Politico: Ron Paul really has to explain these six statements

posted at 11:40 am on December 23, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

No, this isn’t another post about the newsletters, which Politico to their credit has covered and does mention in this piece.  Instead, Ginger Gibson identifies six political statements from Paul over the years that she believes Paul will need to explain to maintain his credibility in this race:

The storyline dogging Ron Paul as his numbers continue to rise in Iowa — the racist content in newsletters published in the 1990s under his name — poses a significant impediment to his campaign’s momentum.

But that’s not his only problem.

Even as he disavows the newsletters — the Texas congressman asserts he didn’t write them and never even read them — Paul’s got a collection of other statements that he’ll likely need to explain in greater detail if he expects to capture the Republican Party nomination.

I’ll bullet-point the statements Gibson identifies:

  • The “disaster” of Ronald Reagan’s conservative agenda
  • Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional
  • American drug laws are designed to fund rogue governments, CIA programs
  • U.S. foreign policy “significantly contributed” to 9/11 attacks
  • Returning white supremacist donation is “pandering”
  • The Civil Rights Act “violated the Constitution”

Before I address the statements themselves, I’ll question the premise of the article itself.  When has Ron Paul ever had to give a rational explanation to anything he’s done in the past to maintain his base of support?  Granted, Paul’s support has temporarily expanded outside of that base in Iowa and New Hampshire, and if he wants to maintain that momentum, these statements would eventually have to get reconciled.  I doubt, however, that Paul or his team see the need to “explain” these statements, and not just because they might still believe all of this.  In politics, “explaining” is “losing.”

There are only really two statements here that haven’t been baked into the Paul cake and could hurt him.  When running for President on the Libertarian ticket in 1987, Paul credited Reagan for “pointing out the fallacies of the Democratic liberal agenda in 1980, but then castigated him for doing “a good job on following up to show the disaster of the conservative agenda as well.”  As Gibson points out, Republicans still consider the Age of Ronaldus Maximus as a golden era for conservatism, and this attack won’t wear well with the base.  Paul made that statement almost a quarter-century ago, though, and he can certainly say that in retrospect, Reagan accomplished much while still leaving much unaccomplished.

The other is the donation from the Florida white supremacist and Paul’s refusal to return it, saying, “I think it is pandering. I think it is playing the political correctness.”  Without the newsletters, this wouldn’t be a huge issue, but with the newsletters it looks as though the real pandering involving Paul was pandering to the fringe-bigot crowd.  That didn’t come from 24 years ago, but from his presidential run four years ago.  It only would have cost Paul $500 to resolve this issue at the time, but if the media decides to pick it up, it could reinforce the newsletter story and provide a clear narrative of Paul as a fringe-element kook.

The other statements are, for better or worse, standard Paul fare.  The argument that Social Security and Medicare are “unconstitutional” has been voiced by other Republican presidential candidates besides Paul.  Paul has long criticized the Civil Rights Act as a constitutional overreach of the federal government, a position with which his more-politically-adept son flirted in his Senate campaign before hitting reverse and affirming it as a positive development.  The other positions — that the US foreign policy “significantly contributed to the [9/11] attacks” and that the drug war is intended to fund “some terrorist government someplace” or to fund CIA programs are part of Paul’s rather paranoid view of the world, which is his tie to the Alex Jones base and why he makes so many appearances on Prison Planet.  In fact, as this poorly-produced web ad (the voice-over is hysterical and the recording is warbly) from the Paul campaign from a couple of weeks ago reminds us, Paul didn’t win his legion of devotees by taking a rational, thinking approach to American security:

That doesn’t sound as if Team Paul thinks they have anything to explain, even if they really, really do.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3 6

I’m Ron Paul, and I’m part of this Satan sandwich.

HopeHeFails on December 23, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Love means you never have to say you’re sorry.

One of the more irrational slogans from the hippie movement.

itsnotaboutme on December 23, 2011 at 11:44 AM

I don’t think “has to” and means what Politico thinks it means.

MayBee on December 23, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Paul will need to explain to maintain his credibility in this race:

Ron Paul has no credibility.

With stories like this, the ‘news media’ loses a little more credibility of it’s own every time they run a story like this.

Skandia Recluse on December 23, 2011 at 11:46 AM

I can see 2, 5, and 6, even if they are politically incorrect. 1 is weird. 3 and 4 reflect his strange grasp of foreign policy.

Paul-Cincy on December 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Uh is that video a real ad?

It’s crazy.

tetriskid on December 23, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Left out:

- America could defend itself with a few good submarines.
- A border fence would be used to keep Americans from escaping.
- $31 Billion in pork while claiming to be a fiscal conservative.

Rebar on December 23, 2011 at 11:48 AM

No one but me thinks the whole Alex Jones fixation on Zionist spider/goat DNA hybridization experiments is hysterically funny.

troyriser_gopftw on December 23, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Oh, great. Now Hot Air, a supposedly conservative site, is using a Politico article to take down a GOP candidate. Strange bedfellows are created when the establishment gets threatened.

Puma for Life on December 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Ron Paul is frigging out of his mind and dangerously so! Old and disturbed. In a different way from Obama, but just as certainly his vision of America is wrong, disturbed and would lead to us being destroyed.

odannyboy on December 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Here we go with another Ronulan swarm thread.

Hard Right on December 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM

No one but me thinks the whole Alex Jones fixation on Zionist spider/goat DNA hybridization experiments is hysterically funny.

troyriser_gopftw

CRABGOATS!

Hard Right on December 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Paul has long criticized the Civil Rights Act as a constitutional overreach of the federal government, a position with which his more-politically-adept son flirted in his Senate campaign before hitting reverse and affirming it as a positive development

Ed as a supposed conservative why don’t you seem to get that is the government can base overreaches of its grated authority on moral grounds then there is nothing they cannot do since they can find a moral justification for any decision they make including going to war. After all it still took a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery.

Or at least then admit you do not see a limit on federal authority!

ReformedDeceptiCon on December 23, 2011 at 11:51 AM

In this case the source is irrelevant. These are actual quotes and further prove Ron paul and his drones are not Conservatives but anti-authority loons.

Hard Right on December 23, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Oh, great. Now Hot Air, a supposedly conservative site, is using a Politico article to take down a GOP candidate.
Puma for Life on December 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM

No take down…just facts that must be dealt with..

Electrongod on December 23, 2011 at 11:53 AM

The “disaster” of Ronald Reagan’s conservative agenda
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional
American drug laws are designed to fund rogue governments, CIA programs
U.S. foreign policy “significantly contributed” to 9/11 attacks
Returning white supremacist donation is “pandering”
The Civil Rights Act “violated the Constitution”

1) Reagan did a lot of good, but spending still went up under him.
2) True.
3) Eh, after hearing about fast and furious and it’s cousin (the DEA is laundering money for the cartels for some reason), who knows? (only half-joking). But in all seriousness, US drug policy domestically and internationally is a disaster.
4) Paul can’t walk this back at this point, I mean, it is what it is.
5) Whatever.
6) True.

These aren’t really questions that I want him to answer. They really don’t matter, and shouldnt. If Paul could give a cogent answer on a question like, “what would be the response of president paul if Iran nukes Israel?” that could matter to me, though.

Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 11:54 AM

“maintain”?

The Schaef on December 23, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Let’s try this:
Barack Obama must get authorization from Congress if he is going to commit acts of war on another country.

Barack Obama must explain his relationship to Tony Rezko.

Barack Obama must explain his role in Valerie Jarrett’s negotiations with Blago for a Senate seat.

See? This “must” and “has to” is pretty darn meaningless.

MayBee on December 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Oh, great. Now Hot Air, a supposedly conservative site, is using a Politico article to take down a GOP candidate. Strange bedfellows are created when the establishment gets threatened.

Puma for Life on December 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM

That’s not exactly true, but since you obviously believe it, the question arises, isn’t it better to take him down now, vs. AFTER he gets the nomination, so that the left can use these things to give us four more years of Obeyme?

JannyMae on December 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM

From the article,

As Gibson points out, Republicans still consider the Age of Ronaldus Maximus as a golden era for conservatism, and this attack won’t wear well with the base.

The conservative base is not supporting Paul and never has. His support is from Libertarians. Why does this article make Paul look like a Republican. He is NOT! The Republican party and the Candidates should be calling for him to quit calling himself a Republican!

they lie on December 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM

There is no perfect candidate. Even if you are clean as the wind driven snow, the MSM will lie about you and make you out to be a monster or womanizer.

Decoski on December 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM

1) Reagan did a lot of good, but spending still went up under him.

Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Revenues doubled… and Reagan complained about the deficit every year. He wanted the line-item veto that the Dem legislature would not give him.

He was also trying to win the Cold War.

I just want us to remember the context.

mankai on December 23, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Left out:

- America could defend itself with a few good submarines.
- A border fence would be used to keep Americans from escaping.
- $31 Billion in pork while claiming to be a fiscal conservative.

Rebar on December 23, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Personally, I really hope RP will explain these 9 things in greater detail….Oy. Just think of the gems that would fall out of his mouth!!!! I don’t see a way these could be explained any other way!

AZgranny on December 23, 2011 at 11:56 AM

the video is good example of how devoted to lies and Moral Relativism Paul has to be to hold to his ideology.

jp on December 23, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Look, Ron Paul is retiring from politics after this year. The fact that his platform is doing so well should be encouraging to all of us. You know someone (cough Rand) will come along next cycle with Ron Pauls domestic policies (which are so popular), but different foreign policies (which are not at all popular) and with out close ties to nut cases like alex jones

Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 11:57 AM

If you ask RP to answer anything it is a clear indication that you are a Stalinist who is owned by the Israeli lobby.

/

mankai on December 23, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Ron Paul does not have to explain anything to anybody and if you ask him to explain anything his supporters will threaten to break your legs at worse and call you all kinds of names at least.So be very careful Politico they have got their pitch forks sharpen.

logman1 on December 23, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Don’t know much about IA but it seems that they are excessively affected by Evangelical pastors and kooks like Ron Paul–at least that’s the picture that’s being painted. Is it really possible they are so manipulatible? Are they?

jeanie on December 23, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Is that your room number? Psych ward. Paul is nuts.

VegasRick on December 23, 2011 at 11:58 AM

If his base is so big its scary to think there are that many delusional people. I see many on this site who try to excuse away his statements! as someone pointed out, if it was just about the Libertarian point of view why not Gary Johnson? It makes me think it goes deeper than that, especialy when you have so many leftys in his corner also.

lisa fox on December 23, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Why didn’t Ron Paul stay with the Libertarian Party? Why did he reconvert to the GOP, since he contemns (yes, that’s contemns, not condemns) virtually all its history and principles? Can somebody who professes to understand him explain what Paul is trying to do here?

Scriptor on December 23, 2011 at 11:59 AM

On many positions, Ron Paul represents a fringe of the GOP. That being said, I like having him in the party because he keeps people focused on the fact that we spend too much money, have too much government in the system, and are too willing to give up the rights the Founders risked their lives and fortunes to give us.

wcwindbag on December 23, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Wow, Ed. You consider yourself a conservative and you think these are non-conservative positions?

Dante on December 23, 2011 at 11:59 AM

There is no perfect candidate. Even if you are clean as the wind driven snow, the MSM will lie about you and make you out to be a monster or womanizer.

Decoski on December 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM

You got that right! Ron Paul is yet another poster boy for the Republican party to be taken down. Don’t get me wrong in my opinion he is a nut, but it won’t matter who we choose the MSM will be at their throat.Get used to it….

sandee on December 23, 2011 at 11:59 AM

lisa fox on December 23, 2011 at 11:58 AM

It’s his position on legalizing ALL drugs. That’s all.

VegasRick on December 23, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Will Romney explain why the Mormon church used to be racist towards blacks?

Is it safe to assume Romney believes in the original teachings of the Mormon church and he is a secret racist?

liberal4life on December 23, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Uh, so, that’s the kind of crazy ad that crazy Ron Paul thinks will convince people that he’s not crazy?

Once again, Ron Paul proves that he is not really serious about wanting to be president – his current “campaign” is just another crazy soap box from which he can spew his crazy anti-American insanity.

Come on, he really is out of his mind, and everyone knows it.

Pork-Chop on December 23, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Look, Ron Paul is retiring from politics after this year. The fact that his platform is doing so well should be encouraging to all of us. You know someone (cough Rand) will come along next cycle with Ron Pauls domestic policies (which are so popular), but different foreign policies (which are not at all popular) and with out close ties to nut cases like alex jones

Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 11:57 AM

his platform is not catching on, none of other GOP figures are behind it….the Progressive Left do like it.

a chunk of his support he does have are from people who do not know who Paul really is, just catching rhetoric here and there.

jp on December 23, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Revenues doubled… and Reagan complained about the deficit every year. He wanted the line-item veto that the Dem legislature would not give him.

He was also trying to win the Cold War.

I just want us to remember the context.

mankai on December 23, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Yeah, I’m just pointing out that Paul can walk back / around calling the reagan conservative agenda a disaster by pointing out the truth that while yes, there were good things accomplished, and reagan did a great job cutting taxes, he was unable to also cut the spending. Which has been the disaster of modern day conservatism. No one has been able to “tame the beast,” so to speak, and actually cut spending (not rate of growth in spending, or other gimmicks). That’s not an attack on Reagan, if anything its a compliment to the liberals for setting up such an impenetrable system that no one has been able to touch.

Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 12:02 PM

The conservative base is not supporting Paul and never has. His support is from Libertarians. Why does this article make Paul look like a Republican. He is NOT! The Republican party and the Candidates should be calling for him to quit calling himself a Republican!

they lie

Agreed.

Why didn’t Ron Paul stay with the Libertarian Party? Why did he reconvert to the GOP, since he contemns (yes, that’s contemns, not condemns) virtually all its history and principles? Can somebody who professes to understand him explain what Paul is trying to do here?

Scriptor

Because no one pays attention to the libertarian party. They are trying to swell their ranks by latching onto the GOP. Parasites is what they are.

Hard Right on December 23, 2011 at 12:03 PM

6) No problem with Iran having the bomb because…well because the Jews have nukes and so do other nations in the area.

Bishop on December 23, 2011 at 12:03 PM

I don’t think he’s crazy per se. He just has weird ideas that are crazy.

Ishmael on December 23, 2011 at 12:04 PM

In sight, sound, and ‘What the hey is this nutter talking about‘, this ad gave me Excedrin Headache #1457

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 23, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Wow. Someone who thinks he’s a conservative thinks Paul needs ro explain these statements that embody conservatism.

Dante on December 23, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Is it safe to assume Romney believes in the original teachings of the Mormon church and he is a secret racist?

liberal4life on December 23, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Ask Rev. Wright, you know your man’s spiritual leader.

VegasRick on December 23, 2011 at 12:04 PM

I have been deeply puzzled by this “What If China Had Troops In Texas” argument from the first time I heard it.

If America had been ruled for the last thirty years by a sadistic psychopath with the blood of 10 to 20 million Americans on his hands (population proportional to what Saddam did to Iraq with his butchery and his wars before 1991), and China invaded to try to remove what they saw as a dangerous psychopath from power, and to bring us democracy and freedom and a Constitution of our choosing, I would not be joining the pro-sadistic psychopath forces fighting to eject the Chinese.

I would be on the side of those of us fighting for our freedom.

Wouldn’t you?

Paul’s argument is insane. It is classic leftist, anti-American moral equivalence.

fadetogray on December 23, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional

^ This is awesome. I agree: The other things are politically incorrect or show his paranoia.

However, I’d rather have a paranoid president who will follow through on saving our economy from socialism than another establishment politician.

Returning white supremacist donation is “pandering”

Is any politician completely free of such donations? And should Paul interview every person who donates? It’d take about 14 years per donation.

I don’t believe Paul is anything like the ‘perfect’ candidate. I just like him better than all the current ‘frugal socialist’ frontrunners.

Nephew Sam on December 23, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Will Romney explain why the Mormon church used to be racist towards blacks?

Is it safe to assume Romney believes in the original teachings of the Mormon church and he is a secret racist?

liberal4life

Wrong thread. Pathetic try at deflection too.
Answer the question about Ron.

Hard Right on December 23, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Well, thanks for at least laying them out:

1. The “disaster” of Ronald Reagan’s conservative agenda

he liked Reagan but didn’t like the Bush’s who were northeastern Rockefeller Republicans, not Reagan Republicans. He was running against Bush, not Reagan. But he thought Reagan’s platform was better than Reagan’s results. He discussed this in the debate at the Reagan Library earlier this year.

2. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional

Unless you believe in the leftist view that the ‘welfare clause’ means the federal government can do whatever it wants, they are unconstitutional. However, Ron Paul also thinks they are like contract rights once you pay into them. He plans to fund them with cuts elsewhere if you review his Restore America Now Plan to balance the budget in three years which is at the issues tab of his campaign website. He plans to let those under 25 OPT out as a matter of choice. (as a practical matter that would likely just mean to some more private form of control over their account, but that is me taking politics into consideration, Ron Paul’s position is in his plan.)

3. American drug laws are designed to fund rogue governments, CIA programs

I am pretty certain he never quite said that. I think he said something about drugs directly or indirectly funding CIA operations in some country, and I think I saw that in other media as well. Perhaps we can get a clarification of that.

4. U.S. foreign policy “significantly contributed” to 9/11 attacks

I think he has pretty much explained that. But the video you have was put out by RevPac, a Ron Paul supporter group PAC, not by the campaign and is much more provocative than what the campaign puts out. Personally, I don’t like the creepy voice over. I think it and the pictures together are a bad mix. But he thinks as Wolfawitz said after 9/11 when he said we should take out the base in Saudi Arabia, that our being there provokes anger. ‘Motive’ isn’t the same as ‘justification’ for the acts, but if you know a motive it is counterintuitive to try to stop an action by providing more of that motive. There are other ways Ron Paul has discussed involving long range missiles and nuclear submarines and letters of marque for discrete actions which do not involved the ‘occupation’ which creates such good recruitment fodder for terrorists to radicalize people with.

4. Returning white supremacist donation is “pandering”
The Civil Rights Act “violated the Constitution”

I believe he thinks ‘PC’ exists to stultify discussion and squelch the free market of ideas and his instinctive reaction at all times is to resist it. That is a personal hunch. But it was $500 in a $6 million dollar money bomb, and it is highly unrealistic to think it would influence him in any way, so wouldn’t it be pandering? It would also start a precedent of having to vet every donor, which, given his campaigns are small donor driven and in the third quarter he had more than 100,000 individual donors, would not be cost effective.

Please let us know if you want any more information.

windwardtack on December 23, 2011 at 12:06 PM

I think Paul is a kook and will never vote for him – primary or general.

I would point out that although it was likely needed and likely did more good then harm, the Civil Rights Act – as applied to private enterprise – really is not constitutional.

First is the whole “interstate commerce” problem. A business can’t discriminate on race as to who it hires b/c it affects interstate commerce? A restaurant can’t discriminate b/c it affects interstate commerce?

that really expanded the concept of what interstate commerce is and leads us directly to the mandate in Obamacare. To the extent the mandate is upheld, it will be on the backs of crazy decisions uphold the Civil Rights Act b/c pretty much anything and everything “affects” interstate commerce.

Second, as to private citizens and private enterprise the civil rights act tramples on freedom of association. Freedom of association does not exist without freedom of exclusion. If I can’t exclude someone from my group, I am not really associating freely. thus, an organization like the Boy Scouts being required to accept atheist scoutmasters or gay teens basically deprives that private organization’s members of their freedom of association.

I understand all of the counter-arguments about race being different then all other factors used to discriminate – that it is innate and can’t be changed, etc. And that might even be slightly persuasive if the Civil Rights Act wasn’t expanded to cover pretty much everything. I can’t discriminate against someone based on their nationality? What does that really even mean? I can’t discriminate based on religion? Or gender? So no men’s clubs, etc.

There was quite a bit of good that came from the Civil Rights Act. But it does indeed run counter to the constitution and the principals espoused in the constitution.

Monkeytoe on December 23, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Wow. Someone who thinks he’s a conservative thinks Paul needs ro explain these statements that embody conservatism.

Dante

Because neither Paul or you embodies Conservatism. In fact, neither of you seem to know what the word means.

Hard Right on December 23, 2011 at 12:08 PM

The Civil Rights Act “violated the Constitution”

6) True.
Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 11:54 AM

racist.

These aren’t really questions that I want him to answer. They really don’t matter, and shouldnt. If Paul could give a cogent answer on a question like, “what would be the response of president paul if Iran nukes Israel?” that could matter to me, though.
Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 11:54 AM

When asked on “Fox News Sunday” what he would do to deter Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions, Paul said “maybe offering friendship to them.”

I think Paul (who will NEVER be POTUS) is a communist personally. Only a insane moron would want to be friends with a dictator.

upinak on December 23, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Wrong thread. Pathetic try at deflection too.
Answer the question about Ron.

Hard Right on December 23, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Pathetic weak troll. At least they used to be fun to kick around.

VegasRick on December 23, 2011 at 12:09 PM

I fear Rand Paul is not who people think he is, especiely if he endorses his fathers policys.

lisa fox on December 23, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Wow. Someone who thinks he’s a conservative thinks Paul needs ro explain these statements that embody conservatism.

Dante on December 23, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Wow someone who is a Ronulian thinks Ronulian logic will confuse and deceive everyone.

SWalker on December 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Pathetic weak troll. At least they used to be fun to kick around.

VegasRick

What? Another Ron tard?

Hard Right on December 23, 2011 at 12:11 PM

I fear Rand Paul is not who people think he is, especiely if he endorses his fathers policys.

lisa fox

He already made one statement that seems to indicate the nut didn’t fall far from the tree.

Hard Right on December 23, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Wow. Someone who thinks he’s a conservative thinks Paul needs ro explain these statements that embody conservatism.

Dante on December 23, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Because conservatism and libertarianism should be indistinguishable at the federal level. If well believe in a limited, small federal government, then there is plenty of room for social con verse libertarian disagreements at the state level. But we are in pretty much complete agreement, or so the tea party and conservatives claim, when it comes to the financial issues and role of the federal government in domestic affairs. and libertarians, like conservatives, are split on foreign affairs between a pragmatic approach and a more hands off approach. Paul is on the extreme end, but that was mainstream conservative thinking right up until post-WW2. Not sure exactly when the republicans became the party of war, but we didn’t get involved in WW2 until Pearl Harbor because the conservatives didn’t want to fight in europes war. Same arguments for and against entering WW1.

Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 12:13 PM

I believe he thinks ‘PC’ exists to stultify discussion
windwardtack on December 23, 2011 at 12:06 PM

I believe you are full of $hit. He refused the return the money because the Stormfront crowd are his people and he refused to disown them or distance himself from them.

SWalker on December 23, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Unfortunately for Paul and his adherents, the office he covets is that of President, not King. Which means he would have to go through Congress to implement his ideas. I cannot see even a conservative House and Senate going along with most of his ideas, as –er, interesting – as many of them are. Of course, he could always rule by fiat through executive orders to the bureaucracy, a la Obama. But then this would sort of blow his fastidiousness re the Constitution all to hell, wouldn’t it?

Scriptor on December 23, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Sorry, missed the Civil Rights act.

Actually, his view was the majority view of the Supreme Court until the civil rights act was ruled on. Look at any law school outline of Constitutional law. The idea is the federal government cant directly regulate private business that is not in interstate commerce. There were a whole lot of arguments why that one instance, having to do with race when states by law were REQUIRING segregation might be different, and bad facts make bad law. Ron Paul never thought overturning the Jim Crow laws was unconstitutional, he thought the direct federal regulation of private business was. He thought that was a state matter, once the Jim Crow laws were abolished. I see policy for the other argument but boy do I see how this changed the size and intrusion of the federal government and why NOW that precedent caused all sorts of problems in non race related areas.

I don’t know if I can post video here, but Ron Paul discusses his views on the CRA on Hardball earlier this year. His basic point is that freedom isn’t disgusting just because some use freedom to do disgusting things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBbV7mURP0I

windwardtack on December 23, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Dude!

IMAGINE…

…watching that ad stoned.

Flora Duh on December 23, 2011 at 12:16 PM

I’ve found that many of Pauls’s acolytes seem to think he will take away any and all government authority over them. They are dangerously deluded.

Hard Right on December 23, 2011 at 12:16 PM

My God Ron Paul is such a loser.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 23, 2011 at 12:17 PM

I think Paul (who will NEVER be POTUS) is a communist personally. Only a insane moron would want to be friends with a dictator.

upinak on December 23, 2011 at 12:08 PM

That’s pretty ridiculous. Paul’s point (which I disagree with) is that Iran becoming a nuclear power as a threat to the continental US is about on par with Pakistan having nukes. He thinks it’s easier to become fake friends then to bomb them.

…and I assume you were being sarcastic about the “racist” thing

Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 12:17 PM

It’s easy to see why the liberals at Politico thinks those points need clarifying. Before I get mugged, yes, I am a libertarian, no, I’m not a Ronulan (Perry supporter)and, NEWS FLASH, put any 3 libertarians in the same room to discuss politics and there will be heated 3-way debates. Ron Paul’s newsletters are more troublesome IMO than these statements. Racism in the sense of denying rights is abhorrent to the philosophy. Libertarians believe in personal responsibility and for Paul to sell a newsletter he doesn’t write or read seems out of character to me. I’ll give Paul his due; he’s had a positive influence on the party for limited government and property and economic rights, but I won’t give him my vote.

cartooner on December 23, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Here we go!

Brings out the loons like teenagers having sex brings out the zombies.

Tim_CA on December 23, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Paul is on the extreme end, but that was mainstream conservative thinking right up until post-WW2.
Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Are you really this delusional? Even die hard racists don’t hate the AMERICAN Japanese anymore.

Not sure exactly when the republicans became the party of war, but we didn’t get involved in WW2 until Pearl Harbor because the conservatives didn’t want to fight in europes war.

In Europes war? FYI, the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor didn’t do it because of WWII, they did it because we (As in the US) weren’t sending them OIL! We didn’t proclaim WAR until after Mussolini and Hitler both declared war on us…. moron. It was also started under FDR (aka a Democrat) who was warned about a possible bombing but never told his General to take precaution!

Same arguments for and against entering WW1.

WWI is a totally different scenerio, compared to WWII. Even though you seem to think it the same.

upinak on December 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM

My God Ron Paul is such a loser.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 23, 2011 at 12:17 PM

He is the King of Losers… Which makes his fanatical followers… Even bigger losers then he is. After all, no matter how big as loser Ron Paul is, he did sucker his followers out of tens of millions of dollars. (Undoubtedly their life’s savings) ROTFLMAO….

SWalker on December 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM

That ad personifies Ron Paul perfectly!

What got us in Iraq is completely overlooked and never touched upon. Ron Paul doesn’t think about the lead-up to anything. He looks at the end result and only has one solution: No War! It doesn’t matter the provocation or actions, he will never, ever, ever go to war.

He would rather sit on his hands and watch invading forces cross the Potomac from the White House window and proclaim how he saved millions of lives by not going to war.

The man is a nutcase.

ButterflyDragon on December 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM

…and I assume you were being sarcastic about the “racist” thing

Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 12:17 PM

No, I am not being sarcastic about the racist “thing”. You said it, I am just giving it the name you so richly deserve.

upinak on December 23, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Definitely a Lost Causer.

unclesmrgol on December 23, 2011 at 12:21 PM

I fear Rand Paul is not who people think he is, especiely if he endorses his fathers policys.

lisa fox on December 23, 2011 at 12:09 PM

C’mon. The guy’s his father. What do you want him to say?

Monkeytoe on December 23, 2011 at 12:21 PM

No one but me thinks the whole Alex Jones fixation on Zionist spider/goat DNA hybridization experiments is hysterically funny.

troyriser_gopftw on December 23, 2011 at 11:48 AM

I found it pretty hysterical – as have most of the people with whom I’ve shared it.

Solaratov on December 23, 2011 at 12:22 PM

That’s pretty ridiculous. Paul’s point (which I disagree with) is that Iran becoming a nuclear power as a threat to the continental US is about on par with Pakistan having nukes. He thinks it’s easier to become fake friends then to bomb them.

…and I assume you were being sarcastic about the “racist” thing

Timin203

Paul is wrong and so are you if you agree with him.
Iran wants war and the destruction of Israel and America.
Part of the reason we are “friends” with pakistan is to help insure their nukes don’t wind up in the hands of terrorists.
In this case, the Iranians are terrorists. Just because theu don’t yet have the missiles to deliver it does not mean they cannot find other ways to do so.

Hard Right on December 23, 2011 at 12:22 PM

He already made one statement that seems to indicate the nut didn’t fall far from the tree.

Hard Right on December 23, 2011 at 12:12 PM

If you’re talking about the civil rights act, Paul was absolutely correct. Intellectually, the conservative argument should be that the government cannot regulate in our private affairs who we chose to associate and not associate with (in fact, the founders were smart enough to guarantee “freedom of association” in the bill of rights).

So while most of the civil rights act, which dealt with institutionalized racism (southern democrats forcing businesses to have seperate sets of bathrooms and drinking fountains etc), was not being objected to, the part that then forced private businesses to not discriminate based on whatever reason, was and is unconstitutional and almost definitely unneeded.

Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 12:22 PM

*Sigh* Why can’t we just have a “sane” constitutionalist!

lisa fox on December 23, 2011 at 12:22 PM

C’mon. The guy’s his father. What do you want him to say?

Monkeytoe on December 23, 2011 at 12:21 PM

How about, either nothing, or You know I love you dad, I always will… BUT I just cant support your racist insane conspiracy theory laden campaign.

SWalker on December 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM

First of all, welcome from Fabulous Las Vegas, NV, where the Paul campaign is preparing to kick Romney’s ass sideways in the 2/4 caucuses.

Second, I was wondering when Ed et al were going to pursue this line of attack. I was rather hoping the newsletters was going to be the topic de jour until Iowa. We were finding an incredible amount of support for Dr. Paul as a result of the smears, and even amongst the GOP audiences we were working over, not a whole lot of disagreement with what was written in the newsletters.

Not so for some of the six statements Politico has posed. These actually require a defense:

1) The “disaster” of Ronald Reagan’s conservative agenda

Trebling of our national debt. Not one Cabinet Dept eliminated. End-running Congress to send illegal funds to Nicaragua. Broadening of Affirmative Action programs.

Disaster might be a bit of a strong term. But it is hardly a shining example of conservatism made real.

2) Unlike your claim, Ed, about the super-committe being constitutional on its face, despite failing to cite any case law on the plenary power of Congress to wipe out hundreds of years of tradition on legislatures going back to England, there is actualy SCOTUS rulingsn finding SSI and Medicare constitutional.

Of course, the same could be said for a right to an abortion. Lots of candidates have held that position, including Barry Goldwater. I for one feel confident when my candidate stands with Goldwater.

3) American drug laws are designed to fund rogue governments, CIA programs.

Air America? Sound familiar by any chance?

Designed? Maybe not. But if I wanted to covertly fund intelligence operations, with no tracable source, I could hardly think of a better way to do it.

Either way, if you think RP is going to lose anything by not defending the travesty forerly known as the WoD, then you aren’t even as in touch with the conservative movement as you think, Ed… much less the general population.

4) U.S. foreign policy “significantly contributed” to 9/11 attacks

That’s not Ron Paul. That’s Paul Wolfowitz and our own drug-dealing CIA that took that position. Of course, those are some gangster associations I really worry about Ron Paul having.

5) Returning white supremacist donation is “pandering”

Never did quite understand why anyone would want Ron Paul to give money to Nazis. Perhaps the strain of subliminal anti-semitism runs stronger in the GOP than they like to admit.

6) The Civil Rights Act “violated the Constitution”

A debate I’d love to have. Let’s start off wityh exactly where in the US Constitution does the Congress have the authority to interfere with the property rights of a business owner without paying compensation for the takings?

Can you do that for me, Ed?

Meanwhile, I’m getting to work. Ron Paul is transforming this sclerotic party into a dynamic one, dedicatd to defending Liberty.

And such things don’t happen by themselves.

JohnGalt23 on December 23, 2011 at 12:25 PM

the conservative argument should be that the government cannot regulate in our private affairs who we chose to associate and not associate with (in fact, the founders were smart enough to guarantee “freedom of association” in the bill of rights).
Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Another Ron Paulian who doesn’t know history.. AGAIN!

FYI constitutional wannabe… the “conservatives” were the ones who began to GIVE civil rights.

WTF did you learn your history at?????

upinak on December 23, 2011 at 12:25 PM

mankai on December 23, 2011 at 11:56 AM

If I recall those ancient days he did get the line item veto but SCoTUS overturned it on constitutional grounds.

chemman on December 23, 2011 at 12:26 PM

@dante. Ed lives in Minnesota, where conservatives have fewer options.

WhatNot on December 23, 2011 at 12:26 PM

I can see 2, 5, and 6, even if they are politically incorrect. 1 is weird. 3 and 4 reflect his strange grasp of foreign policy.

Paul-Cincy on December 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Vote for Ron Paul then. Enough of you code-talkers. RP is and always has been a magnet for anti-Semites, bigots and potheads. Yes his libertarian (small “L”) idealism is cute. But the man does not live in real-time.

Politically incorrect ignores how morally bankrupt and historically inaccurate his statements are.

I have hope for Rand.

Oh, great. Now Hot Air, a supposedly conservative site, is using a Politico article to take down a GOP candidate.
Puma for Life on December 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Really? You dispute the source but not the facts. You are the worst type of citizen. Truly.

I’m so sick of you types being unwilling to properly vet candidates. This is not a “take down.” It is building up the right candidate.

Seriously, do you blame the cops for arresting criminals too?

Wow, Ed. You consider yourself a conservative and you think these are non-conservative positions?

Dante on December 23, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Make your best case. This ought to be good.

Just like Gingrich told some dude to go vote for O if he thinks gay sex is uber important, you can vote for RP since you think winning is irrelevant.

Capitalist Hog on December 23, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Oh, great. Now Hot Air, a supposedly conservative site, is using a Politico article to take down a GOP candidate. Strange bedfellows are created when the establishment gets threatened.

Puma for Life on December 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Um. Ron Paul left the GOP.

Washington Nearsider on December 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM

WTF did you learn your history at?????

upinak on December 23, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Haven’t you figured that out yet? He went to “Aryan Nation Community College” with all the other Ronulians.

SWalker on December 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM

…and I assume you were being sarcastic about the “racist” thing

Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 12:17 PM

No, I am not being sarcastic about the racist “thing”. You said it, I am just giving it the name you so richly deserve.

upinak on December 23, 2011 at 12:21 PM

You sound like a liberal counter-part to Glenn Beck with your facts and claims.

Being against the Civil Rights Act has absolutely nothing to do with race, and you know it.

Germany declared war on us because FDR was already sending arms and money to britain under the lend lease program, and we declared war on their ally, japan, who had commited an act of war against us.
We were absolutely propelled in to war by the bombing of pearl harbor. Without that, we may or may not have gotten fully involved, but that was certainly the spark that set of the series of events that led to full out troop deployment.

And my point was, until that happened, the conservatives and the american people did not want to get involved in the war.

Oh, and I don’t think FDR had previous knowledge to the bombing anymore than I believe that Bush knew about 9/11. Idiot.

Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Monkeytoe, Shut his mouth!!! I’m sorry but if my parent said crazy things I would say They are crazy!!!! If he does’nt agree with his Dad but he is endorsing him then he is just as bad as every other politician in Washington!

lisa fox on December 23, 2011 at 12:29 PM

I think Paul (who will NEVER be POTUS) is a communist personally. Only a insane moron would want to be friends with a dictator.

upinak on December 23, 2011 at 12:08 PM

No, he’s an extreme Libertarian. As most Libertarians believe in the individual (rights and responsiblities), he applies the same philosophy to governments, which is a very, very, very bad idea.

Think of it this way, most Libertarians don’t care what anyone does, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon their personal rights. A good philosophy for individuals. When our rights are violated, we have recourse through our courts.

The problem with applying that same thought process to nations is that the primary recourse for a violation of one nation’s rights is a war. Which means you have to be prepared. You can’t just hope for the best.

Iran building a nuclear weapon is not akin to your neighbor smoking a blunt on his back porch.

ButterflyDragon on December 23, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Haven’t you figured that out yet? He went to “Aryan Nation Community College” with all the other Ronulians.

SWalker on December 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM

ack

upinak on December 23, 2011 at 12:30 PM

If Paul takes IA it will be very difficult to get future candidates to spend time or money there unless the country needs to identify who NOT to vote for and who will surely not be the nominee. They may remain useful for that purpose.

jeanie on December 23, 2011 at 12:30 PM

5) Returning white supremacist donation is “pandering”

Never did quite understand why anyone would want Ron Paul to give money to Nazis. Perhaps the strain of subliminal anti-semitism runs stronger in the GOP than they like to admit.

JohnGalt23 on December 23, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Really twisted yourself in a knot on this didn’t ya champ?

Considering the money originated from the hand of the very “Nazi” you speak of…I’m not sure what your point is.

Is it better to accept a Nazi’s money and use it for your own “racialist” nonsense?

Maybe he should just let his racists buddies finance his whole campaign…that we he can claim to be “taking money away from Nazi’s” rather than “accepting” money from Nazi’s”?….

Good Lord you’re a dope.

Tim_CA on December 23, 2011 at 12:32 PM

“The other positions — that the US foreign policy “significantly contributed to the [9/11] attacks” and that the drug war is intended to fund “some terrorist government someplace” or to fund CIA programs are part of Paul’s rather paranoid view of the world, which is his tie to the Alex Jones base and why he makes so many appearances on Prison Planet.”posted at 11:40 am on December 23, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Alex Jones for White House Press Secretary?

workingclass artist on December 23, 2011 at 12:32 PM

@dante. Ed lives in Minnesota, where conservatives have fewer options.

WhatNot on December 23, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Why not let the man speak for himself instead of judging him by geography. This is the same crap libs do with Southerners. It’s unfair.

Ed does a great job of conveying his ideas sans your preamble.

Capitalist Hog on December 23, 2011 at 12:33 PM

FYI constitutional wannabe… the “conservatives” were the ones who began to GIVE civil rights.

WTF did you learn your history at?????

upinak on December 23, 2011 at 12:25 PM

WTF did you learn your history at?????

upinak on December 23, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Haven’t you figured that out yet? He went to “Aryan Nation Community College” with all the other Ronulians.

SWalker on December 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Upinak, I assume you “learned your history at” the same place you learned how to spell. I went to a liberal new england 4 year college and got a degree in marketing. Honestly, you two sound like democrats hurling these outlandish insults and someone you don’t know because you don’t know enough about history or the civil rights act to debate the merits of the law.

Timin203 on December 23, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Oh, great. Now Hot Air, a supposedly conservative site, is using a Politico article to take down a GOP candidate. Strange bedfellows are created when the establishment gets threatened.

Puma for Life on December 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Paul is not part of the GOP. A guy who refused to endorse John McCain in the last election, but instead endorsed only third party candidates (including Truther Cynthia McKinney)

A guy who ran a third party candidacy and is considering doing so again. Not a Republican — not even a RINO.

unclesmrgol on December 23, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Alex Jones for White House Press Secretary?

workingclass artist on December 23, 2011 at 12:32 PM

No, I think Alex is Ron’s choice for Secretary of State, George Noory would be White House Press Secretary…

SWalker on December 23, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Will Romney explain why the Mormon church used to be racist towards blacks?

Is it safe to assume Romney believes in the original teachings of the Mormon church and he is a secret racist?

liberal4life on December 23, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Will Harry Reid explain why the democrat party started, financed and protected the KKK; and why they passed all of the Jim Crow laws and opposed EVERY piece of civil rights legislation since the Civil War?

Is it safe to assume that Reid – and the entire democrat party – believe that what their party did was right for America and that Reid and the democrat party are ALL secret racists?

Solaratov on December 23, 2011 at 12:35 PM

How about, either nothing, or You know I love you dad, I always will… BUT I just cant support your racist insane conspiracy theory laden campaign.

SWalker on December 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Ehh. I’m not going to get worked up by a guy saying he supports his father. Find me when Rand Paul starts saying the same things as Ron, then I’ll write him off as another kook. Until then, I’ll forgive him for stating that he supports his father.

Monkeytoe on December 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Come clean Ron! Admit that you’re just full of hate. You probably only drink vanilla milkshakes, own white pearl handed revolvers and watch white christmas during the holidays. You d@mned ol’ hater.

Audit Ron Paul!

Spirit Crusher on December 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM

DISCLAIMER: I’m not a Paul supporter. With that said, I’m just curious…. how long is the list of facepalming statements that Obama has made in the past that he is never required to defend?

Spider79 on December 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6