Video: Glenn Beck just about kisses Ron Paul; Update: Beck asks Paul, are you a Truther or what?

Goldberg posted a portion of his article on The Corner today:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTIxYjRhNGYxZTVkNjUwNzkxNTJlMWU5ZDZiYzAwMTM=

….The Buckleyite position came to define mainstream American conservatism (and much of libertarianism) until the fall of the Berlin Wall. But a few rightist intellectuals dissented. The most famous was Murray Rothbard, a brilliant anarchist libertarian who saw in the Cold War a sweeping con job. The “blight of anti-Communism,” Rothbard tellingly wrote in the left-wing journal Ramparts, paved the way for a takeover of American conservatism by defenders of Truman’s “imperialist aggression.” The Cold War was merely a convenient justification for statism, the crushing of dissent, and war lust. Churchill, de Gaulle, and Khrushchev were equally “butchers.” Truman was the “butcher of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” National Review had a “clerical fascist” tinge, while various hard-Left organs — such as the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy — earned Rothbard’s support and membership.

Ron Paul is perhaps the most famous heir to the Rothbard tradition. He even has a portrait of Rothbard on his wall (that is, according to Wikipedia; Paul’s office declined to grant an interview for this piece). Paul claims to be the standard-bearer of a truer, more authentic conservatism. In debates he spins an odd historical interpretation in which the GOP has always succeeded when championing either withdrawal from foreign conflicts (Korea, Vietnam) or non-interventionism. Most analysts, on the other hand, will tell you the GOP’s advocacy of a strong defense has been a strength. Still, Paul claims that withdrawal not only from the U.N. (yippee!) but also from NATO, the WTO, NAFTA, and every “entangling alliance” (read: support for Israel, mutual-defense agreements, etc.) is the truly conservative position. When the Republican presidential candidates debated in South Carolina, he invoked Robert Taft’s opposition to NATO. Left out of Paul’s tale: Taft supported the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, promised “100 percent support for the Chinese National government on Formosa,” advocated “occasional extensions . . . into Europe, Asia, and Africa,” and favored keeping six divisions in Europe, at least until the Europeans could defend themselves.

In the 1980s, as Reagan supported rollback, Paul favored roll-up. He wanted the U.S. to leave NATO and abandon Japan. On Grenada he was more nuanced, but he aimed his fire at Reagan’s decision not to seek a declaration of war from Congress (a frequent safe harbor from which Paul criticizes nearly every military engagement). In the foreword to A Foreign Policy of Freedom, a collection of Paul’s foreign-policy floor speeches, Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. calls the Cold War and the War on Terror all part of the same “farce”; both were ruses to justify large government.

jp on December 18, 2007 at 9:19 PM

I think if Hillary is Dem nominee

and Mitt or Rudy, maybe Huck are Repub nominee

a centrist, McCain/Lieberman run comes out and wins. There are enough Dems that would vote this ticket that hate hillary for it to happen.

Paul will pull alot of far-left kook votes, so will hurt dem some as well.

jp on December 18, 2007 at 9:22 PM

The net effect of a Ron Paul 3rd party run will be to help the GOP. The only people that follow this guy are people that either don’t vote, haven’t voted, or are democrats to begin with. Plus they’ll all be to stoned on election day.

actually, there are some, evangelical christians that do vote that are supporting paul. Its a paticular strand that are “Christian Libertarians”, which is little different than big L. they think, wrongly, that Paul is the only one that supports the Constitution(even though he politicizes it) and is the only one paying lip service to limited govt. To still support him, it requires being ignorant of current events like the Iraq war, how we got there, etc. They are also paranoid by ACLU fear mongering on the International Terrorist Surveillanc program, etc.

anyway they are out there. check out the “Christian Exodus” movement in South carolina. They are the seperatist movement trying to get Christians to move to SC and then seceed. basically given up on ever changing the whole US…they support Paul.

jp on December 18, 2007 at 9:32 PM

you don’t want 9/11 troofers, holocaust deniers, neo-nazi’s and other fringe nut fruitcake supporters, no matter how motivated. The media would do nothing more than smear you, which is why sane, serious, politicians would give back donations from Neo-Nazi’s, paul accepts and panders to them.

jp on December 18, 2007 at 11:35 PM

he’s allowed his columns to be run in Holocaust denying publications for years, has a long history of being anti-Israel to the point a resolution last year to support Israeal against Hezzbollah(a Terrorist group) he along with Kucinich voted against.

he’s on record talking about many fring nut conspiracies, whether the NAU or Fed related, to AIPAC ‘running our Foreign Policy” to parroting Michael Moore’s anti-american propaganda bout Afghanistan being about “Oil Pipelines”

jp on December 19, 2007 at 12:01 AM

see this: http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/

paticulary towards the end.

and all of this

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

jp on December 19, 2007 at 12:09 AM

from an apperance on a radio show no pres. candidate should go on, Alex Jones radio show:

CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.

pandering, pathetic excuse for a man.

jp on December 19, 2007 at 12:17 AM

and if the last thing I posted isn’t enough, you are brainwashed.

just because he has enough political sense while on Beck to deny it, doesn’t mean he isn’t pandering to them and sympathetic to those idiots.

jp on December 19, 2007 at 12:20 AM