Video: The Only Man Who Can Save America talks Rudy, Fred
posted at 4:47 pm on June 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Is Rudy a onehalf-trick pony? Will Fred’s entry split the pro-war vote, thereby propelling this capital-p Patriot to a stunning upset? Just how shamelessly is this Bircheresque crank prepared to pander to conspiracy theorists anyway? The answers to all these questions (except the last one, of course) and more lie below as I try to rustle up some of those sweet, sweet Google hits for Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Note to Ron: blow-back will happen regardless of whether we’re right or wrong.
This is the guy who thinks democracy can be exported by setting a good example. Because that has worked so well the past 200 years…
Seixon on June 16, 2007 at 4:53 PM
So, Ronny boy, if Iran starts lobbing nukes, we don’t get “involved”? Ross Perot redux, nothing but trouble this one is.
Nice leading question from the news babe BTW.
bbz123 on June 16, 2007 at 4:55 PM
the ron paul movement needs to be stopped asap, this is the nutroots candidate. just check the 9/11 conspriacy sites and DU.
there needs to be a debate between Paul and someone on blowback to display the foolishness of his ‘thinking’….note to Paul: inaction is an action foreign policy wise that will have a cause/effect to it.
You have to think Ronald Reagan was a horrible president to support Ron Paul or completely ignore his Foreign policy ideas.
jp on June 16, 2007 at 4:57 PM
RP is great on domestic issues; but his foreign policy is sadly pathetic.
I am a regular poster on a big forum online. Here is a complete list of the people, from my experience, who support RP:
-9/11 truthers
-Terrorist supporters (people who proudly admit their support)
-Isolationist Libertarians
-Democrats who enjoy making R’s look bad
It’s not an inspiring list. RP supporters are in very bad company. I was (not a little) shocked to see the terrorist supporters align with RP, probably because of his isolationist point of views.
lorien1973 on June 16, 2007 at 4:58 PM
It’s already dead or dying. The nutroots and truthers are losing their interest. They realize its a lost cause.
lorien1973 on June 16, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Feh. What scholars? Has he read or listened to Robert Spencer? Ali Sina?
9/11 was ACCIDENTAL?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!
He couldn’t even SAY the word “security”.
CrimsonFisted on June 16, 2007 at 5:01 PM
he’s on record calling Israel the worst lobby in Washington, and has alot of racial quotes.
jp on June 16, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Whether Ron Paul is right about the “blow back theory” I’ll leave for the pundits to decide.
Whether Rony boy likes it or not, we ARE engaged overseas, and no retreat is going to make us safer in the long run.
It’s better to finish the job on someone else’s front yard, than to retreat and wait for them to come to our backyard.
Darnell Clayton on June 16, 2007 at 5:06 PM
I read somewhere that he started his campaign with 10,000 dollars. This guy is a shill. He is out to weaken the US resolve and open the doors for a bunch of mamby pamby ideology concerning foriegn policy. John Bolton is outraged!
sonnyspats1 on June 16, 2007 at 5:09 PM
got a link for those quotes?
lorien1973 on June 16, 2007 at 5:10 PM
the type of isolation he’s talking about we’ve done before, it lead to the Great Depression and then WW2……the man is absolutely clueless about Islam or is simply blinded by hatred for Israel?
jp on June 16, 2007 at 5:10 PM
foreign (sp)
sonnyspats1 on June 16, 2007 at 5:10 PM
How do you disengage the jihadists’ fingers on our collective throats, Ronnie boy?
By demonstrating superior morality?
Or with a .45?
profitsbeard on June 16, 2007 at 5:11 PM
yeah, was in Houston Chronicle in 1996:
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html
no wonder Alex “The Jews did 9/11″ Jones likes the guy.
also, follow link there are quotes about blacks and crime. If by miracle he got nominated the Dems/media would easily label him anti-semitic and racist.
I think he dismissed this newsletter claiming he ‘didn’t write the words’ just someone that ‘works for him’, even though the newsletter had his name on it.
jp on June 16, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Thanks!
lorien1973 on June 16, 2007 at 5:17 PM
the problem with these people, is they do not at all understand the war on terror and the totalitarian nature of it and how it affects us. Even in light of the global economy and modern technology/internet.
the President is 100% right when he says that ‘increasingly our liberty at home is dependent on liberty prospering abroad’.
jp on June 16, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Mojave Mark,
Does that look like Sunrise mtn (east of Las Vegas) behind RP?
csdeven on June 16, 2007 at 5:19 PM
His campaign would probably have more resonance if he were to wear a cape and equip himself with a utility belt.
rw on June 16, 2007 at 5:25 PM
He’s so “little known” for a very good reason and the Hard Left media complex knows it. They give him airtime to take away coverage of the GOP candidates who have huge appeal, pumping up a man who is so far out of the Republican mainstream that his agenda more closely conforms with the Leftie LEFT (not moderate) fringes. Odd for someone who is ostensibly running as a Republican. He gets media time, though. How about that.
naliaka on June 16, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Beach people……..that is the Texas 14th District. Land speculators and hippies who suddenly realized that keeping their own money was better then giving it to the winos. Drive down the coast someday on a weekday……..ain’t a single car in a driveway.
Limerick on June 16, 2007 at 5:48 PM
That’s a background I think I’ve seen behind interviews from Phoenix – and that’s where RP is today.
eeyore on June 16, 2007 at 6:00 PM
People are gping to hate us simply because we are rich or because we are different. It isnt a matter of policy its human nature.
What Paul doesnt admit is that we give millions in humanitarian aid every year. We rushed in to help during the Tsunami and Earthquakes in Pakistan.
Doesnt it in the end matter ? Not one bit because terrorism isnt driven by poverty or policy its driven by the desire of a few to force mass punishment on the many. Its totalitarianism which doesnt care about policy wonkie double talk.
If terrorism is an idea that cant be defeated by military means then how can anyone argue that if you simply appease it or cave into its demands that makes it go away.
You cant kill and ideology with kindness either.
William Amos on June 16, 2007 at 6:02 PM
He keeps saying “violation of the constitution” but isn’t providing for the common defense in there somewhere?
Joshua P. Allem on June 16, 2007 at 6:19 PM
That Andrew Sullivan thinks Paul is dreamy pretty much sums it up for me.
WasatchMan on June 16, 2007 at 6:41 PM
I sense a greater problem within the republican party from Ron Paul to Trent Lot and GB, all have seemed to abandon the people that put them there. I don’t understand how RP can be even a republican? He talks more like a unhinged Democrat .
Kini on June 16, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Look at RP domestically. His views have no place in the democrat party. He’s an economic libertarian, for the most part.
lorien1973 on June 16, 2007 at 8:04 PM
Goddamit, it’s all the fault of going off the gold standard, fiat currency.
benrand on June 16, 2007 at 8:45 PM
I agree. Lots of problems in this country can be traced directly to FDR.
lorien1973 on June 16, 2007 at 9:10 PM
“Know your enemy” doesn’t come from listening to lying sycophntic Islamist who will tell you whatever you want to hear until they think the time is right to knife you in the back. It is not possible to appease those who hate you not for how you’re treating them or how much trade you do with them, but simply because you are not one of them. This tool doen’t sound like a Republican, he sounds like what I normaly hear from the “Constitution party”, who are just as barking mad as he is.
P. James Moriarty on June 16, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Wow. It looks very similar to Vegas.
csdeven on June 16, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Heh, the ‘only man who can save america’ crap makes me laugh.
I saw this when it aired today, is it sad the first thought that came into my head was, “I wonder if Ace or Allah caught this?”
Bad Candy on June 16, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Ron Paul wins every poll at LGF.
Think about it. Every. Single. Poll.
This is a convergent confluence of cosmic proportions.
;-)
infidel4life on June 16, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Ron Paul is living pre-World War 1.
SouthernGent on June 17, 2007 at 12:21 AM
In order to understand Ron Paul you must have read (and understood) the U.S. Constitution. Many of his positions, which may not be understandable at first, are because he is strictly following the Constitution. If you think Ron Paul is wrong it is likely that you think the Constitution is wrong as well.
As for the entire “blowback” issue: he isn’t saying America deserved 9/11, he is saying that, in bin Ladin’s own words, the reason bin Ladin orchestrated 9/11 was America’s presence in Saudi Arabia since the end of the Gulf War.
keylime on June 17, 2007 at 12:40 AM
If you think Ron Paul is interpreting the Constitution correctly it is likely that you are a raving moonbat.
infidel4life on June 17, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Prick.
Greg Tinti on June 17, 2007 at 1:27 AM
Sigh. I had hoped that people here would be a little less likely to jump straight to pure insults.
Is there a problem with citing actual quotes from Ron Paul and then explaining how his interpretation of the Constitution is wrong?
keylime on June 17, 2007 at 1:42 AM
I dunno, looking at Ron Paul’s website, http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ I find that there are a lot issues there where he is very conservative and hardly a “moonbat”. His policies might be a throwback to pre WWI days but there are a lot of folks who think we should quit the UN, G8, etc and that congress should vote and pass a declaration of war before we invade other nations. I have a feeling that we wouldn’t be griping about our government failing to enforce immigration laws or building the fence under his administration either. He’s not a good fit for me, mainly due to the GWOT, but I’m not ready to dismiss him entirely just due to that.
Buzzy on June 17, 2007 at 1:51 AM
keylime on June 17, 2007 at 1:42 AM
Not wanting to interupt here, but he didn’t say that the constitution said this or that, he said he (Ron Paul) agreed with the founders that we “should avoid foregn entanglements”. Problem here is that the founding ideology behind Bin Laden has nothing to do with what we have been doing in the mid east, it’s a recruiting tool. If it wasn’t our foregn policy it would be the US “stealing mid eastern oil”, insults against Islam, etc. ad nausium. Whether or not we want war, war is upon us. For Bin Laden and friends its the Jihad, the same Jihad that has been waged without letup for the last 1350 years.
Granted the agrument has been made that we can’t make war on a non-government entity, the 4th curcuit court said just that in handing down a ruling releasing on guy from gitmo and setting up a situation where he (or BL if caught) would have to be tried in a civilian court rather than a war tribunal. The whole issue would be solved if the fed would wake up to the reality that Islam is itself a political entity – and it describes itself as such in all schools of Islamic juresprudence.
As to the constitutionality, the bush administration calls it a “war on terrorism”. Why I don’t know, congress authorized use of force from what I remember “whatever means nessesary” or words to that effect. I’m no constitutinal scolar, (or speller either) but it seems to me that in 1794 the congress authorized the founding and expansion of a navy in order to militarily engage Muslim pirates off the Ivory coast, north africa, and modern Libia. I don’t believe that in that case the congress authorized war per se, but did authorize military action to protect American merchant shipping, and it was the founders themselves, only 10 years after the ratificatin of the constitution who did it.
In short, it’s one thing to avoid foregn entanglements, it’s quite another to not protect our interests and national security in the name of it.
P. James Moriarty on June 17, 2007 at 3:36 AM
Nice write up Buzzy, the knee jerk off hater pud pullers don’t read, just react because Fox news said it.
Ron Paul 2008! I LOVE THIS GUY, very impressive. I like what he stands for. He’s a little too, how shall I say, non main stream, not politician-like enough. He just speaks English that makes sense, not words wrapped in talking points, rhetoric and demogogary.
As we see above people can’t think and truth does not compute for them. However I hope he influences the GOP process, but he’s a dead duck because he’s a loose cannon, not in the pocket of the party and special interest (enough) for the GOP. The GOP (and Dems) likes their mother freaking special interest money, and taking that away is like taking candy away from a BIG FAT BABY WITH A FULL DIAPER LOAD ready to throw its own feces.
The American people need take the teat of money out of all the politicians mouths. They will never do it them self. Making millions to speak? Hummmm that seems to be a lot for a speech. Well Gee-W be making lots of cash speaking? Doubt it, if you know what I mean. May be a comedy act.
You d-bags distort Paul’s position that he panders to conspiracy idiots. He is saying WHY did we get attacked. There where reasons, not that we deserve it or had it coming to us or the USA planned it. You partisan jerks go right to the “conspiracy” label to discredit any one. That is old and not creative.
The problem with the way of nominating candidates; it gets boiled down two and I and fellow americans have little say so who the two are going to be. I don’t live in a primary state or am I party delegate. The “party convention” and party nomination is corrupt and based on money and special interest. There may be candidates that I like, who never make it. I would love to see Paul in the final cut.
The independent party brings a bunch of problems with it, but may be time for it, if we get jerk Rudy (authoritarian may be worse than Bush) and old guard Hillary (I think she has done good and might make a good president, very likely she will be the next president, but she may be too divisive to heal and bring the nation together – duh you think).
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT! 2008!
Any one see mike gravel’s stare video, ha ha ha.
gmcjetpilot on June 17, 2007 at 3:38 AM
Ron Paul, by saying that the reason we got attacked is because of our actions in the mid east, and your backing that view only shows that both of you don’t know the first thing about the enemy we face.
The first thing Billary did after being elected was to call for a constitutinal convention. The only reason to do this would be to re-write the constitution. And you think she would make a good POTUS? Puleeze….
If you’re the guy that you wind up with when you google your handle, it’s truly frightening to think that someone as unhinged and disconnected from reality as you would be piloting a commercial jet.
P. James Moriarty on June 17, 2007 at 4:00 AM
You think Hillary has done good? Name one good thing.
Freelancer on June 17, 2007 at 4:02 AM
Paul is a #1 crank for sure.
Warner Todd Huston on June 17, 2007 at 4:44 AM
the Constitution doesn’t say that congress has to pass a “Declaration of War” with those exact words on it, just that they have to authorize war……if the “Iraq WAR Resolution” isn’t a declartion of war what the heck is it?
you have to literally think Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever, especially on the foreign policy front, to support a guy like Paul. You also have to be extremely ignorant of the nature of Totalitarian foes and not have a clue about how interconnected the world is today, economically and technologically.
jp on June 17, 2007 at 9:25 AM
I have to say, the isolationist movement in this country scares me nearly as much as Hillary/libs. We know that it lead to the Great Depression on economic side and WW2 on the war side, after trying it post WW1.
plus, our Liberty is so dependent on things outside our borders today it is completely unworkable and dangerous. They don’t realize how they will be destroying american lives from the economic side(see Depression) to war side following this fundamentalist minded ideology.
jp on June 17, 2007 at 9:30 AM
P. James Moriarty on June 17, 2007 at 3:36 AM
That was a good posting but it isn’t actually a reply to what I wrote which had two specific parts.
The first was the Ron Paul makes his decisions based on a careful examination of the Constitution and, so far as I can tell, he is correct in his interpretations.
The second point was that he said the specific and immediate cause of 9/11 was America’s presence in Saudi Arabia. This is absolutely true because we have bin Ladin’s own words saying so. Bin Ladin may be a nut but when a nut tells you his rationale you have to accept that that really was his motivation, even if it was illogical and/or factually wrong.
keylime on June 17, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Then let me make it simple:
1) Both houses of Congress authorized military action
2) Yes, how dare we, us dirty non-muslims, fight to protect our interests in the mid east. We should just stay out of Muslim nations and let them take over other nations, convert or kill Jews and Christians in Muslim nations whenever they want (Somalia, Darfur, in particular and all other Muslim nations generally). After all, extermination of all non Muslims is an internal matter to them isn’t it?
Flash back – Why should we care if the Germans are killing all the German Jews, it’s an internal German matter.
RPs position is isolationist and positively dangerous in the modern world.
P. James Moriarty on June 17, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Bin Laden’s words:
RP is ignorant, he also mentions withdrawing and not fighting in Somalia, Beirut and the embassy bombings and USS Cole as “reasons” why they decided to “attack” us. The fact is we look weak and a “paper Tiger” as he called us, combined with the muslim baby boom and the western worlds baby decline we are ripe for the plucking.
jp on June 17, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Personally, I’m really curious about how much of Paul’s Internet money could be traced back to the laundry list of Soros front groups. That’s what I’d do, at least, if I was the moneyman for the nutroots–make sure Paul gets enough funding (along with the free coverage the enemedia will give him) to stay in the race until Election Day, in the hope that he’ll draw the isolationist cranks and pull a Perot. That kind of spoiler strategy could be especially critical if you have a Democratic candidate who can’t pull more than 50% of the vote, like Shrillary. If I had Soros’ resources, spending a few million to use Paul as a useful idiot would be money well spent. Granted, it all hinges on how many people think they can bury their heads in the sand and pretend that we don’t live in an economy that grows more global by the day, or who can convince themselves that terrorists will be nice to us if we’re nice to them. But he’s managed to find enough suckers and cultists to stay in the game so far, so who knows?
ReubenJCogburn on June 17, 2007 at 3:23 PM
That Soros, the self proclaimed Master of the Universe, would spend a lot on UNELECTABLE Ron Paul is a stretch, don’t you think? Anyone can contribute to a campaign, especially on the internet, and if it is trace-able, well, what does that say for privacy?
Great way to do a little red herring monkey-wrenching, if you know what I mean. But that would be a conspiracy, which of course, never happens.
It amazes me that we take what the Iranian nutball Jihadist – President really says seriously (so we gotta INVADE and/or NUKEM!), but ignore Bin-Laden’s words and statements up to and after 9/11. But then:
1. there is no such thing as blowback
2. there is no such thing as “The Lobby”
3. they hate us for our freedoms
4. repeat 1 and 2 and 3.
5. repeat 4
And RP is called a crank…
Thomas vs Alexander on June 17, 2007 at 10:09 PM
we are taking bin laden’s words and actions very seriously, you are a clueless ostrich.
isolationism/non-intervention brings about “blowback” too, get a clue. Then look at our history between WW1 and WW2, isolatonism led to the Great Depression on econ side and WW2 on war side…..that was ‘blowback’.
I guess you think Ronald Reagan was one of the worst Pres. ever though, beign the huge ‘interventionist’ that he was.
useful idiots, they are everywhere.
jp on June 17, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Sorry to disturb your little cult and all, but what part of “That’s what I’d do, at least, if I was the moneyman for the nutroots”, didn’t you get? Does it require one of your “conspiracies” for me to suggest that Soros–or any other Democrat–just might stoop to using political dirty tricks to win an election? The fact that Paul is deservedly unelectable doesn’t mean that he can’t siphon votes away from a candidate that is. Not that there’ve ever been any Presidential elections decided by a third-party candidate playing spoiler or anything. Oh, wait.
ReubenJCogburn on June 18, 2007 at 2:01 AM
If he shaved his head he would look just like that Heaven’s Gate guy that convinced those kids in black Nikes (or was it purple Nikes?) to kill themselves to get a ride on a comet.
crosspatch on June 18, 2007 at 2:37 AM
Ron Paul is NOT electable… so when can we narrow down the field and talk about the 3 or 4 that ARE.
Many of his positions are ok… but Ron Paul comes off like a wimp. And the nutjobs attacking all the internet polls and blogs are just creepy.
BadBrad on June 18, 2007 at 9:42 AM
I see that gmcjetpilot has done his usual hit-and-run routine, and not made an attempt to answer a simple question. In case he visits this thread again, it was:
You think Hillary has done good? Name one good thing.
Your credibility here will be defined by your answer.
Freelancer on June 18, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Those who respect the views of Ronald Reagan should watch this video to find out what Reagan thought of Ron Paul.
keylime on June 19, 2007 at 12:17 AM