, RonPaul has been in Congress 22+ years. He has yet to manage to get one other Member to work with him on any of his “issues”.

    Third, as far as getting tossed from the Republican Caucus, the jerk refused to support McCain against Obama and had a press conference where he praised Cynthia McKinney and suggested his followers vote for her.

    Fourth, RonPaul is a 911 Truther. Check out the video he posted YESTERDAY. You can find it here…

    This stuff is just the tip of the iceberg.

    This guy, and his followers are a cancer.

  • mikeymike143

    this poster jpmd has posted here 3 times. all 3 times are attacking people who posted against ron paul. no posts on any other subject. LOL. the paulbot trolls are so obvious

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

    the housing bubble, trying to comply with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd’s vision of putting low income people in their own homes.

  • lomein

    So, if I support the War on Terror, and I tell other people that they should support the War on Terror, and they call me a “war monger”, then that’s OK for them to do, because what they called me was definitionally correct, in that I am promoting a specified activity?

    No… I think my daddy would still call the act of calling someone else a disparaging name that they wouldn’t apply to themselves, “disrespectful”.

    He’d also say that someone was being disrespectful when they attacked another person’s daddy’s teaching ability.

  • Bill S

    Or maybe those of us who have actually seen the middle east know something that you don

  • lomein

    I can’t seem to find a reference to a gazillion CONGRESSMEN predicting the collapse of the housing market. In fact, I only get one result from Google in terms of Congressmen who predicted it: http://tinyurl.com/686g8t2

    And all of the idiotic Truthers I’ve slammed to the ground intellectually claimed that the government blew up the World Trade Center. I don’t hear that Paul guy saying anything like that in the link you posted (honest discussion of motivation for terrorist attacks is not cause for labeling someone a Truther, unless we’re going to do that to former CIA bigwigs, 9/11 Commissioners, etc.). I’ve had such honest discussions with the most conservative people I know, and I’d never call them 9/11 Truthers (unless I wanted my teeth knocked out). Do you have another link where Paul’s actually talking like a real Truther talks? That would be dynamite. (no pun intended)

    There were a lot of Republicans who wouldn’t support the less liberal McCain against the more liberal Obama. I had family members refuse my offer of rides to the polls that day, because they said they couldn’t vote for a liberal. I had to respect that, even if I disagreed with it. Respecting other conservatives is part of being a conservative.

    Doesn’t mean I respect Ron Paul for endorsing the Constitutional Party nominee, but at least that guy was conservative.

    Oh, and it’s “lomein”, as in “Lo Mein”. Like, the Chinese dish. :-)

  • devereaux

    I just watched that video and there’s nothing in it that suggests Ron Paul is 9/11 Truther. Nothing!! He’s just repeating what our CIA and even the official 9/11 report said. We got atatcked because we put troops in Saudi and placed an embargo on Iraq which included medicine. Thousands of Iraqi children died due to lack of proper medicine. Sixty Minutes did a segment on our embargo and they claim up to 500 thousand Iraqi children died.

    Can you point out some of the bazzilion people that predicted the housing collapse. I can name quite a few, but they’re all schooled in Austrian economics like Ron Paul.

    In 2004-05 the Bush adm did try and reform Fannie & Freddie

    I didn’t vote for Bush in 2004 or McCain in 2008. Voted for Goldwater in 1964, was living in Munich Germany in 1968, Then voted for Nixon in1972. So Bush 2004 broke a string of voting GOP in seven straight elections.

  • lomein

    ’cause I’ve seen a lot of fellow supporters of the War on Terror, who happen to be in the military, use the same line to back their support. “I’m in the military, I’ve been there, I know what I’m talking about, you liberals don’t.”

    It’s a good line. I hope they don’t get banned for using it! :-)

  • Aaron Gardner

    you can’t fix stupid.

    Not even sure why I tried.

  • lomein

    or MikeyMike?

    I posted a press release, which by definition are released in order to be reposted anywhere and everywhere (they hope). There are no copyright restrictions on it.

    MikeyMike posted a copyrighted CNN report, a copyrighted Wall Street Journal Report, and a copyrighted Los Angeles Times report.

    But please, I think you should leave the posts alone, personally. They contribute well to this conversation, which is a good think for a blog like RedState.

  • Bill S

    And posting portions of an article is fine, which is what mikeymike did. It is NOT fine to post an article in its entirety.