Republicans to Ron Paul: Seriously, Get Lost.
Because the subtler versions of this message aren't getting through
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 | Anti-war liberals | apologists for communist mass-murderers | conspiracy theorists | racists — Comments (73) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Congratulations, Ron Paul. You've once again managed to come in dead last among candidates who actually campaigned in a primary - except this time, you can't blame it all on those Jesus freaks in Iowa. This was New Hampshire, which should have been your most fertile territory in all the early primary states. And unfortunately, it looks like "your most fertile territory" still pretty much equates to "Republicans don't like you or your message."
At this point, I'd favor action by the Congressional Republican Caucus to extricate you from their ranks. There are lots of reasons for this: the fact that you were, ahem, apparently totally unaware of the racist contents of numerous eponymous newsletters (I swear, that's believable, really), the fact that you thought that the way that Pol Pot cleaned up the mess after we left Vietnam was great, the fact that you've publicly stated that we should not defend South Korea if the North Koreans attacked, the fact that you see Jack Kemp and Bob Dole as terrorists, but not the PLO, and well, we could go on and on. I think there are plenty of reasons listed above that the Republicans in Congress wouldn't want to be associated with you - and it appears that Republican primary voters are also not comfortable with you being associated with our party. And while nobody wants to kick members out of the Caucus when we're in the minority, in extreme cases, it's necessary for people to know that there's a certain level of scum we won't be associated with.
Now, maybe it doesn't have to come to that. Maybe you can just recognize the obvious and declare that the antipathy is mutual and run as the Libertarian Party member that you really are. I mean, it's not exactly like it would be a new experience for you. And then, when you're done losing as a Libertarian, this time you could not come back and pretend to be a Republican again. It can all be very simple and painless, see? Look, even the anti-war Republicans have loudly proclaimed that you're not their guy, so the sooner we can stop pretending that the liberals, conspiracy theorists and other Libertarians you've got voting for you have any interest in getting a Republican elected, the better.
We're saying it with our votes as loud as we can, Ron: get lost. If you need the message repeated in some different format, we're happy to oblige with that as well.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | John McCain as the UAW — Comments (30) »
Republicans to Ron Paul: Seriously, Get Lost. 73 Comments (0 topical, 73 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men
Ron Paul is no Republican. I hope he loses his congressional seat this year.
This should also mute the Paulbots who kept insisting that because of Ron Paul's fundraising he would be competitive somewhere. It looks like in reality he will be competitive nowhere. I doubt he will come within striking distance of any primary, even if he did raise $20 million in the last quarter.
Unless he is saving that money for a 3rd party spoiler run, in which case who knows who he would steal support from more, Democrats or Republicans.
If he steals from Democrats, and Bloomberg enters and does the same, 2008 may be the year of the GOP.
After all, it certainly doesn't translate to votes or even poll #'s. I've always suspected that it's coming from liberals trying to meddle in our party.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
It was the subset of voters that see the political process as something that excludes them. Yes, a lot of these folks are fringe.
If you are an unreconstructed racist, which of the candidates has most vigorously argued for a return to "State's Rights"? Well, that's your guy.
Let's say that you think that the US has finally ceased to be a Republic and has begun to be an Empire? Which candidate is most vigorously calling for this to end? Well, that's your guy.
Let's say fnord that you think that the fnord Gnomes of Zurich have been manipulating fnord United States policy by tinkering with international fnord markets in fiat money. Which candidate is most vigorously calling fnord for this to end? Well, fnord that's your guy.
And, finally, let's say that you read the Constitution and pay close attention to the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Let's say that you read the Federalist Letters and have done studies on why the 9th and 10th were written and agree with the Fathers on their inclusion. Let's say you're one of those people who read Bork's opinion on the 9th and Randy Barnett's opinion on the 9th and feel some small relief that Bork did not make it onto the court but are thrilled that Clarence Thomas did. Which candidate is the one that has stated views closest to yours? Well...
On top of that, one has to take into account the small, but extant, group of voters who want to vote for the guy who will throw the biggest wrench into the process. Perot got a good chunk of these people (twice), Nader got a chunk in 2000, and Paul got a chunk of them this time around. For the most part, these people vote for the guy who campaigns on "I'm going to put my thumb in the eye of the establishment!" once, they get it out of their system, then they vote for "real" candidates the next time around... But there's a fresh group of 18-21 year-olds every 4 years.
All that to say, I give the "Democrats supported Ron Paul" theories about as much weight as I give "Republicans supported Ralph Nader" theories. Yes, there are a handful of cynics out there who want to weaken the opposition by supporting the fringies on their side of the aisle... but that support is only a tiny percentage of the total. Most of the support comes from True Believers.
And, for good or ill, True Believers only make up around... what? 2%? 1% of the voting population? That's the percentage of voters who voted for neither Bush nor Kerry in 2004.
And that same percentage will be voting third party or writing in Jerry Garcia in November. And in November 2012. And in November 2016.
Pretty much until the lesson of Perot has been forgotten.
But now I begin to ramble.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Very strange: I experienced an odd mixture of free-form anxiety and revulsion. Do you have any idea why?
;)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Using the money hunt ot find other agendas and activities.
Sadly for us in his district, the fact is that any money he raises for his presidential bid can go directly into funding his congressional reelection after his failed presidential run. So we'll be stuck with him again simply because of his name recognition and cash.
Chris Peden is making a few waves from what I've seen. I know a lot of people who will be voting for him in the primary.
Is that by choosing such a flawed standard-bearer, maybe the cause of small-government conservativism/libertarianism has been harmed.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
RP will be a forgotten blip.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
How about Boortz? He is the most well known libertarian in the country, he has a large and growing radio audience, and he has clashed with RP a lot this year (twice yesterday).
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Larry Elder is a lot more articulate and smart then Bortz IMHO.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
His website looks interesting, but I cannot remember ever hearing of him before. Is he nationally syndicated (I cannot tell from his website), and is he as entertaining as Boortz?
http://www.larryelder.com/bio.html
P.S. Apparently he is also a FairTaxer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Elder
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
but I'm not sure he is now. His show is carried on XM and Sirius, but other than that I think he's now just local to California (LA, I think??)
--------------------------------------
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
-- Mark Hemingway, The Corner (NRO)
He's too busy making excuses why big government isn't so bad to be credible as a libertarian.
Ron Paul may not be the answer, but I can promise you, Boortz has self described himself as having too many skeletons in his closet to run for office.
It's a pity Ron Paul didn't recognize that for himself.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
Leon, I always thought the Republican Party had a big tent.
Cato reports 13% of voting age Americans are Libertarian.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6715
We NEED them in the party to get Republicans ELECTED.
You can dislike Paul or his supporters or the way his campaign is run. But don't discount his message of Freedom, Peace and Prosperity. It was fun to see Thompson and Huckabee starting to say some of the same things as Paul in the last debate.
As much as you dislike Paul, his Revolution is bringing people back to the Republican Party. The humungous overspending by Bush and the Republican Congress has alienated many fiscal conservatives. Paul is the only reason many are staying in the Republican Party.
The Bush police state is moving many many independents towards the Democrats. The turnout for Democrats in New Hampshire is the big story from yesterday. Not Paul.
For more on why Paul Lost, Reason has a good article here:
http://reason.com/news/show/124295.html
Steve
...when you're ready to apologize to Leon for your throwing a hissy fit over his justifiable disdain for racist scumbags.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
1. Reading comprehension is your friend. After you finish your GED, take a community college class in reading.
2. No where did Leon refer to Libertarians in general.
3. "The Bush police state..." heh. I would assume you are typing this drivel from a cave to avoid the thought police.
4. You really should just spend your time selling the 911 conspiracy theories, your time will be better spent.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
It's a persistent characteristic of Paul's supporters that they don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between criticism of Paul specifically and criticism of libertarian ideas generally. You'll say "look, this guy either approved of or was too dozy or disterested to prevent to issuing of a whole bunch of racist, anti-semitic shlock under his name," and their reply is to point to the debt clock and ask you why you don't support cutting the size of government. It just doesn't address the issue, and it happens so frequently that is starts to look less like strategy than pathology.
...hurts, doesn't it?
...about Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! It gives you no immunity for being a troll.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
"the fact that you thought that the way that Pol Pot cleaned up the mess after we left Vietnam was great, the fact that you've publicly stated that we should not defend South Korea if the North Koreans attacked, the fact that you see Jack Kemp and Bob Dole as terrorists, but not the PLO"
seriously? I never knew this about the guy, although I never cared enough to bother finding out. What does he have against Jack Kemp (one of my personal favorite politicians)? Sidenote: I just heard he (Kemp) endorsed McCain:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/taxcut...
and can't find the part about Pol Pot or about Dole and Kemp being terrorists. Can you let me know where those are?
I did find the response about South Korea though.
the link was only regarding Kemp throwing his support to McCain. It was a little off-topic.
in the top level posting by Leon - not your links Switter.
They're in there. Of course, Paul doesn't mention Pol Pot, he just praises how the mess in Southeast Asia got cleaned up after we left Vietnam. But in the Freep link he calls Dole and Kemp terrorists. Or says they are engaging in terrorism, which is the same thing.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
I was making a point by that - I think you're paraphrasing RP's words to make your point - he didn't say Pol Pot. You said it.
He said using government force to suppress free speech is a type of terrorism - you then took those words and connected them to Dole and Kemp based on their Anti-terrorism act.
You weaken your argument by not sticking to what the man actually said. That sort of slander that doesn't help anyone make good decisions.
Your "clever" point is actually pretty vapid when viewed in that light. When one refers to the "cleaning up" that occurs after we left Vietnam, one refers to Pol Pot, whether one makes specific reference to the name "Pol Pot" or not. It's not as though he was praising the way that Cambodian housewives kept their kitchens clean - when you refer to the "cleaning up" that happened after we left Vietnam, you're referring to Pol Pot. In the same way, if Paul had praised how much better things got in China after we abandoned Chiang Kai-Shek, we would understand that he was praising Mao's performance (and the mass murders it entailed) even if he didn't reference Mao.
Similarly, he said that the actions of Kemp and Dole constituted terrorism. You don't even have to make one simple inference for that.
My argument isn't "weakened" by pointing out the necessary inferences from what the man himself said, and truth is an absolute defense to slander.
Any other brilliant points to make?
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Here are some more words:
"Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become Westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here."
(from Tim Russert's interview, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/)
Do you believe that Pol Pot is responsible for the westernization and unification of Vietnam? If so then I'll understand your connection and I'll have learned something.
I agree that he made a mistake in using the term 'terrorism' to criticize the 'Anti-terrorism' legislation. Suppressing free speech is un-American but it isn't terrorism - I think this was just a poor choice of words but clearly you think it's much more.
That he called Jack Kemp and Bob Dole terrorists? I ask because I want to make sure that we are both fluent in the English language.
And also please note the answer I linked to. Sure, he brought up the part about us trading with Vietnam, but he also mentioned the "cleaning up the mess" that went on after we left.
That's Pol Pot.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
He said "...terrorism that uses government force to suppress free expression in this country" to criticize a bill. I don't agree that such statement is akin to calling Dole and Kemp terrorists but we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
Are there other statements he's made that lead you to believe that RP considers them terrorists or is it just this one quote?
I also can't find the part where he said the PLO aren't terrorists. Care to tell me how you reckoned that one?
I just want folks to read the original text and draw their own conclusions.
in the world of fools and idiots you, sir, are the King.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Priceless! I would really like a libertarian leaning Republican to make a credible run. Ron Paul isn't that guy. He's a nutter.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
... of "RON PAUL FOR TEXAS GOVERNOR IN 2010!!!".
As the Republican nominee, at least.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Governor, so can Ron.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
As the Republican nominee? Pass. He can run as the nutter he is, but not with the "R" after his name.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
much, I look for reasons to use it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
... to endorse Mr. Jews for Jesus though, becker. Eh?
But sure, Dr. Ronnuts can certainly make a credible goal for the big office in Austin - I'm just starting to think it ought to be under some other party's banner, though.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The Kinkster (for whom I have repeatedly said publicly that I voted) ran as an "R" and would have made one (expletive removed in deference to the posting guidelines) of a Guvnah. No need to be draggin' the man into this wrestling match...
heh
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
Anybody who's got the b*lls to run around Texas with that name deserves support.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
my 2nd favorite bumper sticker when he was running was:
"My Governor is a Jewish Cowboy"
the first being, "Kinky Friedman: Why The Hell Not?"
...of course
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
then the Republican party is meaningless.
Maybe if Ron Paul ran as a Goldwater Republican, rather than a Communist Fellow Traveller, he'd get more support.
I don't know, Neil. I think it's very nearly dead. As distressing as it is, obviously people on both sides of the aisle love their nanny state.
Derb quoted Vox today and sadly, I think they're correct. With Fred's low poll numbers (while the other liberal Republicans soar) it does not look good for small-government conservatism.
Vox also delivers the bad news to us fogey conservatives:
It's also disappointing, though not the least bit surprising, to see that ten percent appears to be the ceiling on Republicans genuinely interested in smaller government. So be it.
I'm afraid that's right. Subtract out those who want the handouts, those who want the Washington jobs, those who want to tell us how to live, and those who want everlasting war, and there's not much left of small-government conservatism. Pity — it was a really cool idea.
Honestly I think that if Thompson is rejected then what's being rejected is federalism. That's too bad, but it's not the end.
A commitment to Federalism is IMO one of the major philosophical differences between the parties.
=============================================================
Romney-- I would cry all the way to the polls
McCain-- I would hold my nose and cry on the way home
Huckabee-- No way, nohow
Giuliani-- See above
Paul-- 10% in Iowa? Yikes!!
Something we could all stand to remember on a number of issues this election.
absentee
Thompson | McCain | Romney | Giuliani
without federalism, it is even harder to consistent act in favor of limited government.
When someone proposes that the government does something, there are two questions a Federalist can raise to stop the action:
(1) Is this a good idea?
(2) Should this be done at the federal level?
A limited government conservative without a federalist point of view is left with relying exclusively on (1). Politically, passing issues to the states is more palatable than simply saying NO.
Paul Broun? Though the local Republicans already hate him for not being Republican enough. and the resentment towards him for winning the special election over the establishment Republican by getting Democrat support from Athens is still pretty high down here.
I think he does ok, though I'd like him to be a smidge more small government oriented.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
...incorrect.
From the Washington Times:
"Mr. Broun "very successfully mobilized Democrats and independents in the Athens area,†Mr. Evans said. In addition to getting nearly 90 percent of the vote in Clarke County, which includes Athens, Mr. Broun also tallied 27 percent in Columbia County."
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2007/07/georgia_election_bad_...
From the suntimes:
"So far, Broun has been a fairly reliable Republican vote on major policy issues such as the war in Iraq. But he continues to show a strong Libertarian streak, voting against increasing government involvement even on issues such as fighting disease."
also from the Same suntimes:
"And in his first vote, he bucked his party's leadership by backing legislation prohibiting the Justice Department from prosecuting medical marijuana cases. Broun said that, for him, the issue was about states rights."
Then:
"Paul Broun blindsided the Georgia Republican political establishment when he edged out state Sen. Jim Whitehead in a runoff. Whitehead was widely favored to win the race. He had the backing of party leaders and had raised far more money than Broun. But Broun was effective in casting Whitehead as a pawn of special interests and party bosses."
Finally:
"A field of challengers is already lining up to unseat Broun when he seeks re-election in 2008."
http://elections.suntimes.com/dynamic/external/pre-election/bios/11651.h...
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
is to make at the least fight to hold his seat.
His district deserves far, far better than the slug Paul has become.
Having said that, I find Ron Paul offensive. I am more libertarian than social conservative - and he isn't. He is just complicating things with his off the wall conspiracies, theorys and avoidance of real issues in todays world.
can be attributed to man himself, per se. In former elections he would have been an also-ran long ago, but I think an interesting dynamic in this primary is just how much he has affected the race and the fervor of his supporters. The fund raising boom was not of Paul's making but of his supporters with little if any coordination with the campaign. Maybe it's the internet, maybe it's the message, but the Paul campaign is an interesting footnote to a volatile election cycle.
He makes the R debates much more fun for me to watch, but I am not really the target audience for those debates.
Intrade has Paul at 2.6 and Thompson at 1.8, then again they have McCain running away with it at 36.5.
are all over Digg and Reditt and other social networking sites that submit links. The same story is submitted a dozen times or so. If Ron Paul has the support of spammers and spambots, all the more reason not to support him.
In some cases Ron Paul supporters tried to throw riots, and are saying that the Primary elections are rigged because not enough people are voting for Ron Paul for him to get at least 1% of the votes. Even Stephen Colbert has more votes than Ron Paul, and that should tell you something. Ron Paul supporters are as insane as Ron Paul is, and most of them most have a criminal record that prevents them from voting.
....you're doing a good job. There are estimates that upwards of 15% of the US population are libertarian - I'm not saying they're hard-core anarchocapitalist Rothbard types, simply that they are for less government intervention in the economy, less interference in personal matters with limited third party effects, and a less interventionist foreign policy.
If Ron Paul DOES run as a third party candidate, you're guaranteed higher taxes for at least two years and probably garbage cans full of dead late term foeti for the rest of the century, which may happen anyway even if every Ron Paul supporter votes GOP in Nov. 2008, since we've had a "Republican" President who, as Tancredo pointed out, gave us $135 billion a year in Leaving No Child Behind and the Prescription Drug 'Benefit' not to mention hiring his Affirmative Action Token Mistress Conartista Rice as National Security Advisor ("I was talking to my husb - I mean, the President" - back in April 2004, in front of dozens of witnesses). Democrats - DEMOCRATS!!! remember, WE usually out-fundraise THEM - are outfundraising US! Seriously, victory in 2008 doesn't look likely.
Yet by telling Ron Paul and his supporters to 'get lost' you are basically asking them to run as a third party. Not that Rupert Murdoch and those who prevented Ron Paul from being in the debate Sunday is showing you a good example, since Ron Paul subsequently got MUCH better publicity by being on Jay Leno the night before the NH Primary, which still didn't help him win, or even come in the top three - or top four.
Seriously, Leon, how much are the Democrats paying you and Rupert Murdoch to alienate Ron Paul's supporters? Are you an abortionist? An Al Qaeda terrorist? Or just an IRS man?
Robert Edward Johnson
has a "twit delay" to keep away 30-minute wonders...
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
theorists, we'll lose to the Democrats? Hmm.
But we make it clear that those people don't belong with us?
I shall consider your proposed trade and get back to you.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Buh-bye.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Needless to say, I strongly disagree with your opinion on this, but it seems to be the majority view here and I'm not about to bother attempting to change anyone's mind. And I'm not accusing you of being closed-minded. You've simply had the same information and come to a different conclusion. Fair enough.
That said, Paul's views on Iraq obviously would have consequences. Of the allegedly racist positions that he takes, though, not a single one would matter a whit in America, as Congress would not pass legislation that discriminated against minorities (though it has had no problem with affirmative action and set asides). Votes on the partial-birth abortion ban, on the other hand, did have real consequences within our own borders. Three current Republican members of Congress, Rep. Mark Kirk and Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, voted against making partial-birth infanticide illegal. The votes of those two Senators, along with then-Republicans Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee, prevented the Senate from overriding Bill Clinton's veto in 1998, thus allowing the barbarish practice to remain legal. Would you also, then, support kicking Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Mark Kirk out of their respectice caucuses?
Seems to me that if we're going to start throwing people out of the caucus because we don't want to be associated with them, Don "Oink" Young should head the list, even if Paul's on it too.