Bill Kristol: The GOP would be better off if Ron Paul left
posted at 10:24 pm on January 17, 2012 by Allahpundit
Compare this to what Jim DeMint said about Paul last week and you’ll see what sort of fun we’re in for during convention week this year.
“A lot of people when they criticize Ron Paul have to preface their criticism by saying, ‘you know, he’s good guy, he brings a lot to the debate,’” Bill Kristol said on C-SPAN. “I actually don’t buy that. I do not think he’s a particular good guy . . . I think it would be better for the Republican party, if he left the Republican party.”
The boss said the inclination to keep Paul a member of the party is wrong. “A lot of Republicans are spending a lot of time [thinking], ‘how do we keep Ron Paul under the tent? How do we make sure he doesn’t go third party?”…
“[Buchanan] left the party in 1999 and a lot of people, and I was one of them, said, goodbye and good riddance, you’re not in the mainstream of the Republican party, go run as some Reform party candidate . . . he did in 2000 and he didn’t get many votes and actually George W. Bush I think was helped—and the Republican party was helped—to be free of Buchanan’s extreme isolationism, protectionism, anti-Israel views, and the like. Ron Paul is a little different from Pat Buchanan—but he’s no better, in my view. And I actually think we’d benefit in the long run—but even in the short run . . .”
Is he saying he wants Paul to leave right now, i.e. quit the primaries and march off to third-party land? That’s so unlikely that there’s no point even debating it. Paul ran as a Libertarian Party candidate before, got nowhere with it, and isn’t about to repeat his mistake when he’s getting a national TV megaphone during the debates and second- and third-place finishes in New Hampshire and Iowa. The whole point of his campaign is to try to tilt the GOP towards his own platform by piling up delegates and then playing a role at the convention. He figures, quite reasonably, that the only way libertarianism will ever have influence is if it coopts one of the two major parties. And it’s simply not true that Paul would get only a few votes if he dropped out now and ran as an independent. I’ve seen more than one poll showing him in double digits in a three-way race against Obama and Romney. (Obama wins each of those hypotheticals, of course.) Buchanan was chiefly a protest vote against the GOP establishment when he ran, I think, whereas Paul has a genuine libertarian movement behind him. Plenty of them will follow him into independence. The proper analogy here is Perot, not Buchanan.
If Kristol means something more long-term, that Paul should go his own way after the election’s over, then the problem’s already solved: He’s done with politics at that point anyway. (He’s not running for his House seat again, remember.) It’ll be Rand’s moment then, which is another reason why Paul won’t split. He doesn’t want to bequeath his son, whose chances of attracting mainstream Republicans are much higher, a legacy of hurting the party by running against it. Beyond that, I hate the idea of “winning” the debate with Paul by hoping he shuts up and goes away. Let him sell this sort of thing and see if Republican voters buy it. If they do then we’ll have a “new GOP” and we can all adjust our loyalties to the party accordingly; if they don’t then Paul fans will eventually get tired of trying to change minds and go their own way anyway. I don’t see what trying to usher them out the door accomplishes, especially when their guy is competitive with everyone in the currently split field except Romney.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
That’s not lie and has not been proven.
FloatingRock on January 18, 2012 at 1:33 AM
Correction: That is a lie and has not been proven.
FloatingRock on January 18, 2012 at 1:33 AM
Libertarians and conservatives both say they want smaller government with limits on government’s power and authority. That’s a pretty broad agreement to me despite the gaps in some other areas. Kristpl is wrong about the Libertarian strain in the GOP. It is a bog help in raising issues and concerns. Kristol, Fox News and others just don’t want an honest debate about the issues which divide them.
lexhamfox on January 18, 2012 at 1:34 AM
Someone clearly has no idea what fascism really is, and just likes tossing the term around because they think other people will respond negatively to it.
Once again… dictatorial leadership. Who is the dictator in this increasingly theoretical Islamic fascist state?
JohnGalt23 on January 18, 2012 at 1:36 AM
golembythehudson on January 18, 2012 at 1:10 AM
Get the hell outta here, you leftist tool.
minnesoter on January 18, 2012 at 1:37 AM
It’s “we” now. Speaking of oneself in plural means either royalty or glue-induced schizophrenia. And royalty, you’re certainly not.
Oh, and look up “inbred” in the Wiki as soon as the blackout’s over. The term has nothing to do with your nationality.
Archivarix on January 18, 2012 at 1:42 AM
Right. And after he fails to win (as in coming first place) a single state caucus/primary?
minnesoter on January 18, 2012 at 1:43 AM
.
No that is not fascism. What race or nation is promoted by Islam? It is totalitarian because it says certain thoughts are sinful but that’s true for many religions. Islam certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on violence or hostility to other religions or dreams of extending over the the entire world. Having said that, I do use the term Islamofascism frequently to describe certain governments and groups, but I don’t think the label should be attached to an entire religion. A religion which happens to have many who respect and live alongside other faiths and traditions.
lexhamfox on January 18, 2012 at 1:54 AM
Freudian slip, eh? Look, Registered Republicans do not need to “prove” anything. Ron Paul has a long record of publicly-spoken remarks. it is what it is. But by all means do try to explain to explain it away.
minnesoter on January 18, 2012 at 1:54 AM
Ron Paul meets with 9/11 truthers in this 3 year old footage, agrees that 9/11 might have been an inside job, claims that there was a”possible cover-up “,say’s he will “investigate” it with Dennis Kucinich, also thinks JFK was killed by the US govt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vweKHrD4c94&context=C32fee91ADOEgsToPDskKqpdnAsqov-An4qfZnsna_
golembythehudson on January 18, 2012 at 1:57 AM
Uhmmm, George Bush?
minnesoter on January 18, 2012 at 1:57 AM
Well, if that turns out to be the case, then it will likely put him in the company of anyone not named Mitt Romney. And he will still likely show up to Tampa with more delegates than anyone not named Mitt Romney.
But, you might want to stop short of predicting he’ll be shut out. There are a couple of Western states he’ll at least make the Romney people sweat in. And, he has a habit of making people who claim he won’t win look foolish. Ask Retar about that one.
JohnGalt23 on January 18, 2012 at 2:00 AM
Ja mein Führer!
minnesoter on January 18, 2012 at 2:02 AM
So…Ron Paul, who is anti-war, and desires a severely limited government, is the same as warmongering Adolf Hitler who sought greatly expanded government power. What about Mitt Romney, who supported TARP and just recently said he supported the NDAA; is he a superfascist?
cavalier973 on January 18, 2012 at 2:05 AM
I’ll take that as: “I have no answer to who this Islamic dictator is”.
From all appearances, leadership within Islam tends to be diffuse. I know who the head of my global Church is. Who is the head of “global Islam”? Is it DinnerJacket? I suspect the council of Mullahs might have something to say on that. Is it Khamenei? I suspect the Saudi princes and the clerics they rule over might dispute that.
You ask me the head of fascist Germany, it was Adolph Hitler. You ask me who the head of fascist Spain was, it was Francisco Franco (who, BTW, is still dead).
Whatever Islam and its extremist cancer is… it ain’t fascism.
JohnGalt23 on January 18, 2012 at 2:08 AM
Fascism is a lot like socialism. The word gets thrown around a lot by people who don’t have a clue what the word means.
Islamofascism and calling Obama a socialist are very good examples of that.
gyrmnix on January 18, 2012 at 2:14 AM
Utterly absurd. Ron Paul will not place first in one single state. His best chance for that was in Iowa. The caucus format fits well with his bully-boy method. But most states, by far, are primary organized.
minnesoter on January 18, 2012 at 2:15 AM
Ron Paul exclusively catered to Holocaust deniers and actual nazis in order to expand his wealth and political base via his newsletters and direct mailers, this can be correctly compared to Hitlers Mein Kampf, in fact, i’m pretty sure if you peruse through Hitlers Tome with it’s various musing in relations to the “Jewish lobby” and their “nefarious influence” as Paul has written, you can find many similarities. Furthermore, in Iowa, dozens of Neo-nazis from stofrmfront were actively canvassing and working for Paul on the ground, not to different to Hitlers Schutzstaffel which also had similar origins.
golembythehudson on January 18, 2012 at 2:18 AM
Lol. It defies logic. But I guess there’s no reasoning with some people. It’s just like arguing with rabid leftists at the Huffington Post.
Jerry Bear on January 18, 2012 at 2:18 AM
GOP better off if Bill Kristol could go away
nparga23 on January 18, 2012 at 2:20 AM
Let’s start with an easy one for you…
How about MN? Caucus or primary?
JohnGalt23 on January 18, 2012 at 2:20 AM
Well there you go, John. Obama’s not a socialist! Heavens no!
minnesoter on January 18, 2012 at 2:20 AM
I think it is important to know what words mean, especially when engaging in political discourse.
JohnGalt23 on January 18, 2012 at 2:23 AM
See, I would argue that Obama is closer to fascism than he is to European style socialism. The nonsense he pulled with the auto companies and with the green mafia reeks of corporatism.
JohnGalt23 on January 18, 2012 at 2:26 AM
Socialists believe in community ownership of means of production. Care to point me to that part in Obama’s platform?
gyrmnix on January 18, 2012 at 2:28 AM
His best chance might be Virgina. After all its just Mittens and him.
Sultanofsham on January 18, 2012 at 2:29 AM
Bill Kristol, Karl Rove and David Brooks walk into a bar. Crack a few Sarah Palin jokes and think to themselves that important people think highly of them.
The sad thing is that they are, like a crescent wrench, simply expedient wannabe tools and that is their entire utility. The Repubs need to dump these guys in the rusty tool bucket and up their game in terms of worthy pundits.
Sailfish on January 18, 2012 at 2:44 AM
There are times I wish I could split Ron Paul into two separate people. Good Ron Paul, and Bat$%#$ insane Paul!
Strangely enough, I’ve had similar thoughts about Newt Gingrich.
WolvenOne on January 18, 2012 at 3:04 AM
He is going to lose, with a 100 state losing streak.
Stick that in your “blowhole”.
Rebar on January 18, 2012 at 3:26 AM
Ron Paul is the only true Republican in the race. His latest ad sums it up nicely. He represents small government and the rest are big government progressives. Like him or not, you can’t argue that point if you look at everyones voting records. Only Dr Paul has voted against every tax increase, every unbalanced budget.
The GOP can’t win without Ron Paul supporters.
Ron Paul 2012!!
steve123 on January 18, 2012 at 4:10 AM
Pfffft.
xblade on January 18, 2012 at 4:22 AM
If Dr. Kook runs third party he will attract more far left, hippie code-pinker Kucinich Democrats than traditional GOP voters. Let him go for it. Luap Nor is no Ross Perot.
Masih ad-Dajjal on January 18, 2012 at 5:11 AM
Polls on potential third party candidates are meaningless until they’ve qualified for enough ballots to matter. See how our candidates are having trouble qualifying in some states even for the primary? Well, the nominee will have each state party’s ballot line, or in the states which will still require petitions, the party activists to obtain them.
Not so easy. Only the LP has a widespread ballot line and Johnson is getting that, Paul’s not going to be able to swoop in on their process late and take it.
Perot had his army of “United We Stand” volunteers in place and trained at getting petitions signed a year before the election, before he ever declared. Even so, he was on fewer ballots the next time. And if the Paulbots try to gather signatures, they will have a harder time than the clean cut middle class Perot volunteers.
Not so easy. And do not believe all of the Paul vote has been or will be the Paul fanatics. Many will use him as a protest vote. Those would not be likely to follow him on a failed crusade.
The time to worry about a third party candidate is when he qualifies for ballots. Paul’s views have a bigger following than they used to, but many remain fringe views.
Adjoran on January 18, 2012 at 5:36 AM
But even though I don’t worry about Paul leaving, I don’t favor running him off. A portion of his support can already be convinced of the folly of his stranger positions and isolationism, and the younger ones will gain wisdom with age. No sense in running them off – but no reason to soft-pedal the criticism of his craziness, either.
Adjoran on January 18, 2012 at 5:46 AM
What Kristol and everyone else here is missing is The Godfather movie line: Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
If it were true that the GOP would be better off without Ron Paul formally associated with it, then the DUMBEST thing any current candidate could do right now is say that.
What constructive purpose could there be push out Paul’s supporters?
At this time Paul does denounce the racism and crazy stuff that has tinged his reputation, so there is not a moral issue.
And the fact is that to defeat Obama, every vote will matter.
Finally, the best way to deal with Paul is to let him fade away, which he will and then take the good parts of his agenda and reach out to his supporters
georgealbert on January 18, 2012 at 6:14 AM
Ron Paul is a vanity candidate…but go ahead and send him more money.
workingclass artist on January 18, 2012 at 7:10 AM
Ron Paul reminds me of the wacky uncle families don’t talk about.
Roy Rogers on January 18, 2012 at 7:20 AM
I don’t think JohnGalt23 attacked enough people in this thread, it’s only 3 pages long. Slacker.
saus on January 18, 2012 at 7:22 AM
Ron Paul did leave the Republican Party — in 1987. He wrote a letter formally withdrawing. Google it. Now he wants to be the GOP’s standard bearer?
cheeflo on January 18, 2012 at 7:24 AM
Lil’ Billy is the blue blood poster boy of the GOP establishment with a track record of pushing, endorsing and blocking the field for moderate liberal republicans. He’s exactly who the GOP wants on their cheerleading squad.
Fletch54 on January 18, 2012 at 7:42 AM
Ignoring the rest of my well reasoned and logical argument I see, typical Paultard…FACTS!?!? We don’t need no stinking facts! RON PAUL !! eleventy!!! Ha!
I’m actually disappointed in you Ronulans, I went to bed and you didn’t even add a full page of comments…see what happens when you don’t allow open posting (or voting)? Paul gets minimal support unless the system can be gamed.
Oh, and if my utter distain for Herr Doktor and his supporters hasn’t been made clear, please be advised of it.
Rogue on January 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM
Uh, did you find 43 more states somewhere? I mean, I know Obama thinks there’s 57 or so, but then he was raised Muslim.
Sorry, I just think your comment is really funny. I know, I know, you were probably adding up all the other losses in other years, but still, without a proper context, your statement is funny.
Sure glad the Wright brothers pursued aviation after those other guys crashed. Aren’t you?
Thanks for the laugh. If everyone who ever failed at something simply gave up, we wouldn’t be talking like this. We’d be waiting for China to develop the technology to sell us. Just like they waited on us…
M.L. Bushman on January 18, 2012 at 7:59 AM
Hmmm…
Paul is nuts, stark raving 100% nuts when talking about anything beyond our fiscal and monetary mess.
I could live with him as Treas Sec and would enjoy seeing him gut that Dept and tame the Fed. But never for POTUS, nope, not a stable enough person for the Big Chair. And that’s saying a lot considering who is soiling that chair right now!
And your hardcore blindfolded PaulBot, ugh, beyond insufferable!
Having said that, if an old Establishment Repub like Kristol is against Paul staying in the race…then I have to naturally conclude that Paul should stay in the race…if only to keep highlighting our financial insanity, provide contrast for the other candidates and to annoy Establishment Repub’s like Kristol!
insidiator on January 18, 2012 at 7:59 AM
Put Paul on the ticket… Rand Paul. And the Paulettes will follow.
rhombus on January 18, 2012 at 8:03 AM
Ron Paul is nuts.
Thats not a good quality in a candidate.
Does anything else really matter?
Mimzey on January 18, 2012 at 8:04 AM
Ron Paul serves a purpose. He’s going to be the scapegoat when the GOP establishment loses another election. This time, though, the anointed establishment candidate won’t have to bear the blame, although I’m sure McCain was paid well by Soros, in ways we can’t even imagine. Romney’s hoping for the same sort of remuneration, I bet.
And after the blame game runs its course in November, there will undoubtedly be some of you who actually do a little research into 2008 and discover that the election was stolen when Soros owned both candidates.
Soros is hoping to repeat his stunning win in 2012. And this time, Ron Paul supporters will get the blame because they saw through the designs of the two-headed snake running Washington named Party and refused to support the continuing tyranny and/or theft of our country by legislation.
Personally, I don’t really care who is blamed. What I want to know is how all you Republican establishment folk get past the idea that everyone who’s anyone in Washington and media treats you like sheep, just like the Dems do with their “loyal” constituents.
Mutton–it’s what’s for dinner. Ignore the hissing behind you. Step right up, enter the proper pen and prepare to be counted.
M.L. Bushman on January 18, 2012 at 8:08 AM
Ron Paul supporters remind me of someone… Obsessed with grammar and unhinged. Oh yeah! The guy who shot that Congresswoman last year.
antisense on January 18, 2012 at 8:10 AM
The GOP is sooooo dreamy.
Notorious GOP on January 18, 2012 at 8:11 AM
That’s true, however what a lot of you progressives fail to realise is that Ron Paul supporters are loyal to the constitution, not the GOP. Whether Ron Paul runs third party or not, there’s no way I’d vote for Romney or Gingrich.
They’ll govern like the big government progressives they are and when those leftists policies fail (which they will) conservatism will get the blame, as it was done by a republican.
steve123 on January 18, 2012 at 8:19 AM
Once again, we are greeted by another loyal member of the Church of Libertology and it’s gracious leader L. Ron Paul Hubbard.
Pcoop on January 18, 2012 at 8:28 AM
Bill Kristol should drop out! This tight-jawed idiot has lost all perspective of GOP politics.
lhuffman34 on January 18, 2012 at 8:30 AM
As usual, most of these comments are disgusting. For us (Ron Paul supporters), threads like this are exasperating. I have never called any of the other candidates followers kooks, crazies, nuts, or any other pejorative. Yet because I agree with almost all of what Ron Paul espouses … I (and he) are crazy.
Apparently Dr. Paul is completely fine when speaking about fiscal issues… but falls of the edge on everything else?
He (and other Libertarians and Libertarian-leaning Republicans) want people to have the liberty to make their own decisions regarding their person. So long as it doesn’t hurt others… that’s not crazy, it’s personal responsibility. You complain when San Fransisco makes trans-fats illegal or when NYC sin-taxes soda (and you should) but then you don’t support the candidate who would carry your beliefs out?
He wants the governemt to strictly adhere to what it was designed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to do… no more, no less. Is this crazy?
On foreign policy he believes (and so do many others) that our policies do us more harm than good.
Albert Eintein said:
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
We have been following this path on foreign policy for the last 60+ years… and it has created more problems for us than it has solved.
He does not argue for isolation but for us to stop being the world’s policemen. It’s so funny to see how many want Republicans want us out of the UN and to stop involving ourselves in places we “don’t belong” but then think he is crazy for wanting to do what they suggest!
therambler on January 18, 2012 at 8:34 AM
M.L. Bushman on January 18, 2012 at 8:36 AM
Wow, sorry about that, all those buttons and stuff, must’ve clicked the wrong one.Here’s my reply without the strike through (although I’m sure some fanatical GOP establishment supporters would prefer it to remain struck…LOL):
Well, the GOP establishment can’t win without Paul’s supporters, but then perhaps their plan is not a win at all. Their plan, or should I say Soros’s plan, didn’t call for winning in 2008 either. Of course, the scheme did provide cover for the GOP’s designer loss by a veteran campaigner who ran the worst campaign in the history of modern presidential politics.
The only reason I looked into the 2008 election was because McCain ran such a poor campaign. I happened, on a lark, to Google McCain Soros. I saw the ties that bind.
M.L. Bushman on January 18, 2012 at 8:39 AM
Kristol completely underestimates the damage a third party Paul run would do. There weren’t a lot of Buchananistas. There are a lot of Paulistas.
So, yes, Perot is the better analogy.
WannabeAnglican on January 18, 2012 at 8:46 AM
You know, the GOP would be better off without those one-issue social conservative voters. You know, like gay marriage opponents whose support is on that issue, and don’t care about things like fiscal conservatism and the constitution. Yes, and let’s kick out other members of the party too who don’t toe the line with what Bill Kristol says.
Because after all, he is the final arbiter of what makes a Republican.
Let me kneel and kiss his ring while swearing fealty to the almightly Weekly Standard.
Any wonder why grass roots people get pissed off? Coalition building is hard work. Even harder when people write dumb stuff like this. Nothing would signal a lack of commitment to fiscal conservatism faster than this approach.
Fiscal conservatism is the one issue that has the greatest opportunity to pull in independent and other voters. There are some socially conservative independents and Democrats, and a very few national security oriented ones.
But let’s take our ball and go home if we can’t get fiscal conservatives onboard exactly the way we want to.
Sigh. Party of stupid.
PrincetonAl on January 18, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Only to keep the race going!!!
KBird on January 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM
That beginning of that last post was sarcasm, in case it wasn’t clear.
PrincetonAl on January 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM
Perhaps that is part of the design in the scheme this time around–to kill conservatism by putting a Conservative in Name Only in the White House, who then pursues the same tyrannical agenda as the other Progressives before him.
Boy, Soros is ambitious, isn’t he? I guess those blinders really work, for both heads of the snake in Washington named PARTY.
M.L. Bushman on January 18, 2012 at 8:57 AM
Ron Paul’s not the problem; People who support him are along with people like Kristol, Frum, even the Rove. Two sides of the same coin.
racquetballer on January 18, 2012 at 8:58 AM
Sucks that we need to eat our own. The rightwing pundits should be attacking Obama mercilessly 24/7. We, common sense conservatives, like the TEA Party need to take charge and clean up this mess created by our own government.
racquetballer on January 18, 2012 at 9:07 AM
Yep, and since Perot failed, no one else should ever try. The game, and that’s all it is, is rigged against anyone who would run third party. How would that two-headed snake in Washington ever survive if a third party were allowed to exist? I mean, really.
Boy, once someone fails at anything, anything at all, we should take that as a sign to not even try, to never try. After all, people who think for themselves, who are creative and innovative, or persistent (that awful word) have no place in an America controlled by two heads of one snake, a global snake at that. Besides, creative, innovative, persistent folk aren’t easily controlled. They might decide Freedom is better, but then, of course, we have sections 1031-1033 of NDAA to combat all that dangerous thought, or is it dreams, of Freedom and Liberty.
Well, I’m certainly glad Patriotism is dead. All that talk of a 17 page document called the Constitution was giving me troubling ideas, enough so that I might have to read it just to see what everyone is talking about these days.
M.L. Bushman on January 18, 2012 at 9:07 AM
Can I get a “Duh?!”
Of course, it’s not that easy.
didymus on January 18, 2012 at 9:10 AM
And what would you have in your GOP if Ron Paul and everyone who supports him left the “party”?
Why, you’d have the proper kind of folk who pull the lever at the R and don’t think beyond that. You’d be a lot more comfortable in your own woolly skin, and not so threatened by that silly Constitution or ideas of smaller government or fiscal responsibility or even personal responsibility. And your fiat money would be worth exactly what it’s backed by–thin air. Yeah, I can see where your R-Party pen would be a lot quieter and the environment more controlled. Then you could concentrate on hating those denizens of the other Party pen, the Dems, just like your Republican masters ask of you. Just like the Dem master ask of their woolly constituents.
Until, at least, one or the other head of that snake decides to eat you for dinner. Mutton–on the menu. Ignore the hungry hissing. Nothing to see hear. Nothing at all.
M.L. Bushman on January 18, 2012 at 9:21 AM
WOW! Ed defended Paul! Maybe there is still hope to making our government constitutionally sound!
Capitalist75 on January 18, 2012 at 9:32 AM
And what would you have in your GOP if Ron Paul and everyone who supports him left the “party”?
Why, you’d have the proper kind of folk who pull the lever at the R and don’t think beyond that. You’d be a lot more comfortable in your own woolly skin, and not so threatened by that silly Constitution or ideas of smaller government or fiscal responsibility or even personal responsibility. And your fiat money would be worth exactly what it’s backed by–thin air. Yeah, I can see where your R-Party pen would be a lot quieter and the environment more controlled. Then you could concentrate on hating those denizens of the other Party pen, the Dems, just like your Republican masters ask of you. Just like the Dem master ask of their woolly constituents.
Until, at least, one or the other head of that snake decides to eat you for dinner. Mutton–on the menu. Ignore the hungry hissing. Nothing to see hear. Nothing at all.
M.L. Bushman on January 18, 2012 at 9:21 AM
didymus on January 18, 2012 at 9:36 AM
Ron Paul supporters remind me of someone… Obsessed with grammar and unhinged. Oh yeah! The guy who shot that Congresswoman last year.
antisense on January 18, 2012 at 8:10 AM
Rambling and making incoherent statments you need serious help;(
Capitalist75 on January 18, 2012 at 9:40 AM
I’d prefer that Bill Kristol left the Republican Party! It’s guys like him that have moved the GOP to the left!
tomshup on January 18, 2012 at 9:43 AM
You’re not very good at mind-reading. The important principles of Constitutional government don’t depend on Ron Paul. In fact, his crazy notions on foreign policy and simplistic solutions, his tendency to blame all problems in the world on prior U.S. foreign policy, and his claim that it’s unConstitutional to have a proactive foreign policy unless we’ve already been attacked make his good ideas look as crazy as his bad ones.
Ron Paul supporters seem fond of saying that the Taliban didn’t attack us on 9/11, as if it makes any difference that they supported Al Qaeda in the attacks rather than carrying them out themselves. They float all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories about 9/11. Now, if we could do a crazy-ectomy on Paul’s dangerous foreign-policy positions, then he’d be fine. But he’s not going to win the nomination, and if he would quit running for president, maybe his followers would quit getting their hopes up and come back to earth.
Anyway, sometimes he says things I agree with, but overall he’s a net-negative.
didymus on January 18, 2012 at 9:46 AM
let me quickly explain my “Church of Libertology” comment for a moment. I have no problem sticking up for a specific candidate. That doesn’t make one crazy. But what I’ve observed with Paul followers resembles a cult-like nature. Ron Paul can do no wrong in their eyes and when confronted with reality, deny the truth vehemently and accuse you of being brainwashed and vicously attacking you in the process. Just like members of any cult.
Ron Paul is on the mark with economic issues, everything else he if way off the reservation. But that doesn’t matter to his followers. Sometimes the devotion is admirable, sometimes it’s funny as hell, the rest of the time, it’s scary. But it’s the fact that he has so many who treat him as if he walsk on water that’s just unnerving. He’s a typical politican with limited experience in areas he talks about (seriouslym just because you’ve studied, doesn’t mean you know how to put into practice what you studied.) He’s displayed hypocritical tendacies (being against earmarks while admitting he’s “had to take them” and also flying first class on the tax payer’s dime while being opposed to “wasteful” spending.) But in the face of this and the past with the newsletters and the fact that he’s embrace by the 9/11 truther and Alex Jones crowd’s, he’s embraced as the savior of America by his devoted masses. It’s the same blind “he will save us” devotion that got us Obama.
If you don’t fit this classification, that great. But you have to look at some of the others who follow Ron Paul and realize that it’s because of them that other’s like yourself are ripe targets for ridicule. I make no apologies for my “Church of Libertology” comment because it’s based on how I see things.
Pcoop on January 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM
forgive my typos, I’m doing this on my break.
Pcoop on January 18, 2012 at 10:04 AM
Here is a tip to paultards..
How many of you swore an oath to defend that same Constitution at the cost of your freedom or very life if necessary?
You don’t have to enlist to love the Constitution, but the next time you even think about telling someone who doesn’t agree with you, they hate the Constitution,………..
take a step back, and loose the attitude. You are not the Lord High Protecter and Champion of that document, that job has already been filled. You also, sound the complete horsesass when you spout off about it. Here’sanother clue,… guys when we took our discharge physical, did anyone have to be released from that vow? No?…………….
Me neither.
It’s not very amusing for anyone who believes in the Constitution to be slammed by that smear, by so many who never gave it a second thought, till Paul rode into town and offered you a bevy of conspiracy theories to explain away all your life’s failures… Be it Swiss families or the baser Stormfront petty hates, the plain fact is, the Constitution belongs to all of us..
It not just yours, get over it.
mark81150 on January 18, 2012 at 10:05 AM
I disagree with the idea that the Republican Party would be better off without Ron Paul. Some of his ideas a valid concerns and he has pushed the problem to the front of the discussion. The Federal Reserve, he has been the lone voice in the wilderness calling the Fed out for years, now we are finding that they have been printing money, loaning it to foreign Countries and to Business. They were able to do this because our elected officials never had the guts to say anything to them. We do not even have any idea how much Gold we have because it is controlled by the Fed and has not been audited for years. These things we learned because Ron Paul continued to demand answers. So, the Republican Party might be better off if he left, but the American People would know a lot less about what has been going one in Washington with our Monetary Policy.
old war horse on January 18, 2012 at 10:15 AM
And Newt Gingrich is sane? He and his bloodthirsty followers are the insane ones. The social conservatives who want to protect a fetus but drop bombs all over the world in the name of God are truly the insane ones. That crowd in SC sounded like a bunch of Romans screaming for more Christian blood as the next saint is fed to a lion. And they probably call themselves Christian. The real destroyers of the GOP are these people; they are on their way out the door because they are a very small minority of people in this country, but they want to take a few bodies with them.
Puma for Life on January 18, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Someone doesn’t know what a weakened America and a Leftist Centric Judicial system with lawsuit happy lawyers of Social Justice can do do a western society.
That Islam has historical conquered Europe once before, that Islam is a political doctrine and war manual wrapped in religious doctrine hijacked from other Religions.
Here is Winston Churchill.
Ron Paul should stay in because the longer he stays in the more he shows his Libertarian Anarchist Ideas.
Egfrow on January 18, 2012 at 10:25 AM
Ron Paul has absolutely no chance to win the Presidency, when he has been the 1 in a series of 434-1 votes in the House. His foreign policy would be an absolute disaster (worse than Obama, who did have Bin Laden killed), and his rants about dissolving the Fed could never pass Congress in a post-1913 economy.
Bill Kristol is correct that the Republican Party would be better off without Ron Paul in the Presidential race, so that the 20% he got in Iowa and 13% he got in New Hampshire could shift to a more electable candidate.
But he shouldn’t be chased out too early. If he drops out now and runs as an Independent or Libertarian, Ron Paul could be the Ralph Nader of the Right, helping to re-elect Obama the way Nader helped elect George W. Bush in 2000. Let him stay in, let ALL the other candidates denounce his isolationism in debates, so he fades to 1 or 2% in the later primaries, and hope that he rides off into the sunset in Sugar Land.
Steve Z on January 18, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Ron Paul says he would pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan “as quickly as the ships could get there.” Afghanistan is a landlocked country, but hey, that’s just the kind of boring foreign trivia we won’t need to bother with once we’re safely holed up in Fortress America.
–Mark Steyn–
Terp Mole on January 18, 2012 at 10:33 AM
To all the Ron Paul supporters:
I’m sorry I called you crazy.
Pcoop on January 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM
FYFY
Terp Mole on January 18, 2012 at 10:37 AM
These threads are no less exasperating for we of the non-Paul world view.. We get called stupid, sheep, puppets, neocon warmongers, we have our intelligence ridiculed, our motives questioned, we’re accused of being in on the corruption, and putting the needs of other nations ahead of America’s..
all by people who can’t stand the slightest criticism of the barely able to speak publically Paul. His knowledge of history is less than limited, his position on Israel disgraceful, he takes the views of supposed insiders, like the one,… one, Israeli official who’s been discounted as a nutjob crank, to slander Israel as the father of Hamas,.. he rewrote the history of the Cuban missile crisis to support his views, he’s screamed “warmonger” every time he’s challenged, the last thing you can say about Paul, is that he’s reasoned..
He’s a practicing Oby-GYN and will not accept medicade, or medicare… which leaves cash and private insurance.. so he won’t treat women who are seniors and not wealthy, or very young single moms, unless their family pays?
and he’s a doctor?
Does he accept chickens and canned goods instead?
or just gold bars?
He’s like a cartoon character, and only his fans can;t see that.
mark81150 on January 18, 2012 at 10:37 AM
Ron Paul supporters sound more at home in their natural habitat… motor vehicle administration parking lots.
Terp Mole on January 18, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Ron Paul is good for the party, period.
We should be looking to incorporate some of the ideals into the party.
jhffmn on January 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM
To be fair, we actually would be better off if Bill Kristol left the party.
That man is consistently wrong about everything.
jhffmn on January 18, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Kristol and his ilk are becoming more and more irrelevant each passing day. Ron Paul is certainly not right on everything but he’s far closer to the core tenets of conservatism than Kristol will ever be.
Pitchforker on January 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Buchanan already put this little piss-ant in his place:
And Beck later clawed him up good:
Pitchforker on January 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM
I gotta say that I like Paul more than Kristol, so if anybody is getting kicked off the island….., but why can’t we kick them both off the Island, and then line through the “Ron” Paul, and pencil in “Rand” Paul instead?
DFCtomm on January 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Ditto. While a lot of Paul’s military policies are unsound, he is the only one saying that we need to stop spending money. Kristol’s problem with that is that he wants the government to stop spending on stuff he doesn’t like but spend more on stuff he favors.
For nearly 20 trillion reasons: It’s the spending, stupid.
EconomicNeocon on January 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM
He offered his services for free to many patients who could not pay.
Puma for Life on January 18, 2012 at 11:16 AM
and then, finally one comment that’s accurate from a Paul supporter,…
‘
this is the topper of the Paulian hate machine..
So you’re fine with abortion,…. but killing people, adult people, who work tirelessly to kill ours, is offensive to you? Well Hell, there are 3100 Americans I’d like to ask about that, but they can’t answer me,…..
You really hate Christains so much, you’d say foul vile things like this? Let me guess,…. militant athiest, or muslim, or of middle east extraction? Or possibly a kos kid kloset kommunist.. barely matters,.. you can hate fellow American’s…
but not the ones who started the wars,…
and you can’t understand why we think you Paulbots are crazy?
mark81150 on January 18, 2012 at 11:20 AM
So does virtually every other doctor, but many, isn’t all is it? How many get turned away? There have to be some, even your use of “many” admits that,.. considering the ever rising number of medicade users, that’s a huge number to exclude from services..
With Obama’s economy stagnet at best, that number is going to get worse… Paul’s answer to that,
Shut down Social Securityu and medicare/medicade.
Not the attitude of a dedicated healer, I know more than a few, in 06, after the arthritis in my spine resulted in stenosis in C-3, C-4, C-5 and C-6, with my spinal cord pressed flat in two places.. I underwent extensive cervical reconstruction, double corpectomy, 4 discs removed, a titanium cage and bone grafts replacing a 4 inch span of my cervical spine.
Even though it was a direct result of work related injuries, workers comp refused to pay, so medicade did.. over a hundred grand they tell me, and seven surgeons on his team worked posterior and anterior.
I can still walk because of that surgery, where would I be in Paul’s perfect world? In a wheelchair with barely functional arms.. I have kids, 10 and 12,.. tell them daddy wasn’t worth it.
I still have nerve damage, still have pain, but I’m walking, so excuse me for not appualding Paul’s humanitarian qualities..
mark81150 on January 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Bill Kristol is a disgrace…..An arrogant, condescending, pro big government, phony conservative. He simply wants to replace our current dictator with a dictator who conforms more to his big governemnt ideas. You can disagree with Ron Paul all you want but the guy is the only one who is seriously proposing to shrink the size of government, which is the biggest problem we face today…..All these phony conservatives talk big about cuts but it is empty rhetoric. Watch the video….he is threatened, afraid, desperate because Ron Paul’s ideas threaten his version of big government. It is pathetic.
bxy on January 18, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Many Paul supporters are fiercely pro-life. Snuffing the lives of innocent beings just because they are trapped in the womb is not our idea of liberty. Now regarding your point that we don’t want to defend America, that is preposterous. We simply differ on the long term methods to defend America and I’m certainly not an advocate for diplomacy in certain instances. But to think that you can democratize aggressive cultures halfway around the world and wage total war against a purely regional & indigenous resistance like the Taliban is the definition of insanity.
Pitchforker on January 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Radio talk show host Mark Levin says he couldn’t vote for Texas Rep. Ron Paul in the general election even if the Texas congressman were to somehow win the Republican nomination.
“I would have to write somebody in because Ron Paul’s foreign policy is so antithetical to traditional conservative foreign policy — whether it’s [Sen. Barry] Goldwater, whether it’s [President Ronald] Reagan,” Levin said in an extensive interview with The Daily Caller.
Levin expanded his attack on Paul beyond foreign policy.
“I have other problems with him. I don’t think his interpretation of the Constitution is always accurate,” Levin said…
Watch the whole VIDEO.
Terp Mole on January 18, 2012 at 11:53 AM
I know my medical issues don’t matter a damn in this debate, but I fell through the cracks. Screwed by my corporate employer after major injuries, fired without cause becase as one admitted, “we can, and it’s cheaper to replace you”,.. lawyers, medicade, medicare, social security SSD,.. and all I ever wanted was to work, as I had since I was sixteen. If I could go back tomorrow, I would, but that’s not up to me anymore.
I’ve always been a Reagan conservative, which to a Paulite, is terrible thing. I know the origins of social security, know it’s a socialistic system… but it’s also the only game in town. The left has successfully destroyed anyone who tries to privatise it, or replace it with a market oriented approach. I’m fine with all of those ideas,.. make it a private payer style system, do away with FICA so people can afford it.
But that is the rub,… replace it,.. not as Paul would do, trash it and smile over how much money he saved himself, while millions of Americans who were locked into that system, have nothing else. How humanitarian is that? We can’t all depend on pro bono doctors, and even if we could, the surgery I discribed would be out of reach..
It’ll take decades to shift over to a different system, but to say have nothing at all is where conservatives and libertarians part ways. We don’t want to throw the disabled infirm and children under the bus. So that will never happen, and the Paulian horde can just forget it.I paid FICA like everyone else did, and to us, that’s a government insurance plan, I wish it wasn’t, but it is.
Paul’s fans fall flat when they expose a selfishness closer to being a sociopath, than a free market capitalist. You have decide, what kind of nation you want us to be, and the Paul doctrine is not an option to any but a dwindling few.
mark81150 on January 18, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Newt sees a less than subtle difference between striking people who have declared war on America and seek to destroy Western civilization and developing killing fetuses that have done nothing more than seek their sustainance from the mothers who conceived them. Sorry that you fail to perceive the difference. Would you be less angry if we advocated killing innocent fetuses also?
KW64 on January 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Really?
Where were they last primary, when Ron Paul only got 5% of the republican primary vote, and lost all 50 states. Where were they when he lost Iowa and New Hampshire this primary?
All you liberaltarians, go back to your own party, and leave the GOP for conservatives. After all, if there really are soooooo many of you all, you should be able to make it an effective force for change, right?
Rebar on January 18, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Finally, a reasoned response,.. thank you.
You saw what I was responding too, and it wasn’t a reasonable position, (we just wanna bomb everyone and raise the body count?), The promient Paul position, is close every foreign base, and bring all the troops home to build fortress America. An updated version of the “the nazis ain’t so bad” America First policy from the 30′s.
The problem is those same, “regional & indigenous resistance like the Taliban” are not “purely regional”, not when they harbor Bin Laden and his kind and provide logisticaql support to people who come here to wage their war. Paul has no answer for how to deal with them, beyond the absurd pick up the phone and ask them to turn over Bin Laden schtick. Those purely regional aggressive locals are halfway to owning Pakestan, and if they get ahold of the Pakistani nukes..
How safe is fortress America?
They won’t send a missile, or a fleet, it’s going to be in a cargo container on a bulk carrier ship, or driven here in a tracter trailer across the Mexican border. We’ll loose a city, and those “purely regional taliban” will bhe giggling in their caves.
A forward based defense is our only realistic obtion..
You can argue about HOW to deal with the Taliban, but giving up and going home is even more insane, then you have a militant islamic movement declaring victory and pressing the chase. Wether it’s tomorrow or 5 years from tomorrow, we’ll have to face that fight, ducking it is shortsighted, and more than a little cowardly.
We cannot pick our foes here, but they exist, so the best we can do, is pick the ground to be fought on, like most conservatives… I vote it’s on their ground. o let’s say we do the Paul thing, we cut and run…
The Taliban then devote themselves to finishing their takeover of Pakistan.
‘
You get a nuclear armed taliban.
Now what? are you going to spend on a theater missile defense? Build a hundred foot concrete fence around us? Seal the borders? How are you going to stop them?
You admit their a tribal primitive culture, you just advocated affter poking them with a stick for a decade we just walk away..
What in God’s name makes you think, they will it go?
Everything sane says they won’t.
mark81150 on January 18, 2012 at 12:30 PM
I’ll save you the trouble of googling it. The letter essentially said, “Call me when you guys remember what conservatism means.”
gyrmnix on January 18, 2012 at 1:06 PM
Kinda like you being a racist.
Just no arguing or reasoning with that kind of stupidity.
catmman on January 18, 2012 at 2:22 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »