« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Ron Paul’s Post-Debate Moneybomb

By: tooncesthecat (Diary)  |  May 7th, 2011 at 12:20 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Immediately following the Republican Presidential Debate, Ron Paul has received over $1million and counting in donations, according to Ron Paul’s Exploratory Committee web-site ( www.ronpaul2012.com ).  In addition, based on the latest CNN poll, taken before the debate,  ”Who does best against Obama? Paul. The congressman from Texas, who also ran as a libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and who is well liked by many in the tea party movement, trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown. Huckabee trails by eight points, with Romney down 11 points to Obama. The poll indicates the president leading Gingrich by 17 points, Palin by 19, and Trump by 22 points.”  Paul had a huge lead over Obama among independents in that same poll.

Efforts to marginalize Paul by the Fox News reporters during the debate simply backfired.  Paul, for example, got a roar of approval from the on-site audience when, in response to Chris Wallace’s question about the decriminalization of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, Paul said that the people of South Carolina were smart enough not to use heroin without being told to by the federal government.  Paul’s proposal to cut off foreign aid, particular the $3 billion a year going to Pakistan has widespread tea party support.  And his decision to attend a tea party rally in Greenville after the debate instead of appearing on Hannity, shows he understands how to seal the deal with South Carolina voters.  Don’t be surprised to see Paul climbing in the polls over the next few weeks.  Given Johnson’s performance in the debate, Paul seemed like the “responsible” libertarian.  If most of the tea party unites behind him (as opposed to Bachmann or Palin, who both missed opportunities by blowing off this debate), he could easily shoot to the top of the polls.  I know there are a lot of Ron Paul haters out there.  I’m not supporting him.  I’m stating facts.  This time, his campaign isn’t a joke.  It’s for real.

Tags: , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    And his campaign will, once again, denigrate into a clown act.

    The only people who are more unhinged than Paul are his idiot followers. Hopefully we’ll get back to banning the jerks on sight quickly.

    • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

      I don’t think it’s amazing. He raised over $6 million in 24 hours last time around. But this time the field is weaker and he starts with a loyal base, no matter how much you want to denigrate them. People underestimated Christine O’Donnell in the primary also. How’d that work out for our side?

      • powertothepeople

        to me, so I will respond this post.

        There is no comparison to O’Donnell and Paul. Christine has not spend many years and many campaigns spewing the same tired nonsense like Paul has. He stands no chance winning the primary even if he tripled his support. So this will be yet another election year where we have to hear his nonsense, have to waste time with the idiots who support him, and in the end he will be lucky to get 5%.

        There is not one redeeming quality about Ron Paul or the jackasses that support him.

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

        CO’D – running in a short primary, got tons of money from Tea Party people who didn’t know her, was running against a guy who didn’t show up to campaign because the nomination was his by devine right.

        RP – if he’s still around when things heat up, he’ll have not even the equivalent of chump change. He’ll be running against very well funded, very well organized campaigns in a long primary cycle. In addition to being not well funded ($6M won’t get through NH or Iowa) he’s got absolutely no organization – and a loose band of nitwits (take that personally) is not a winning political organization. In a long election cycle he’s going to have to make lots of personal appearances and, with the exception of [ ]s like you, RP in person is like watching a clown show. He’s also going to be running against people who don’t take their election for granted and who will show up and work for the nomination.

        Your jerk won’t get close to 10%. Anywhere.

        Oh, and if he did get the nomination it would work out like O’Donnell’s. Except he wouldn’t come close to 35% in the general.

      • Doc Holliday

        it worked out pretty bad because both candidates were abysmal.

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    If nothing else, Paul’s idiot followers are willing to put their money where their loud mouths are. This time, however, Paul has a chance to expand beyond his libertarian base. A main difference between 2008 and 2012 is the tea party. Another major difference is “war fatigue, which plays to Paul’s strong suit. Finally, the issues this time will be debt, deficit, and Obamacare–issues where Paul has street cred. Just because mainstream Republicans don’t take him seriously, doesn’t mean that Republican voters won’t put him in the top three this time in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. And if Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty are the other two candidates coming South, Paul could very well win the South Carolina primary. I’m talking to a lot of regular South Carolina Republican voters who are strongly leaning his way. And, historically, if you win South Carolina, you win the nomination.

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

      He is totally ignorant about monetary policy and finance and his foreign policy views are bordering on criminal.

      The idiots who support him don’t show up to vote if he’s not on the ballot and the money they give doesn’t come out of the coffers of other candidates, it just comes off their family’s table. Which is a good thing. RonPaul supporters should not be allowed to breed.

      RonPaul has NO street cred. He has cred with people who should be in a mental institution. And he won’t come in even a long way from second in South Carolina.

      • sambachico

        I’m sure glad you are not running the country. That would be one hell of a dictatorship not too far off from Hitlers wet dream of a fascist, neocon race. I guess you’d be putting flouride in my well water to ensure I don’t reproduce.

        I’ve already bred, several times so I guess it’s too late for that. I have three beautiful kids who are provided for.

        BTW, I’m also voting for Dr. Paul this time. The only one who is consistent. Romney and the remainder of those in the debate are the clown salesman trying to sell me their B.S. that I bought on the last-go around. (Romney) Paul has plenty of cred with the younger generation and those disenfranchised by the neocon / bailout / fascist Bush policies for almost a decade.

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

            Why don’t you look at mbecker908′s inflammatory comments and ban him for a change.

            If I am banned for commenting that I disagree with his analysis that I should not reproduce then this site might as well be called ‘red commie state’ or redhate instead of redstate. No thought or expression allowed that disrupts the status quo around here.

        • aesthete

          Heh.

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

        Wow, you really hate Ron Paul! But FYI, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page has nothing but praise for his views on monetary policy. Over the past few months they’ve run several big op-eds very complimentary of the congressman. I’d link to them but you have to subscribe(I do) to the Journals website.

        The NY Sun is equally enthusiastic about the congressman

        http://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-eclipse-of-ben-bernanke/87250/

        http://www.nysun.com/editorials/ron-pauls-moment/87141/

        As for his foreign policy? It is right out of the Old Right. Mr Republican Robert Taft and Howard Buffett– Warren’s father. They fought FDR and Truman over their liberal internationalism. It was called Heartland Conservatism. Northeast Republicans sided with the liberal internationalists. We shouldn’t police the world because it was too expensive.

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

            Much of a reply.

  • sandbun

    He’s got his very vocal, active base, but there’s very little room for him to grow. He’s actually had face time with most active Republicans, and the majority still don’t like him, and there’s a very vocal active base that actively hates him.

    The two party system that we have works horribly for him, he’d pull some Dem voters that hate the war and want pot to be legal from Obama in a general election, but in a Republican primary those people don’t count so he goes nowhere. That pull he has with independents means a whole lot of nothing until the general election.

    That’s not to say it’s a waste of time to support him, he has moved the conversation in his direction a lot in 4 years (Audit the Fed), and will likely continue to do so. In many ways he is winning the fight, slowly but surely. But he’s not a candidate that can win the nomination.

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

        Just lifted that for Twitter.

        https://twitter.com/presjpolk/status/66871215691792384

        • Doc Holliday

          I love when people quote me :)

      • conservativecurmudgeon

        Maybe he’d take a couple of those huge round boulders with holes in them that the stone-age Papua New Guineans used to use.

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

      He has supporters who are delusional, ignorant fools. He hasn’t moved the conversation one iota in 22 years. He has zero influence among his collegues. If you think RonPaul has accomplished something, why isn’t it HIS budget proposal that the Republicans marked up?

      Not only is the brain dead fool not “winning” the fight (unless you are talking in Charlie Sheen terms), he’s not even IN the fight.

      The only thing about RonPaul that is “interesting” is whether or not after he gets his ass roundly kicked – again – in the primaries he will support the Republican nominee this time. If he pulls the same crap as last time, hopefully the party will toss him out of the Republican Caucus in the House.

    • aesthete

      Yeah, all five of them.

      The war was a political rod to beat Republicans over the head with, nothing more. Look at the emaciated state of the current anti-war movement if you don’t believe me. In point of fact, Bush’s foreign policy was more center left than anything, and was heavily influenced by those on the center left: New Democrat holdovers from the Clinton era, Tony Blair, and several neo-conservatives were at the heart of Bush’s shift in foreign policy aims in the post-9/11 world. More likely than not, Gore would have gotten us involved in both Afghanistan and Iraq (though their prosecution might have looked different).

      The anti-war left has never been particularly strong in the US. In the 70s, it was a big deal because of the draft and because of guys who wanted to get laid: it was just the good luck of the anti-war movement that it converged with the counter-cultural movement and pro-socialist movements.

      As for pot, heh. Let me know when all those pro-pot Democrats get serious about rolling back the drug war. Besides a few fringe single-issue voters, there aren’t many out there who will change their vote based on a candidate’s stance on drugs. I’d like for the WoD to end, but there really isn’t much political gain to be had from supporting such an end. (Though there isn’t a disadvantage to it anymore either, so that’s progress.)

  • devereaux

    Has a long history of trashing Ron Paul.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6UO731mEoc

    Someone should have been fired!

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

      Ron Paul, anti-freedom, anti-Constitution shill for Communiist butchers should be fired.

      We need a real Republican. A Reagan Republican or a Goldwater Republican, not a porker like Ron Paul.

      • obviousliberal

        Bad example.

        • Doc Holliday

          Goldwater changed the Republican party and set the stage for the Reagan Revolution.

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

      someone and it’s considered “trashing”.

      RonPaul doesn’t need anyone to trash him, he does it every time he opens his mouth.

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    The only thing that counts at this point in the campaign is how much money you can put in the bank. Paul put in over a million dollars in the 24 hours after the first debate. How much did tpaw, cain and santorum raise? They aren’t saying, so I would guess not very much. Long after everyone forgets what happened in the first debate and even who the five candidates were on-stage that night, the moneybombs will keep coming for Ron Paul. If any of the rest of these clowns that were onstage is a viable candidate, then put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, quit ridiculing Dr. Paul and the Paulettes.

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

      He’s a troofer, is a Nazi enabler, a southeast Asia Communist murderer enabler, an ignorant fool on monetary policy and foreign policy for starters.

      He’s been in the Congress for over twenty years and accomplished exactly nothing. Paul Ryan has accomplished significantly more in a very short time. RonPaul should be tossed from the Republican Caucus and it’s to their shame they didn’t toss him for this Congress.

      Oh, and the first paragraph goes double for his “supporters”. I’m good with them sending him money, hopefully they’ll starve as a result.

      • conservativecurmudgeon

        Although I don’t wish starvation on anyone; after all, the country will need these earnest (yet HUGELY, sometimes willfully, mal-informed) Ron Paul Roadies when brass-tack time comes in November, 2012.

        I just don’t “get” the attraction of “Doctor” Ron Paul. Further, where the hell does all the money come from? If he was THAT big a Republican attraction, based on the sums of money, why does he never WIN anything? It’s bizarre.

        His approach to foreign policy is a disgrace; That he finds even a shred of American culpability for the 9/11 attacks is nauseating. If he’s not an Anti-Jewish bigot, then he sure plays one on TV.

        Frankly, he reminds me of the old coot in the donut shop whose been shooting his mouth off about all the nut-job JFK conspiracies from the same Naugahyde booth he’s sat in for the last forty years: Even after every one of the most kooky theories have been debunked for decades, he keeps bloviating like nothing’s changed, and that facts don’t matter. And he can’t hear you because his hearing aid batteries are dead.

        • devereaux

          You should ask his old friend Lewis Lehrman if he’s anti Jewish

          http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/03/prweb5176924.htm

        • Doc Holliday

          for people who would like a libertarian-conservative, a real deal small gov type. If someone as off putting as Paul can get such support, it shows some of the ideas are good, although the messenger is a train wreck.

          unfortunately, some of the ideas are horrible and we don’t know for sure how many of his supporters love him for the horrible ideas. Either way, Paul is too late, he stood out in 2008 because he was running against big gov types. Now only the Huckabee truly claims to be for big government, with Mitt and Gingrich trying to fake it.

          Man, the more I think about it, our field bites.

          • conservativecurmudgeon

            …being pleasantly surprised.

            For example, I was impressed with the passion and go-get-Obama fire-and-brimstone rhetoric that emerged from the first GOP Dog-n-Pony show in South Carolina last week. Good stuff to hear, and this is the sort of thing that’s needed to set the Trumpsters back on their heels a bit.

            Also, I hadn’t heard a politician deliver a speech like Sarah Palin did in Madison, Wisconsin several weeks ago. Man, she was on fire, and ready to lead. I’ve also heard both Rick Santorum and Newt on the prowl recently, and they aren’t pulling any punches, either… At least not at the moment.

            Just remember the fall of 1979… Lowell Weicker was the GOP’s golden boy, followed by Howard Baker, John Anderson and George HW Bush. Reagan was an ancient kook, far too reactionary for the 80′s. He was both a has-been actor, and a has-been politician.

            –Then the debates and the campaign hit. I think we will produce a Reagan out of this. I really do– the times (Carter, Iran, OPEC and so on) helped create Reagan… timing is crucial. And Obama is a walking, breathing bull-in-the-china-shop disaster, and America knows it.

          • Doc Holliday

            I am a loyal guy, there will be a time very soon where I stop criticizing the field. I expect surprises and figure the best man will get the nod. It is early, so we have that going for us.

            My concern is that I could name several people that could really challenge Obama, but they don’t want to run. If Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Christie, and even George Allen would step up, it would change things. I get the feeling that some Republican operatives think this is like the 1984 election, where the Dems served up a lamb for the slaughter. I just don’t get the feeling that everyone thinks we must defeat Obama at all costs. Too many seem to want to wait until 2016.

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

            She just talks at them. If she’s going to run she’s going to have to deal with them and I don’t think that will be pretty.

          • Doc Holliday

            she deserves a lot of the blame, but so does the drive by media.

          • conservativecurmudgeon

            …and I’m not ready to say she’s ruined yet, for a very couple of important reasons (not yet, at any rate..):

            1) She’s a tough broad, and seems to handle herself very well under the relentless attacks. This, too, is crucial. The long knives will come out without regard to who the GOP nominates, and the deftness with which they handle the leftist-media complex is another crucial element. She’s proven (-and then some) her mettle in this regard.

            2) She has a very well funded and managed PAC. She’s got a pretty decent well of reserves, and that might prove decisive, as well.

            3) She’s already been involved in a nationwide post-nomination campaign, and she strikes me as a person the doesn’t enjoy repeating mistakes.

            –But, I could be all wet, and she wants to go back to Alaska and say to hell with all this crap. And she might very well be ruined. And she might make that determination herself.

          • Doc Holliday

            I am not a Palin-lover or Palin-hater. I guess that puts me in a small group here. I think polling has showed that the drive by media has had its effect. If nothing else, they showed they were very afraid of her at one point.

            I still think she could win the nomination. I just don’t see anyone so far that is head and shoulders above the rest. If she wants it, go for it. If she gets the nod I will support her wholeheartedly. As I have said here before, I think people are too used to Obama in office. I don’t see the sense of urgency. In fact, I think the right hated Clinton more, and we failed three times to defeat him.

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

            As governor of Alaska, she got caught in her own ethics law. All she had to do was have the AG certify that her actions were consistent with her duties as governor and she’s home free. She didn’t do that and ran out the back door. Since she left office, she’s been attacked a number of times and has never responded, beyond some pap on Facebook. She most certainly has not “proven her mettle”, she’s never even talked to them.

            She makes a fine speech. Does pretty well raising money. Not so good at picking high profile candidates. Proven inability to deal legislatures to accomplish anything like downsizing government. Definitely not a leader.

          • conservativecurmudgeon

            I’m neither here nor there regarding Mrs. Palin.

            I tend to think favorably of her based on the things she’s said regarding her political philosophy, her first principles and her world view. Her’s comports very favorably with mine (at least insofar as I’ve heard her speak, and write.) Certainly I know more about Palin’s philosophy than I ever did about George W. Bush’s, and I think this is true for most voting conservatives. Also, as for the “pap” on Facebook, (if she actually is the author), I’ve found several of her articles first-rate, well written, and cogent.

            I also think well of conservatives that are so clearly despised and reviled by the leftist-media complex. They so often tell us whom they fear most by who the attack the harshest..

            What you say vis-a-vis the Alaskan ethics laws may very well be true; I certainly don’t know, as I’ve not spent any time investigating the matter. Maybe it will be an Achilles heal. Who knows? But, her detractors have been predicting her demise since August 29th, 2008, and yet she’s still out there.

            As for the political endorsement game: She’s the ONLY high-profile (possible) candidate that I know that’s actually stuck her neck out to make such calls. Usually, the professional pols stay far away from this sort of thing, because of the high-stakes risk involved, almost all of it on the downside: You immediately offend half the electorate when you make such a pronouncement, and you also set yourself for failure. But, she’s done it anyway, from what can only be termed a great concern for her nation. Why else would she do it?

            But, we shall see what we shall see. And, as I say, we may be pleasantly surprised out of all of it.

      • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

        I didn’t mean that Ron Paul wears a dress and dabbled in witchcraft when he was in college. And I don’t support Ron Paul. But I do take his candidacy serious this time, because he can cause the party a lot of problems. My point was that Christine O’Donnell cost Republicans the Maryland Senate seat, because no one took her serious. Pat Robertson won the Iowa caucus before he was taken serious. Pat “lock and load” Buchanan won New Hampshire before he was taken serious. So don’t tell me that Ron Paul can’t win South Carolina. Remember Jim Demint is one of our Senators, and could very well endorse Paul, depending on who is “in” and who is “out” by the time of the South Carolina primary. I live here, and Paul is getting a lot of grass roots buzz, similar to what Nikki Haley was getting when she ran against 3 mainstream Republican candidates who accused her of sexual indiscretions and still couldn’t beat her. Politics ain’t bean bag in the Palmetto State, and Romney has no chance here. Neither does Herman Cain, despite what the focus group said–none of them actually said they would vote for him.. So rave on, but you may get covered up.

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

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
        • powertothepeople

          to master “reply to this,” I will take your political “insight” seriously.

          But you have little knowledge about SC politics if you think Ron Paul stands a chance here. Ron Has a small, albeit vocal, following in SC. He is yet to break 4% in voting and in fact the only so called legitimate candidate he has beaten in SC was Rudy in 2008 and that is not saying much since Rudy did not even visit the state. All things considered, he still only beat Rudy by a few thousand votes on his way to a little over 16000 vote total. Nothing will change this time, he is a joke.

    • jeffreywturner

      Didn’t we settle on the term “Paultards” to describe Ron Paul’s flock?

      • acat

        It has a certain .. ring.

        (and given a choice between spending time with a RONPAUL! supporter and a mentally handicapped person, I’ll take the latter…)

        Mew

        • aesthete

          was “Ronulan”. Guess that’s what happens when you take yourself off the forwarding list of the Great Zionist Conspiracy.

          • acat

            but when did the Great Zionist Conspiracy get one?

            Mew

    • powertothepeople

      Ron Paul is like Manson, he has his small ignorant yet die hard fanatics. When he is able to make them think he is God, they sell the rights to their trailer and send it to him. He gets a quick but seldom bump in funds. But there are only so many fanatics and so many trailers. So at the end of the race, he is way behind all the normal guys who actually stand a chance at winning and who kept a steady pace and keep attracting new supporters.

      Not sure why you think him making a few bucks is so amazing since all cult leaders require the morons who serve them to sell all they have and give it to them. Ron Paul is the biggest joke to hit politics since David Duke, and Ron Paul is giving him a great run on who wins first prize.

      • Doc Holliday

        well at least they have the net in those trailers, we know that for sure.

  • Menlo

    Isn’t his BFF (and likely VP) candidate Dennis Kucinich?

    At Ron Paul’s age, that should not be a comforting thought for a large segment of his followers.

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    When you go to the Bing search engine and enter “republican debate”, and then click “News”, this diary entry now pops up in 2nd place. Ahead of links to articles in all the major media web-sites.

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

      Maybe some readers will check into Ron Paul’s shady support for Vietnamese Communists, and the history of racism in the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

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

  • Pingback: Homepage

  • Pingback: www.linahost.com

  • Pingback: fake watches

  • Pingback: hale industriale, spatii comerciale, terenuri

  • Pingback: online payday loans

  • Pingback: מדבקות בגלילים

  • Pingback: Adria Ralphs

  • Pingback: Weldon Novel

  • Pingback: Cathy Jess

  • Pingback: Otha Papich

  • Pingback: Ty Glunt

  • Pingback: Randee Kolker

  • Pingback: edu backlink service

  • Pingback: Sommer Aparicio

  • Pingback: http://gremienallee.de/mediawiki/index.php?title=AmargoGunn574

  • Pingback: Roberta Benzel

  • Pingback: code promo etam

  • Pingback: Gaye Kollos

  • Pingback: Carlena Wasik

  • Pingback: Karen Arrambide

  • Pingback: Lonny Hassenger

  • Pingback: Courtney Standberry

  • Pingback: Quincy Seaburg

  • Pingback: Philip Tranter

  • Pingback: Danille Shover

  • Pingback: Kerry Tatu

  • Pingback: Lala Vakil

  • Pingback: Glady Lampke

  • Pingback: Allegra Schoenfelder

  • Pingback: Willena Honsberger

  • Pingback: Fausto Hessian

  • Pingback: Dario Harthorne

  • Pingback: Georgie Fitzsimons

  • Pingback: Irena Griggers

  • Pingback: Antonio Lishman

  • Pingback: Tyrell Gear

  • Pingback: Latrisha Ganer

  • Pingback: Olin Thomassen

  • Pingback: Ernie Classon

  • Pingback: Gale Abbey

  • Wayne

    my fellow Republicans that spew vial at RP need to understand that by expressing their views on RP with such disrespect, they sound like Democrats trying to explain why they hate Republicans.

    I could understand spewing vial about Osama Bin Laden, but Ron Paul? Whether you agree with his world view or not, he is a Republican and to my knowledge he has always behaved in a professional and civilized fashion as an ambassador of our party.

    I’ve listened to what he has to say about the Fed., decriminalization of drugs and U.S. foreign policy. They are “libertarian” in spirit and represent a growing problem for our party if all we can do is embarrass ourselves by spewing vial rather than intelligently presenting our arguments against his nomination.

    My two cents…

  • powertothepeople

    while you seem to be a nice fellow, you are dead wrong about how we need to approach Ron Paul and his followers. Let me put it this way.

    I love my body, I have worked years and years and years to create it and the beer belly. Doc tells me I have cancer (only using this for demonstration purposes not literal), what would I and just about everyone else do. We would cut it out, bombard it with chemo, etc. It would be treated like the rotten POS it is.

    Same applies to Ron Paul. He claims to be republican, but he is a cancer. He eats away at the party and is an embarrassment. Same applies to his followers. We as a party need to mock him/followers, make sure everyone knows they are not a part of the body, and work hard to cut them out so they do not poison us all.

    And quite frankly, could care less what the dems think or how they look on our cancer removal.

    We long ago tried using reason with his followers and Ron Paul himself. It did not even come close to working. They are obnoxious in their support and they way they act, and should be treated as such.

  • Wayne

    It illuminates to a small extent the extreme dislike by some here for RP. But, your post didn’t go into the reason that he is a “cancer” to the party. If we are going to dissuade his sympathizers from supporting him, individuals here have to take logical steps to do so because his popularity among conservatives and particular the young is growing, not shrinking. Name calling and uncivil comments accomplish nothing in my view but to make the individuals vilifying RP look childish and unprofessional.

    When you said that using reason in the past didn’t work with him or his followers, what exactly are you talking about? I have no recollection and could not find any instances where Republican leaders attempted to reason with him. The opposite seems to be the only evidence I can uncover. Though I admit I have not done extensive research. I read the Daily Paul from time to time to keep up on his activities, but read nothing on other conservative blogs to indicate Republican leadership has made attempts in the past to reason with Ron Paul in order to bring him into line with mainstream Republican party thinking.

    Lets say for example that you are right about him being a cancer. Which of his stances riles the Republican party the most? Foreign Policy? Legalization of Drugs? Abortion? For discussion purposes I’ll pick Foreign Policy. His primary stance on Foreign Policy as I have heard him talk in public (the only thing I can go by) is to limit government over reaching and meddling in sovereign nations internal affairs. He articulated in the most recent Republican debate that the U.S. cannot afford to be the world’s police. I cannot disagree with this view. However, I am of the opinion that there are legitimate national interests at stake and we need to address them in a fashion that falls within the boundaries of the Constitution and is the most efficient use of manpower and resources.

    Is his stance on Foreign policy worthy of the kind of name calling I’ve read on this site and other places as well? And, if it is not his view on foreign policy, which policy is it that upsets other Republicans hate the most? If he is a hypocrite or worse, then it is up to the party and individuals here to provide the facts that support arguments against RP, not name calling.

    In the end, we are going to have to come to terms with the fact that his followers believe he has the right ideas and solutions to this countries problems from the war on terrorism to monetary policy. They are growing in numbers and calling them names does not change that. If we are going to effectively dissuade other Republicans from supporting him, we had better come up with a game plan and put it into motion. If the party actually believes his impact is minuscule and his followers can be totally disregard as kooks, then the party is in denial yet again and the consequence will be predicable.

    Don’t get me wrong. I want a dynamic and charismatic leader to emerge from the Republican party that has a better than average chance of beating OB in 2012, and I don’t believe that RP can do it. However, should he run and there is every reason to believe he will, it gives our detractors more ammunition to use the argument that we are a party divided. That can only weaken us at a time when strength in unity may be critical in regaining losses of previous years. I also believe that as a nation we are facing the accumulated result of the policies derived from both parties that have eroded the average Americans standard of living and created an unstable future for our children and grandchildren. If the Republican party is going to convince the Independents and conservative Democrats (if such a thing exists) that it has the answers and individual leaders to solve the problems we collectively face, they only have a little over a year to do it.

    But, if the answer from my party to call RP names and act in any fashion other than the principles that I try to adhere to in my daily life, you can count me out. We’ll have to win some other way.

    I’ve exhausted my energy to type on the subject, but it was important enough to me to express my view on it.

    You now have my two cents.

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    Finally someone who gets it.

  • Christine (Trelaina)
  • devereaux

    He’;s the only Republican that excites young people. He spoke at a local university and over 4 thousand came out. I was stunned.

    I think its his views on foreign policy that gets people worked up. Just shows how far Republicans have drifted from their roots. In the past Republicans and conservatives were advocates of restraint and prudence when it came to foreign affairs. Very cautious.

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

    during the 2008 primary run-up. Google is your friend.

  • aesthete

    Yes. I don’t mind non-interventionism as a foreign policy view and would categorize it as part of the broad left (even if I don’t agree with it). Ron Paul, however, commonly uses tropes implying moral equivalence between us and our enemies, dramatically oversimplifies, repeats obviously wrong or long-since discarded propaganda, and breezily dismisses or obviates the obvious costs of non-intervention (which, like any policy preference, involves trade-offs).

    As one particularly distasteful example, Ron Paul has characterized the Vietnam War (favorite of the peaceniks) as one where “the Vietnamese fought and suffered before routing all foreign armies”, and improbably ascribing the following motivation to the N Vietnamese: “surviving and preserving their homeland, religious culture, and their way of life”. This characterization places the S Vietnamese in the position of lackeys to an imperialist US: in effect, characterizing patriotic S Vietnamese who wanted to stay as far from communism as possible as race traitors and de facto foreigners. (It also laughably presumes that the Viet Minh was free of foreign influence, which would have surprised the PRC in the 50s and 60s and later the Soviets in the 60s and 70s.)

    In yet another example involving Vietnam, Paul breezily assert that “what we did not achieve by military force in Vietnam, was essentially achieved with the peace that came from our military failure and withdrawal of our armed forces.” This is not true in the slightest: the Khmer Rogue, crisis of the Boat People, loss of an ally in the region, socialist Laos and increased communist presence among our allies were most assuredly not in our best interests, or for that matter in the interests of humanitarians at large. SE Asia after 1975 was a far worse place than prior to our withdrawal. Vietnam itself was wracked by the worst of Stalinist excesses until its N Vietnamese leadership found that it couldn’t scrape any more effort out of a dehumanized proletariat and embarked in moderate economic reform sheerly out of self-interest. Today, Vietnam is still one of the most unfree countries in the world, economically, politically and otherwise. In contrast, S Korea is one of the freest, and essentially a developed country in its own right. Yet this is the peace that Paul breezily asserts was good for us and the Vietnamese?

    There’s more where that came from — a lot more. Here’s Ron Paul’s antiwar.com site if you don’t believe it. This is true of many of Paul’s positions: perhaps the position itself is defensible, but the examples and methods employed by Paul in their defense are indefensible.

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

    is a complete fool.

    “Young people…”

    That would encompass the largely ignorant, poorly educated mass with no real world experience. They like Ron Paul. Hey, they liked Barack Obama too. And Teddy Kennedy.

    The fool has been in Congress over 20 years and he’s been on the national state since at least ’88 and you note that his followers are a bunch of kids. Note, a little experience, a little real world education and people figure out that RonPaul is a fraud, a phony and an ignorant fool.

    Come back if you ever grow up.

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

    “got it” too.

  • devereaux

    We should have stayed out of Vietnam. Doug MacArthur warned Kennedy against the commitment of American soldiers on the Asian Mainland, LBJ, what a disaster. I lost High School friends over there. Guns and butter and the inflation of the 70s.

    Now we have a very good relationship with Vietnam.

  • Wayne

    Except for one minor exception the civil exchange made in response to my argument about civil behavior has been made. It is this kind of exchange regarding RP that will help other Republicans and Independents understand why he would not make a good President and that his beliefs as they relate to Foreign Policy are anti-productive when it comes to national interests.

    I also learned that I need to research more so that I am better equipped to articulate my views.

  • aesthete

    Still doesn’t justify spreading communist propaganda pro bono.

  • Doc Holliday

    and the Cold War. Ok you lost friends, sorry for that, war is a terrible thing. But millions were killed and subjected to totalitarianism when we abandoned them. I am not talking about when the most of the troops left, I am talking about when the Democrats cut off funding to Vietnamization.

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

    We “lost” in Vietnam after winning every battle. We “lost” after the NVA was holding strategy meetings on how to make the best of surrender. We “lost” because of pathetic leftists like Walter Cronkite. And because of people like you.

    Had we treated Vietnam as a war, millions of people would be alive today.

    I can see why you like RonPaul. You’re just as stupid, ignorant and anti-American as he is. We have a good relationship with Vietnam and the cost is several million dead Asians, murdered by Communist despots. The cost is also the enabling of The Left in this country over the last forty years that has brought this great nation to her knees before the alter of globalism.

    Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

  • devereaux

    I grew up with the war. It was a tragic mistake.” Ludwig von Mises, predicted in the 1930s that communism would eventually fail because it did not rely on prices to allocate resources. He predicted that the wrong goods would be produced: too many of some, too few of others. He was proven correct.”

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

    I am glad you made it. We don’t personalize things here to make our points. I am sure many here could give you very personal anecdotes about maimed and fallen fathers, brothers, and comrades. The issue is you really haven’t said one thing about why we should not have fought the war that would stand up to historical scrutiny.

    You should read more about the war or drop it. Or you could keep going on and on and people here will just start to ignore you. This is nothing personal of course, but we have to keep the debate and discussion based on logic and Socratic Method. If not we just type words at each other and learn nothing from by the endeavor.

  • aesthete

    *that* good. Until the mid-90s, they were more in China or the USSR’s bracket, not our own, and even today they are only tentatively “for” US interests in the region out of fear of a belligerent China. But hey, millions upon millions of dead Asians was totally worth anemic relations with Communist Vietnam 30 years later.

  • http://facetwitch.blogspot.com facetwitch

    The vocal supporters of Paul have always reminded me of the most vocal supporters of Obama in that they often choose platitudes over real policy solutions. Audit the Fed! Bring All Our Troops Home! Legalize Everything! Down with Neocons! Read the Constitution! Blame Bush! Hope! Change! Yes We Can!

    I would be more interested in Ron Paul as a candidate if he could seriously discuss budget solutions along the lines of the other Paul, that is Mr. Ryan, if his foreign policy was less extreme isolationist, and if his whole career in Washington D.C. didn’t revolve around being the lone NO vote a record 100+ times – proof that as president he will fail to build the necessary coalitions and consensus to govern.

    Don’t get me wrong. I like Ron Paul in Congress. I just think he’s more effective as a vocal critic than he would ever be as the Decider. Any doubt OBL and Saddam Hussein would still be alive if we had a President Paul?

  • devereaux

    We fought the war to prevent the communist takeover of South Vietnam and the Domino effect. Very noble. But as von Mises predicted communism would fail and it has. It was all very tragic. MacArthur was right.

  • aesthete

    The problem was not that communism would not collapse as an economic system — that question was a closed book for economists by the 50s (and earlier, for those who had sense). The problem was that if it took Europe with it or built a world-spanning empire, communism would a) be a tragedy for the countries taken over by the communists (as it was in SE Asia after the Vietnam War), and that b) military power =/= economic power, and that bullets are the one resource that seems to be nearly inexhaustible in dictatorships. Being right doesn’t make you strong, as the smart kid beat up for his lunch money is well aware.

    Communism failed. We still needed that knife in our pocket to keep things from going sour when the Soviets realized it.