Ron Paul: the brothel candidate
posted at 4:47 pm on November 26, 2007 by Bryan
Well, politics is often compared to the world’s oldest profession. Paul is just taking that to the proverbial next level.
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, an underdog Texas congressman with a libertarian streak, has picked up an endorsement from a Nevada brothel owner.
Dennis Hof, owner of the Moonlite BunnyRanch near Carson City, said he was so impressed after hearing Paul at a campaign stop in Reno last week that he decided to raise money for him.
“I’ll get all the (working girls) together, and we can raise him some money,” Hof told the Reno Gazette-Journal. “I’ll put up a collection box outside the door. They can drop in $1, $5 contributions.”
Hof and two of his prostitutes, Brooke Taylor and a woman who goes by Air Force Amy, attended a Paul news conference.
Because of this and several other factors, I don’t share Patrick Ruffini’s optimistic take on the Rise of Ron. Paul is mainly drawing his support from the left and from libertines like the brothel owner here, as well as fringe miscreants like Stormfront. We don’t need them attached to the GOP, but here’s what’s likely to come of Ron’s run. The leftists and Truther types who support him aren’t going to become part of the Republican fold, so their move to Paul is a one-off and doesn’t help the GOP and certainly doesn’t help the country win the war. It’s also not libertarian, by the way — these leftists are mostly statists who ironically spout paranoia about government conspiracies even while they tout government takeovers of whole industries like health care. The other thing that will probably happen is Paul’s lack of any effort to distance himself from the Stormfront types who are openly supporting him may drag them into the GOP at least by association. And that’s in spite of loads of nuance: Paul is actually a big-L Libertarian and has run for president on that ticket prior to this run, and the main thing that the Stormfront people like about him is his very strange take on foreign policy. They’re not coming through Paul to genuine conservative politics, but that won’t stop the MSM and the left from portraying the GOP as tolerating them because Paul, a nominal Republican, does.
By the way, read to the end of the linked article to see who we have to thank for bringing the brothel owner to Paul’s side.










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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Finally Ron Paul and I agree on an issue.
I look forward to the “No Beta Male Left Behind” act of 2008.
liberrocky on November 26, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Will someone just ask Paul if prostitution and hardcore drugs should be legal at one of those debates? When he says “yes” then maybe people will stop writing these stupid “The Rise of Paul” articles.
RW Wacko on November 26, 2007 at 4:52 PM
But of course.
amerpundit on November 26, 2007 at 4:52 PM
It’s too late, dude. We’ve been left.
Allahpundit on November 26, 2007 at 4:54 PM
For some reason, I am not really bothered that a brothel endorsed a candidate. Even less bothered that it endorsed Ron Paul. That fits the humor catagory.
Rode Werk on November 26, 2007 at 4:54 PM
And how do Tucker and Hof (sounds like an 80′s cop buddy show) know eachother?
Frozen Tex on November 26, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Kucinich gets Larry Flint and Ru Paul get the Pimp-whore local-69 endorsement.
TheSitRep on November 26, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Prosties4Paul?
Bad Candy on November 26, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Love those Ronulans.
Earlier this month I was taking a defensive handgun course at Front Sight outside of Las Vegas. There was an attractive young woman in the course who was a “designer” (whatever that is) from Pasadena.
On the second day of the course she stripped off her coat to reveal a “I Love Ron” T-shirt with a huge picture of the guy on it. The instructor made some jokes and finally said, “Really, what is it with this guy?”
Like a good Ronulan she actually pulled a pamphlet out of her back pocket and handed it to him. I almost barfed. I again almost barfed when she wore the same shirt the next day, or was it another one that is exactly the same. Either way is terribly sad.
thomashton on November 26, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Prostitutes for Paul!!
thirteen28 on November 26, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Armed Ronulans? I hope she wasn’t anywhere near the Neutral Zone.
Frozen Tex on November 26, 2007 at 4:59 PM
You need to stop thinking of yourself as a victim and start thinking of yourself as a Beta Maleism Survivor.
liberrocky on November 26, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Carrying pamphlets and wearing ceremonial clothing is pretty typical behavior for cultists.
ReubenJCogburn on November 26, 2007 at 5:05 PM
I went to a gun show the other day in Orange County (CA) and one of the booths there was for the Ron Paul people. There was also a sign out front that said Vote for Ron Paul or something along those lines. These people are popping up everywhere. Soon they’ll be competing with the LaRouche people.
wherestherum on November 26, 2007 at 5:05 PM
revHOlution?
JetBoy on November 26, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Fixed it for ya, AP.
Mike H on November 26, 2007 at 5:08 PM
What’s a Beta Maleism Survivor? Sounds zombie-ish.
Allahpundit on November 26, 2007 at 5:09 PM
He’s been very critical of the War on Drugs, from the standpoint of its cost and ineffectiveness.
dedalus on November 26, 2007 at 5:09 PM
It is like being a Breast Cancer Survivor although no one would ever want to hold an 8k fun-run on your behalf.
liberrocky on November 26, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Ah. Well, no one really “survives” Beta Maleism. It won’t kill you but it’s chronic and incurable, sapping your energy and joie de vivre at every turn.
It’s better than having tree branches for hands, though.
Allahpundit on November 26, 2007 at 5:14 PM
So, wouldn’t this be a bunch of libertines supporting a Libertarian? Can I get a ruling? Wheres the line judge?
liquidflorian on November 26, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Don’t you know the Romulans were our allies during the Dominion War. Wait, are we still talking politics or are we on Star Trek for real now?
thomashton on November 26, 2007 at 5:15 PM
What a campaign slogan: Brothel can you spare a dime?
Better headlines:
1) Poling place votes for Paul.
2) Busybodies support Paul.
3) Travelers’ chicks endorse Paul.
4) Privates enterprise supports Paul.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on November 26, 2007 at 5:17 PM
That seems to be the fundamental concern of people on the right.
Spirit of 1776 on November 26, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Sounds like the Ronbot chicks are the new hippie chicks, except they pack heat. Hmmm…..think I’ll have to temporarily “become” a Ronbot and do some undercover investigating.
RW Wacko on November 26, 2007 at 5:25 PM
The big tent gets bigger. Let’s see where we stand:
Pimps check
Whores check
Porno industry check
KKK check
Truthers check
Ufo freaks check
Meth heads check
Crack heads check
Pot heads check
Tax evaders check
I’m I leaving any out?
TheSitRep on November 26, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Haha, good question.
LindsayK on November 26, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Are you sure you want to stick with the mainly part? Jonah Goldberg’s Op-ed last week did a nice job in explaining why Huckabee is a real danger and Paul is not. I would surmise that the main support (maybe not the most vocal) are disenfranchised conservative who are sick and tired of Republicans candidates offering government solutions to non-government problems. (i.e healthcare)
sweeper on November 26, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Jackie Mason Rebuts Ron Paul Supporters
Connie on November 26, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Why ask? He is clear about this: Not the federal government’s job.
sweeper on November 26, 2007 at 5:33 PM
That was only expediency; I’m not sure I’d want to ally myself with a Ronulan for any reason…
Frozen Tex on November 26, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Although, not nearly as egregious, having Ron Paul attach
himself to the Republican party, is not unlike the David Duke fiasco of not so long ago. He needs to be exposed
as the Demorat that he is…Publicly and Often.
gary on November 26, 2007 at 5:35 PM
TheSitRep on November 26, 2007 at 5:29 PM
You left out some real important ones from the ‘front runner’. . .
pro-abortion on demand federally funded? check
pro gun confiscation regardless of the 2nd amendment? check
pro illegal alien (who says they are illegal?) check
pro gay rights? check
Frankly, I don’t know what R means anymore other than the ‘we’re not the D party’.
It’s definitely time for a 3rd party candidate. The more conservative/smaller government the better.
ThackerAgency on November 26, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Paul has a motley group of supporters, and some are repugnant. Hopefully, their interest in the Republican Party ends with Paul’s candidacy. Paul does standout, against a group of candidates who have largely bailed on the Goldwater sensibility. Perhaps, Paul’s candidacy will also attract to the party people who prioritize individual liberty ahead of using the levers of state to impose a moral (either lefty or righty) viewpoint.
dedalus on November 26, 2007 at 5:39 PM
B/c I am hoping it might head off the sudden love affair some in the media seem to be having with the guy. Seems a lot of people are forgetting the guy is a kook and need to be reminded.
RW Wacko on November 26, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Why would it? Prostitution isn’t currently a federal issue, Nevada is a perfect example where it was allowed at the county level.
On drugs, I think a lot of people think it’s ridiculous that some states legalized medical marijuana and yet the federal government still goes in and arrests people in those states. Drugs should be dealt with by the states and local governments. The federal war on drugs has been an abysmal failure.
libertytexan on November 26, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Does anybody know any of these characters that post in any forum or comments space about Ron Paul? That he is going to sweep in the elections, that he is more popular than Hillary, etc.etc. Is that a paid job? or there are just volunteers who foam through the mouth while typing?
Ropera on November 26, 2007 at 5:49 PM
It’s not inconsistent to be against something and still not want the federal government to pass laws prohibiting these acts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k
Here’s a classic from 1988 with Morton Downey
sweeper on November 26, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Guess we found out the real reasons why Paul-Nut is a Libertarian and why “love” is so prominent in his (r)Evolution.
steveegg on November 26, 2007 at 5:53 PM
I agree, but the Feds will have to show some discipline and “just say no” when some inevitably screw up and look to the Feds to bail them out. Whether that’s super aggro enforcement or “do whatever ya want.” I don’t know the right answer to the drug problem, but I agree the War on Drugs has been largely been a failure.
Bad Candy on November 26, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Do people think Fred Thompson is pro-abortion because he is a federalist on the issue? I think we can say no. So why is Ron Paul pro-prostitution and pro-drugs for being a federalist on the issue?
libertytexan on November 26, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Beats being on the receiving end of said transactions should the Dems win, if you catch my proverbial drift.
Captain Scarlet on November 26, 2007 at 6:09 PM
It has been an expensive failure, but the next president will keep funding it, rather than risk being called “soft” on the issue. Being “soft” on budgetary restraint hasn’t been nearly as politically damaging. It would be good to hear more from the candidates on the increase in non-defense discretionary spending. Under Bush, I believe the rate of increase has been the highest since Nixon, who himself was nearly as bad as LBJ. Maybe its just that finance isn’t as sexy as war, drugs, hookers, race or religion.
dedalus on November 26, 2007 at 6:10 PM
That’s just what the instructor said. He called her a “modern conservative hippie.”
thomashton on November 26, 2007 at 6:19 PM
See: Ron Paul and His Jew-hating Supporters
Andy in Agoura Hills on November 26, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Being a federalist on a issue allows the possibility for the states to deal with it their own way obviously, so yes if Fred is a federalist on abortion then he is pro-abortion when it comes to politics, if not in belief.
War on drugs is a failure, yes, but there are strong deterrents out there to taking/selling/buying hardcore drugs. Expense/stigma/risk of incarceration namely. If hard-core drugs were legal, I’d be dead for instance. I can think of a few of my old buddies who would be, too. I did serious juvie time and that straightened my arse out pretty good.
Legalizing weed and legalizing heroin, crack, powder and meth are different things altogether. I said hard-core drugs, specifically.
RW Wacko on November 26, 2007 at 6:22 PM
The federal govt has a legitimate role to play in promoting public safety. I think the drug war falls under that category. As does cracking down on illegal immigration. As does funding the CDC, etc etc.
RW Wacko on November 26, 2007 at 6:25 PM
More liberty often means less safety. Dems and GOP both end up increasing the size of government by telling the voters to trade their tax dollars for physical, financial, or medical security.
dedalus on November 26, 2007 at 6:29 PM
I hear you, dude. I think the role of the fed govt should be restricted to public safety, period. Basically the military and a few choice other things. No Dept of Education, for example, or Dept of the Interior, or EPA, or any of that crap.
RW Wacko on November 26, 2007 at 6:34 PM
the key to Paul’s foreign policy and how dangerous it is, is to point out the the sane few Paul supporters, that his FP assumes that “Man is good”. Its the only way to rationalize that “if we just leave them alone” i.e. “non-interventionism” even against our biggest enemies like the Islamic-Nihilist…..they will suddenly return the favor and leave us alone and then we can hold hands and sing kumbaya with them. The guy’s Foreign policy is either insane or has an alterior motive(possibly to help destroy Israel?).
Ron Paul, the one candidate that has COMMUNIST support along with NAZI support. THis should give a thinking person alot to think about.
jp on November 26, 2007 at 6:38 PM
also classic, from that same debate, is Paul claiming the Bush Family and the CIA are DRUG DEALERS. This is a long standing and evolving fringe nut conspiracy, which Paul is into in the 1988 run and likely still today.
jp on November 26, 2007 at 6:41 PM
@ jp on November 26, 2007 at 6:38 PM
That isnt even CLOSE to correct. His reasoning for his foreign policy is that there is NO reason we should be sending messing in other countries business unless they pose a direct threat to us. Also, the removal of US troops from the middle east, stopping of military support to Israel and etc would go a LONG way in reducing the amount of violence against US interests. Also, there is no reason to maintain US troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. Its a waste of money. The cold war is over, we dont need troops staged all over the globe. Paul’s idea is to bring those troops home, maybe SECURE THE DAMN BORDER HERE, and reduce the size of the government.
Oh, and the fact that he is supported by a handful of people in the FAR right and the FAR left means absolutely nothing other than he has wide appeal. I guess its odd that people just want government the HELL out of their lives, want the government to stop arresting MILLIONS of people for non violent drug offenses, want the government to stop eroding the constitution with things like the patriot act, and want congress to approve before we go to ANY war. These are all things that are fairly commonly agreed upon.
muyoso on November 26, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Dude, you’re retarded.
Andy in Agoura Hills on November 26, 2007 at 7:00 PM
@ Andy in Agoura Hills on November 26, 2007 at 7:00 PM
What a poignant rebuttal of ideas you have. God, I see the light. All of views are coming around, your eloquent response has captivated my mind.
muyoso on November 26, 2007 at 7:02 PM
While I agree that the “War on Drugs” has been an expensive failure, I also believe it has been horribly named. Until our borders are truly secured, I’d prefer to call it our “Police Action on Drugs”.
(Sorry, I just had to comment on this… I was picturing the seat stains created as a drug dealer sees a fully armed Apache show up to escort his Cessna into US airspace for inspections!)
dominigan on November 26, 2007 at 7:07 PM
I haven’t read the other comments but I would like to think that…maybe I better say this over at Ace’s site.
Bill C on November 26, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Eh, shut up.
Andy in Agoura Hills on November 26, 2007 at 7:28 PM
@ Andy in Agoura Hills on November 26, 2007 at 7:28 PM
I thought you had to be a grown up to comment on this board? Did dummy not get his snack today?
muyoso on November 26, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Paul’s a protest candidate, nothing more. To compare him to Goldwater is laughable, I’m afraid, and if all the different fringe groups among his supporters ever congregated in one place, there’d be mass mayhem — I doubt you could say the same about Goldwater’s supporters.
People are supporting Paul not for what he’s for, but for what (of the many things) he’s against. From what I’ve seen, many of them are totally ignoring what the totality of his ideas would mean to us as a nation, and are stuck on one facet (e.g. small government, or isolationism) to the exclusion of the total picture. I believe the reason for that is that many of them either a) don’t have a clue about history nor do they care; or b) they know he doesn’t stand a chance of winning, and they (some of his supporters) aren’t in the habit of voting anyhow, so why not?
I agree about (mis)using the levers of state to impose a viewpoint, policy, or yet another social welfare program, but an opponent with a kooky, obsessive, following isn’t going set the tone in that debate.
Nichevo on November 26, 2007 at 7:32 PM
here is pauls’ ‘reasoning’: Suicide Terroism
he is relying on a professor who is ignorant of religion and Islam, and links all terrorism to Nationalism instead. Robert Pape. Paul is a fool, he’s assuming man is fundamentally ‘good’ at heart. He is Noam Chomsky on this stuff.
Paul, and Pape, are fools. a simple reading of Robert Spencer shows that, as should common sense and world history. See the rise of Hitler while the US was passing one “Neutrality Act” after another and Britain was ignoring Churchill and listening to Chamberline.
jp on November 26, 2007 at 7:33 PM
Thanks for the link. I recall watching Mort a few times in the 80′s. He had the talk show circus schtick down before Jerry Springer. The “200 lbs of dope” line at the end was funny and it was interesting to see Curtis Sliwa’s ex-wife.
Don’t know how Mort felt about the freedom to smoke cigarettes as he was dying from lung cancer. I guess he had the right to smoke and kill himself.
dedalus on November 26, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Keep dreaming buddy, and I hope you continue getting marching orders from al qaeda. Let me rephrase that quote,
If we ever follow Ron’s idiotic foreign policy and pull back in to the US, then we ask Al Qaeda and other radical islamist if they are satisfied, what if they say no, what will Ron do then.
As the title of John Bolton’s book says “Surrender is not an Option”. Ron Pauls policy of capitulation and retreat in the war on terror will not help one bit.
Complete7 on November 26, 2007 at 7:40 PM
He’s not retarded, he’s “special.”
Vinnie on November 26, 2007 at 7:41 PM
I’m talking about his libertarian views. You are talking about his followers. One might analyze his followers from a sociolgicial standpoint, but I’m more interested in issues of government and history.
I didn’t compare him personally with Goldwater, but rather said that all the other candidates have moved away from Goldwater’s small government ideals and emphasis on personal liberty–Rudy and Huck especially.
Goldwater propelled Reagan, but by the middle of Reagan’s second term Goldwater became very critical of the influence of the social cons on the party. By the 90′s he didn’t think he’d fit in with what the party had become.
dedalus on November 26, 2007 at 7:48 PM
what about his Neville Chamberline like Foreign Policy views?
Goldwater campaigned as Vietnam Hawk and advocated Nuking the North Vietnamese.
jp on November 26, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Maybe it wouldn’t. Might we be over-extended though? Gates wants to draw down the troop level in Iraq, but the commanders say that it could threaten gains that we’ve made.
What if Pakistan descends into chaos? Where would we get the troops from?
dedalus on November 26, 2007 at 7:53 PM
@Complete7 on November 26, 2007 at 7:40 PM
That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. What do you think US foreign policy was before WWI? It was STRICTLY isolationist. Pulling out of the region isnt being done to appease Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda is WAY too insignificant to justify something like that. Pulling out of the region is because we have no business being there in the first place. I understand you feel all MANLY wanting to always push forward and never step back, and it pleases you to stay in the middle east stirring up the hornets nest for some reason, but do you not see the chicken and the egg scenario? Being in the middle east stirs up all sorts of hatred of the US, which causes us to send more to the middle east, which causes more hatred, which causes . . . .
I am not BLAMING the US for anything, which is what you will accuse me of because you dont have the ability to step back from a situation and rationally view it without bias. I am stating the truth that our very presence in the region stirs up all sorts of anti-American sentiment. Think about if the situation was reversed and say the Iranians were “liberating” the east coast of the US for half a decade.
muyoso on November 26, 2007 at 8:09 PM
And after WWI. Heck, Senate didn’t even ratify the League of Nations.
Spirit of 1776 on November 26, 2007 at 8:14 PM
There are definitely differences. Abortion is one issue. The use of military force is another. Goldwater, like William F. Buckley, was something akin to a neo-con of the 1950′s in that they believed passionately in small government but saw the Cold War and the threat of communism to be so great that it required a temporary expansion in the power of the federal government, an increase in defense spending, and a projection of military power into the world. This was at odds with conservatism of Robert Taft.
Goldwater and Paul share similer views on the size of the federal government, state rights, emminent domain individual liberties, and gun ownership. I believe that Barry Goldwater’s son, who is a director of the Goldwater Institute, has endorsed Ron Paul.
dedalus on November 26, 2007 at 8:17 PM
this is a lie, the US military has been deployed outside our borders nearly 200 times since inception. Going back to the days of the founding fathers.
Michael Medved had a great column(s) on this lie recently:
Responding to lies about America’s “isolationist” past and “imperialist” present
jp on November 26, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Apparently, someone has never listened to the words of the Marine Corps Hymn. You know, the one that starts out “From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli.”
I do believe it was written before WWI.
My apologies, you’re not “special” at all, you’re just a typical Paultard, although “Ronulan” is pretty clever.
Vinnie on November 26, 2007 at 8:27 PM
jp on November 26, 2007 at 8:28 PM
That’s a good quote. That’s pretty much how it seems to me too. Which is actually why I think the US shouldn’t apologize for securing it’s national interests, even oil. I’m more comfortable with that then with nation building actually.
Spirit of 1776 on November 26, 2007 at 8:32 PM
we don’t intervene in Darfur or Tibet, because unfortunately for them we don’t have national interest at stake there. We do in the Middle East, on multiple levels. but atleast Buchanan recognizes we were never an isolatinist/non-interventionist nation.
I think Ann Coulter has the right take on this, she says if you are going to hold this view stick with Pat Buchanan and steer clear of Ron Paul. She doesn’t think to highly of paul and what he’s doing, but respects buchanan, big difference.
jp on November 26, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Here in San Diego in 1996, we hosted the Republican National Convention. According to sources in the hotel and, ahem, service industry, it was a banner week for hookers and in-house hotel porn movie rentals. So, what’s the problem? Seem Ron Paul’s chosen the perfect party.
Drum on November 26, 2007 at 8:38 PM
the same sort of American Interest are at stake now in the Middle East, that were at stake when Jefferson took us into the Barbary Wars against Islamic extrememist. Except magnified significantly because of how the world has changed, its mind boggling people can’t see it.
jp on November 26, 2007 at 8:38 PM
You know, if you don’t get past this whole attachment you have for history and facts, you are never going to get to ride on the Ronulan mothership. Embrace the ignorance, man! It’s the fuel that powers the Cult of Ron Paul!
ReubenJCogburn on November 26, 2007 at 8:48 PM
I agree that that is the issue of the BWars – American interests, specifically trade. The issue of Islam does get bantered about a bit, especially with reference to the fact that Jefferson read the Koran. He advocated fighting and Adams advocated paying the extortion (8 million I think?) to keep trade from being pirated. So from that standpoint I agree.
I would suggest though, that after the US’s rise as a superpower, some of the fundamental operations it has undertaken where not previously done by her, but by Britain. In others words, there has been some change.
Spirit of 1776 on November 26, 2007 at 8:51 PM
I’m sorry but Al Qaeda is VERY significant, significant enough to kill 3,000 people on 9/11, and disrupt the stability in Iraq after the invasion and sway the hearts of millions of middle easterners. And significant enough to get the ear of people like you Ron Paul and a lot of liberals in this country.
Complete7 on November 26, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Big Pimpin Paul
ackrite55 on November 26, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Draft dodgers
Immigration coddlers
right2bright on November 26, 2007 at 9:21 PM
I don’t get it. Our resident RP supporter has acknowledged the basic ‘foreign policy’ of the US pre-WWII..
..And look where that got y’all.
Reaps on November 26, 2007 at 11:30 PM
let’s all just sit back and imagine how annoying it would be to go into a brothel full of paulbots. you’d think it would…ummm…impede the business transaction from taking place.
its vintage duh on November 26, 2007 at 11:46 PM
I think that some of you are missing the point of the Ron Paul phenomenon.
Fully 1/3 of the American electorate now identifies itself as “Unaffiliated”. They feel they can not trust the government, and that the two major partys are NOT representing the American people… only their own quest for power.
Both the Presidents, and the Congresses, approval ratings are at historicly low levels.
Paul comes in, and speaks about self determination… and freedom from the Nanny State…
Yes, he’s a nut… but he’s a nut that is saying what a LOT of Americans are thinking.
Why are we the worlds policeman? Why, are we the ONLY people supporting the UN? Why are we spending money, and effort, on a war on drugs that is failing? Why are the feds involved in so many things the founding fathers didn’t put them in charge of?
Why? when the majority of things I and my family need from government (Police, Fire, Schools, Roads) are paid for by STATES are my FEDERAL taxes so much higher than my state taxes? (and don’t talk to me about Soc Sec, thats a whole other tax…. I’ll pay my part for defense… but come on…).
Face it, we could have spent the money we used in Iraq to SEAL the borders of America… and put a good system in place to track those who should not be here….
We still have troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea (NORKS are no threat to the south, they are still using 1950s technology…). Why do we have troops scattered all over the world, when we don’t even control our OWN borders?
I really don’t think you all get the ANGER out here in America pointed at BOTH parties in power in Washington. Paul is a symptom… not a cause…
Romeo13 on November 27, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Romeo13, your diagnosis is somewhat correct. However, Paul is a bandaid, not a prescription or a solution for what ails us.
Entelechy on November 27, 2007 at 1:40 AM
Ideology Was Bush’s Undoing
This conviction lay behind the invasion of Iraq, Bush’s crusade to democratize the Middle East and his “global democratic revolution” to “end tyranny in our world.” And, as Woodrow Wilson’s crusade “to make the world safe for democracy” gave us Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, Bush’s crusade for democracy is leaving us with ashes in our mouths.
Yet, Wilson’s heart was pure, and he ever exhibited the serenity of the True Believer, the unmistakable mark of the ideologue. One imagines Bush will be preaching the dogma of free trade long after the last U.S. factory has closed and the dollar has reached parity with the Mexican peso.
MB4 on November 27, 2007 at 2:08 AM
No, that would be Tom Tancredo. Who isn’t a nut, but is saying what a lot of Americans are thinking. Too bad a lot of Americans realize he has no hope of winning the nomination.
Or are just oblivious to the whole process.
Ron Paul is more akin to Ross Perot, who is a nut, with far more support on the nutroots side. The Paultards love the anti-war protests, as Zombie’s photo essays show.
Vinnie on November 27, 2007 at 2:14 AM
Yes, and and enough money left over to buy you and me and
Entelechy each a brand new red corvette and Allapundit an IPhone and an Ipod!
MB4 on November 27, 2007 at 2:17 AM
Or, you could look at Paul (and Buchanan) as a canary in a coal mine.
MB4 on November 27, 2007 at 2:25 AM
Anyone sure this guy didn’t escape from the island of misfit toys?
thareb on November 27, 2007 at 6:00 AM
if you want to play that game, we spend twice as much on Education as we do Defense as a % of GDP, and of that Iraq is a small percentage.
We have major National interest at stake in the Middle East, that is why we are there and why we play the isolationist card with other parts of the world like Darfur and Tibet.
jp on November 27, 2007 at 9:58 AM
We only have two major National Security interests in the Mid East… Oil, and Israel.
I’d be more than willing to take the troops in Germany, and Japan, and move them to Israel, where they are actualy needed.
As to oil? We are not drilling HERE! With American know how and a bit of engineering we COULD become energy independent… but instead we fund Ethanol (stupid, and not energy efficient), and support OVERSEAS governments. We have not built a single plant to turn oil into gasoline for FOURTY YEARS! No dams for hydro… no nuke plants… crap, we’re not even trying…
Add in the weak dollar? You’ve got the perfect storm…
The dollar has decreased in value about 30% since Bush has been in office… which means everything we buy overseas (LIKE OIL) is 30% more expensive.
Can’t proove it, but I would bet that a lot of the stock market drop of the last month (10%) is FOREIGN investment drying up due to the weak dollar.
Romeo13 on November 27, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Are you kidding me? Israel needing our help? Geez, if we weren’t our continually shackling Israel to keep it from doing what it probably should have done years ago (putting its enemies in their places), there probably would be little need for an Annapolis peace conference. As it stands, the best thing for Israel would be for us to let it do what it thinks it should do to protect itself. The results would be ominous and afterwards we’d all turn to each other with a South Parkian, “Oh.”
Drum on November 27, 2007 at 10:22 AM
That’s it. I couldn’t figure out who this dingbat looks like — it’s Hermy the Elf Dentist!
Jaibones on November 27, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Which am I? Which is my wife? Which is the rest of my immediate family? Which are the members of our armed forces (which support Ron Paul over all other candidates)?
Do you have any facts to back up your assertion, or are you just hand-picking fringe minorities and declaring them to be the base of Paul’s support?
Mark Jaquith on November 27, 2007 at 10:38 AM
I am stating the truth that our very presence in the region stirs up all sorts of anti-American sentiment. Think about if the situation was reversed and say the Iranians were “liberating” the east coast of the US for half a decade.
muyoso on November 26, 2007 at 8:09 PM
I am stating the truth that our very presence in the WORLD stirs up all sorts of anti-CHRISTIAN sentiment.
Iranians “liberating” the east coast of the US… what a ridiculous and non-sense analogy.
christophercube on November 27, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »