Ron Paul revolution is well beyond the fringe

posted at 1:31 pm on May 28, 2012 by Craig Westover

After a lengthy analysis of the Ron Paul influence evident at the Minnesota GOP Convention May 18-19 in St. Cloud (“Libertarian surge remakes state GOP,” May 20), the burning question for the Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial Board was whether “a caucus-based political system that magnifies populist tides [and enabled Paul supporters to dominate the state convention] serves this state well.”

Couple that with a harsher Washington Post piece published in full online (“The party of Ron Paul?” May 24) — which labeled recently adopted planks in the Iowa Republican Party platform “wacky” and “nutty” and gleefully anticipated “a few highly visible fights” erupting over “Paulite positions in the national platform” — and it’s evident the Strib is a more than a little confused about what the Ron Paul revolution is all about.

Let me do what I can to clarify.

First, let’s understand what a “movement” or a “revolution” is. All movements — the Pat Robertson Republican coup in the 1980s, gay rights, women’s suffrage, civil rights and, yes, the Ron Paul movement — follow a common pattern.

Movements all begin at the margins with people who have little or nothing to lose. Unsuccessful movements never expand beyond the sloganeering fringe. Successful movements — those with an intellectual and moral basis — mature to attract a mainstream following.

The gay-rights movement is a great example. Shirtless hunks in leather tutus and motorcycling “Dykes on Bikes” are no longer the point of the gay-rights spear. It’s the gay lawyer/gay accountant, lesbian legislator/lesbian physician — same-sex couples with kids and fundamental concerns about faith, family and freedom — who are now the face of the movement.

Focusing commentary on the remnants of the gay-rights fringe is something the media would never do. But focusing on the fringe of the Ron Paul movement is exactly what the Strib and WaPo commentaries actually do.

Libertarians today are on that cusp between being all about the T-shirt and all about ideas. I was a libertarian before it was cool and a Republican when it wasn’t cool.

As a political force in the 1970s, libertarians had little to lose. They were the folks who couldn’t be Democrats because they believed their money was theirs to spend; but they couldn’t be Republicans because they wanted to spend it on drugs and prostitutes.

Times have changed.

Libertarians today are less about provocative issues and more about reversing the expanding scope of government. Government expansion is bad in itself, but the future consequences are worse: Without defined limits on government, our liberties, our American republic, are truly at risk.

But, says the Washington Post, Americans aren’t buying that argument. If it were, Ron Paul would get more than 15 percent of the primary vote.

The Strib offers its caucus-questioning advice to an implied majority of “voters who believe government remains a useful tool for improving people’s lives.” Unfortunately, that glass-half-empty perspective on the Ron Paul revolution misses a significant point.

In Ron Paul, you have a charisma-challenged old white guy who, without pandering or pushing prejudice, inspires young people with the always sexy message of monetary policy.

A viable presidential challenge built by sticking to principle, not telling people only what they want to hear, is a political story the Strib and the Washington Post would shout from the rooftops — if only the message were a message they wanted to hear.

The power of an idea, personal freedom, doesn’t lie in manufactured popularity.

What about that Paul-inspired “wacky,” “nutty” “constitutional fundamentalism” found in Republican Party platforms?

Sure, abolishing the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Reserve is not going to happen even under a President Paul. But a political party that seriously considers abolishing cabinet-level departments and unaccountable government entities is a political party that probably won’t advocate for a new cabinet-level “Department of the Internet” and is serious about monetary policy.

It’s a party that stands for something.

That brings us to the WaPo admonition that “Paulites” learn to compromise, lest, says the Strib, the philosophical gulf “that’s already proving difficult to bridge by those seeking to govern this state” grows even wider.

One does not compromise principle. It’s a cliché and a fallacy that, given two diametrically opposed points of view, the “truth” must necessarily lie somewhere in the middle.

The Republican problem is buying into the “compromise is good” argument and declaring victory for every move to the left that “could have been so much worse.”

Paulites won’t make that compromise.

Ron Paul delegates to the RNC will support the nominee. However, integral to that support is holding the candidate and the party to the fundamental principles of limited government and personal and economic freedom. Constancy to principle is the ultimate loyalty.

All that said, I urge our media friends to examine the default position that government is good and invite them to think for themselves. The Ron Paul revolution offers the media, the Republican Party and America that opportunity. Take it.

——–

Craig Westover is a Republican activist and a Ron Paul delegate to the Republican National Convention. Follow him on Twitter: @CraigWestover and Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/craig.westover.

This article originally appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune May 26. 2012.

 

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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 8

Roll ‘em and smoke ‘em…if you got ‘em

KOOLAID2 on May 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Ron Paul himself is well beyond the fringe…

OmahaConservative on May 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Roll ‘em and smoke ‘em…if you got ‘em

KOOLAID2 on May 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

And don’t forget those tinfoil hats!

pilamaye on May 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM

…I hope RP has some say on domestic spending at the convention…

KOOLAID2 on May 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM

I don’t have a problem with his fiscal policies. I do have a problem with his dancing around the issue of his racist newsletters, his anti-Israel attitude, his moral relativism regarding Islamic terror (i.e. it’s our fault because we just keep bombing them!), his isolationism and his far left foreign policies. Apart from his economic views, Cindy Sheehan could comfortably vote for Ron Paul.

Laura Curtis on May 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Oh, and don’t forget his wink-and-nod Trutherism and association with Alex Jones.

Laura Curtis on May 28, 2012 at 1:37 PM

What nonsense.

Despite an exceedingly weak field of candidates, Paul only got one out of 10 republican primary votes. And most of those came from monkey-wrenching democrats, libertarians who otherwise would never vote GOP, and a motley collection of muslems, anti-semites, anarchists, code pink, and pot legalization freaks.

The cult of Ron Paul is by definition fringe, and the best thing that can happen to the GOP is if they moved that whole circus freak show over to the democrat party – where it belongs.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 1:37 PM

The title is not relating what I think the writer wants to relate… but it’s accurate.

mankai on May 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

The cult of Ron Paul is by definition fringe, and the best thing that can happen to the GOP is if they moved that whole circus freak show over to the democrat party – where it belongs.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I don’t think you really understand who they are.

Libertarians today are less about provocative issues and more about reversing the expanding scope of government. Government expansion is bad in itself, but the future consequences are worse: Without defined limits on government, our liberties, our American republic, are truly at risk.

RP is a true Constitutionalist unlike most of our polticians.

CW on May 28, 2012 at 1:40 PM

If he doesn’t support America’s financial support of Israel (our daughter country), he will never have my vote.

UODuckMan on May 28, 2012 at 1:41 PM

RP is a true Constitutionalist unlike most of our polticians.

CW on May 28, 2012 at 1:40 PM

You mean squatting in his congressional seat for 30 years, slopping up $31 Billion in pork while accomplishing absolutely nothing else, is how a “true Constitutionalist” behaves?

I guess my definition is a little different than yours.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

without pandering or pushing prejudice, inspires young people with the always sexy message of monetary policy.

So wrong. He inspires young people with talk of legalizing drugs and innuendo about jew-banker conspiracies. And if they can’t have that, they’ll go with option B, The Bam.

The promise of fixing our economic problems by gutting the military is about simplistic enough to appeal to college kids. But thats the extent of their libertarianism.

Paul is a phony and his supporters are retarded. Let them go back to the left where they belong.

bernverdnardo1 on May 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM

If he doesn’t support America’s financial support of Israel (our daughter country), he will never have my vote.

UODuckMan on May 28, 2012 at 1:41 PM

And who exactly did we f**k for that progeny?

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM

The national & state GOP’s need to act to prevent the takeover of the Party mechanisms’ by a small % of fanatics who won’t even VOTE for the candidate of the Party. The rules must be changed to prevent the kinds of outcomes we’ve had in MN & ME & NV.
ANY delegate to the national convention should be required to sign a statement saying that they will support the candidate selected in the general election. That would sort out those looking to reform the party from those looking to use the Party rules to subvert it.

camaraderie on May 28, 2012 at 1:46 PM

camaraderie on May 28, 2012 at 1:46 PM

The rules must be changed to prevent the kinds of outcomes we’ve had in MN & ME & NV.

Well, why don’t you get right on that, and let us know how you do?

Or were you waiting for someone a bit more involved with the GOP to do that work for you? Because if that is the case, the Ron Paul people beat you to it.

ANY delegate to the national convention should be required to sign a statement saying that they will support the candidate selected in the general election. That would sort out those looking to reform the party from those looking to use the Party rules to subvert it.

Planning on following them into the voting booth also?

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM

RP has a “movement” each morning. I bet you can set a clock to it. Fiber does a body good. At least he’s not full of ….. Isn’t that what we are talking about?

jbh45 on May 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM

The title is not relating what I think the writer wants to relate… but it’s accurate. mankai on May 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Yes, as in “beyond the pale.”

How come we know as much about who wrote RP’s newsletters as we do about the contents of Obooba’s college transcripts?

Inquiring minds at Reason want to know what’s up with the newsletters.

Reason!

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 1:52 PM

If he doesn’t support America’s financial support of Israel (our daughter country), he will never have my vote. UODuckMan on May 28, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Our daughter country?!

Who’s the father?

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I like Ron Paul’s ideas on what to do domestically. He’s really the only one out there expressing ideas that actually WOULD balance the budget, shrink government, and pay off the debt.

But his isolationist and anti-Israel near 9/11 “Twoofer” foreign policy would be a disaster. We’d be even weaker and even more of a joke than we are under Obama.

wildcat72 on May 28, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Focusing commentary on the remnants of the gay-rights fringe is something the media would never do.

No, but I or any other sane person would. Look under the rocks to best understand a bowel movement.

NotCoach on May 28, 2012 at 2:00 PM

It’s as simple as this.

If Ron Paul is not willing to support Mitt Romney for the good of the entire movement, and his supporters are intent on forcing their way to the upper echelons of the party, they have no future, period.

I didn’t want to put up with this trash from the TrueCons, and the conservative movement itself won’t put up with this from the Paulians.

KingGold on May 28, 2012 at 2:03 PM

If he doesn’t support America’s financial support of Israel (our daughter country), he will never have my vote.

UODuckMan on May 28, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Wow, the ignorance is strong with this one. If you really cared about Israel, why would you want to fiscally tie her to the sinking ship that is the US economy? I’m guessing you don’t think logically, only emotionally. I suggest you re-think that strategy.

rndmusrnm on May 28, 2012 at 2:04 PM

rndmusrnm on May 28, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Novel eschatology has consequences.

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I like Ron Paul’s ideas on what to do domestically. He’s really the only one out there expressing ideas that actually WOULD balance the budget, shrink government, and pay off the debt.

Not really. All he really talks about cutting is the military. On the subject of other spending his position is “well, in a perfect world we wouldn’t have this problem…” which is true, but he won’t talk about serious plans te reform entitlements because that would alienate his oh-so-libertarian base. He’s a phony.

And notice what’s important to the Paul supporters here. They all show up frothing at the mouth at the mention of Israel. I’m sure they support Paul for his monetary policy\

bernverdnardo1 on May 28, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Ron Paul would be a good Treasury Secretary. He’d be a disastrous Commander-in-Chief.

OhioCoastie on May 28, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Libertarians today are less about provocative issues and more about reversing the expanding scope of government.

Unfortunately, fundamentally untrue. The libertarian movement decided to go after dopetarians hard in the late 90s/early 00s and they’ve almost destroyed libertarianism as an idea.

One finds “libertarians” today who want to enact draconian global warming laws, enact nationalized healthcare, and “tax the rich”.

Part of the reason we are in the mess we are today is too many libertarians sold out everything to oppose the war on drugs. This isn’t to say that libertarianism doesn’t have an honest issue with drug prohibition…it does. But it is so far down the list of what libertarians should be focusing on, it is almost comical.

18-1 on May 28, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Fair article, but I’d say it’s more than monetary policy that attracts his youthful followers.

aryeung on May 28, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Ron Rand Paul would be a good Treasury Secretary. He’d be a disastrous Commander-in-Chief.

FTFY

18-1 on May 28, 2012 at 2:10 PM

The very fact that this is being published on the most read Conservative blog is proof of the contention in the title.

Kaasproav on May 28, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Ron Paul would be a good Treasury Secretary. He’d be a disastrous Commander-in-Chief.

OhioCoastie on May 28, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Yep. He’d be perfect to terrorize the Fed and Bawney Fwank’s beloved “FweddieMac and FawnnieMae”.

Just as I’d like to see John Bolton as Secretary of State to put some fear back in the UN and our enemies.

wildcat72 on May 28, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Paul-nuts.

BKeyser on May 28, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Also, Ron Paul’s movement is probably more successful than many of the other TP movements because the people he gets behind who win, rarely buck their principles

aryeung on May 28, 2012 at 2:12 PM

You know who consistently got the loudest applause at the Repub debates? Ron Paul. Yes, and all that is required to upset this apple cart of the current stodgy 2 party paradigm is someone like Ron Paul, but who has just a little bit of foreign & domestic policy “moderation” in key spots.
Then this candidate breaks from the “soft center,” and builds a new coalition with over 50% of the vote.
A key component is Paul’s opposition to the drug war. Because he gets the youth vote, not that they’re “potheads,” but that they are thinkers, and understand that the war is lost, Looking at Portugal, the evidence is that the drug war doesn’t even reduce drug use. So, it’s insane, illogical.
There are “authoritarian” establishment Repubs that are going to stand in the way of this new coalition, but a majority of libertarian / tea party / rural conservatives will back the new candidate.

anotherJoe on May 28, 2012 at 2:13 PM

The very fact that this is being published on the most read Conservative blog is proof of the contention in the title.

Kaasproav on May 28, 2012 at 2:11 PM

The only proves, that the subject gets a lot of hits.

Gotta pay the bills, after all.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 2:14 PM

I don’t know if I would tout Rep. Paul’s Minnesota win, don’t forget that that state have given us Al Franken and themselves Jessie Ventura. That said, we have some long term commenters at HotAir that I deeply respect that are for Rep. Paul.

Cindy Munford on May 28, 2012 at 2:14 PM

You know who consistently got the loudest applause at the Repub debates?

anotherJoe on May 28, 2012 at 2:13 PM

You know who consistently gets the fewest votes in republican primaries? Ron Paul.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 2:15 PM

I don’t know if I would tout Rep. Paul’s Minnesota win, don’t forget that that state have given us Al Franken and themselves Jessie Ventura. That said, we have some long term commenters at HotAir that I deeply respect that are for Rep. Paul.

Cindy Munford on May 28, 2012 at 2:14 PM

…ditto that!

KOOLAID2 on May 28, 2012 at 2:18 PM

anotherJoe on May 28, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Wow. So RP pretty much has the nomination all wrapped up because of smart youngsters. Cool. Don’t bogart that, dood.

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 2:20 PM

ok, here’s a little question i ran across in a study of gay/lesbian parenting

If insurance covers hetero couples for in vitro fertilization is it fair to require the same coverage for gay/lesbian couples?

what would ron say?

r keller on May 28, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I like Ron Paul’s ideas on what to do domestically. He’s really the only one out there expressing ideas that actually WOULD balance the budget, shrink government, and pay off the debt.
Not really. All he really talks about cutting is the military. On the subject of other spending his position is “well, in a perfect world we wouldn’t have this problem…” which is true, but he won’t talk about serious plans te reform entitlements because that would alienate his oh-so-libertarian base. He’s a phony.
And notice what’s important to the Paul supporters here. They all show up frothing at the mouth at the mention of Israel. I’m sure they support Paul for his monetary policy\
bernverdnardo1 on May 28, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Show me one post where a Paul supporter was “frothing at the mouth” wrt Israel. If you are going to make such an obvious lie, I guess it isn’t much of a stretch for you to lie in the rest of your post.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 2:22 PM

All you have to do is see what Ron Paul’s gang is doing to the GOP here in Iowa. Fundraising is down, internecine fighting is up, and an alternative group has sprung up.

If Ron Paul and his accolades were simply about sound fiscal policy and personal freedom, I’d be all on board. But that’s not what it’s all about.

beatcanvas on May 28, 2012 at 2:23 PM

All he really talks about cutting is the military.

He said he would elimintae the departments of HUD, Commerce, Education, Energy, and the Interior. Could you name me another Republican who would do that?

… he won’t talk about serious plans the reform entitlements because that would alienate his oh-so-libertarian base. He’s a phony.

Wrong again. He said he would allow young people to opt out of social security and medicare, letting them keep an extra 15% of their salary.

And notice what’s important to the Paul supporters here. They all show up frothing at the mouth at the mention of Israel. I’m sure they support Paul for his monetary policy\

bernverdnardo1 on May 28, 2012 at 2:06 PM

The only person frothing at the mouth here is you. Just because you don’t understand monetary policy, that doesn’t give you the right to attack people’s motives.

rndmusrnm on May 28, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Everyone remember to vote for Team R in November.

Notorious GOP on May 28, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Heheh the temper tantrums of those who can’t stand the thought of liberty becoming a more popular idea in the GOP are delicious.

The more shrill they become, the more certain I am about the triumph of liberty in the Republican Party.

It’s gonna be a good day.

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Sorry – meant acolytes, not accolades.

beatcanvas on May 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Part of the reason we are in the mess we are today is too many libertarians sold out everything to oppose the war on drugs. This isn’t to say that libertarianism doesn’t have an honest issue with drug prohibition…it does. But it is so far down the list of what libertarians should be focusing on, it is almost comical.

18-1 on May 28, 2012 at 2:10 PM

i think its been the original libertarians that were diluted. everyone who is pro-legalization has signed on thinking they are libertarians just because they want drugs legalized

chasdal on May 28, 2012 at 2:25 PM

r keller on May 28, 2012 at 2:22 PM

But what about lesbian triples and quadruples? And let’s not forget quintuples.

If not, why not?

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 2:25 PM

All you have to do is see what Ron Paul’s gang is doing to the GOP here in Iowa. Fundraising is down, internecine fighting is up, and an alternative group has sprung up.
If Ron Paul and his accolades were simply about sound fiscal policy and personal freedom, I’d be all on board. But that’s not what it’s all about.
beatcanvas on May 28, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Like I said, don’t forget to vote for Team R in November.

Notorious GOP on May 28, 2012 at 2:25 PM

He said he would elimintae the departments of HUD, Commerce, Education, Energy, and the Interior. Could you name me another Republican who would do that? rndmusrnm on May 28, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Rick Perry, if he could just remember them all.

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 2:26 PM

You know who consistently got the loudest applause at the Repub debates? Ron Paul.
anotherJoe on May 28, 2012 at 2:13 PM

but applause just doesnt translate to votes. he has fringe support at best. he has no influence. he has never guided any legislation or done anything other than whine and vote against legislation taht is full of pork for his district that HE put in there.

chasdal on May 28, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Novel eschatology has consequences.

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I don’t know if I understand what you mean. Are you suggesting the financial collapse of America and, by extension, Israel, would be a good thing because it would usher in the second coming?

rndmusrnm on May 28, 2012 at 2:27 PM

I was actually a Libertarian in my youth, when joints weren’t I complained about…

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 2:28 PM

rndmusrnm on May 28, 2012 at 2:27 PM

No, the guy who said he wouldn’t support RP because he isn’t supportive of Israel, “the US’s daughter,” is guilty of that kind of thinking.

He believes Israel as presently constituted is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, hence, support for the current nation of Israel is to be on God’s side.

No one in Christendom believed that until about 200 years ago when a book written by Manaassa ben Israel, The Hope of Israel, began circulating in Christian circles. It was actually influential with Cromwell believe it or not, then was rediscovered 200 years later and became the basis of J.N. Darby, then C.I. Scofield’s, eschatological speculations.

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Not trying to hijack the thread if that needs saying!

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 2:34 PM

I wonder why Ron Paul’s detractors are so obsessed with his attitude towards Israel? They talk more about it than he, or any of his supporters, do.

Armin Tamzarian on May 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM

but applause just doesnt translate to votes. he has fringe support at best. he has no influence. he has never guided any legislation or done anything other than whine and vote against legislation taht is full of pork for his district that HE put in there.
chasdal on May 28, 2012 at 2:27 PM

You’re right. We are so much better off with GOP legislators that sign off on any big government program that is put in front of them because they are getting things done. It is RP’s fault that the GOP is completely unconcerned with spending and monetary policy. We are also much better off with Romney who has a proven record of supporting big government because he got his big government programs to pass in Massachusetts. Romney gets things done!

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 2:40 PM

I wonder why Ron Paul’s detractors are so obsessed with his attitude towards Israel? They talk more about it than he, or any of his supporters, do. Armin Tamzarian on May 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM

They are largely Christian Zionists whose views are generated by faulty biblical interpretation, resulting in belief that the current nation of Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy.

I believe Israel has every right to exist, defend itself, etc, but my views are not based on faulty -or any- biblical passages.

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 2:41 PM

A bowel movement is a movement too.

William Amos on May 28, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I urge our media friends to examine the default position that government is good and invite them to think for themselves.

Too much weed will get you thinking things like this.

trigon on May 28, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I wonder why Ron Paul’s detractors are so obsessed with his attitude towards Israel? They talk more about it than he, or any of his supporters, do.

Armin Tamzarian on May 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM

It’s the NeoCon’s ultimate proxy for fighting Arabs. Modern-day Israel fulfills their fantasies of endless war because they have no choice: it was carved out of land occupied by other people for nearly 1800 years and they won’t leave without a scrap.

i think its been the original libertarians that were diluted. everyone who is pro-legalization has signed on thinking they are libertarians just because they want drugs legalized

chasdal on May 28, 2012 at 2:25 PM

This was my experience with the Libertarian movement. Originally it was made up of very intelligent people, but they were so desperate for additional votes that they let in a horde of ex-hippies and closet anarchists. That was a very bad move.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 2:42 PM

after reading about the experiences of delegates in several states that saw a protracted battle to subvert the will of the republican electorate by supporters of Paul, including intentionally stalling votes by up to 10 plus hours causing many ordinary voters, including the elderly who don’t have stamina to leave, and secret votes of Paul backers to key posts. I would have to safely say that a small group of fanatics, inspired by a cult-like figure who has whipped them up into a heightened sense of fear, are subverting the will of the general electorate in order to enact their agenda.

History has generally shown that this leads to unpleasant things. For example Adolf Hitlers national socialists in the 20′s and 30′s started out with only a small percentage of the german vote, but through violence, fanaticism, and intimidation, plus a stagnant economy which they were able to scapegoat on the Jews(sound familiar) they were able to attain enough representation that they attempted a Putsch in Munich at the beerhalls, i’ve stated this before, but i think the Paul supporters have a similar mentality, and yes that does include virulent anti-semitism, he wouldn’t be getting key support from neo-nazis if that wasn’t the case.

golembythehudson on May 28, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Armin Tamzarian on May 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM

One would think with that kind of obsession they’d at least get his position on it right…

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Ron Paul delegates to the RNC will support the nominee.

Sounds like you aren’t convinced that the nominee will be Romney.

Cheetah1956 on May 28, 2012 at 2:45 PM

golembythehudson on May 28, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Godwin’s Law. You lose.

Oh, and you lose twice over because of being such a paranoid dittohead that you think the Ron Paul movement will result in anything like the Nazi Party. The gay zealots are more dangerous, for crying out loud.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 2:45 PM

For example Adolf Hitlers national socialists in the 20′s and 30′s started out with only a small percentage of the german vote, but through violence, fanaticism, and intimidation, plus a stagnant economy which they were able to scapegoat on the Jews(sound familiar) they were able to attain enough representation that they attempted a Putsch in Munich at the beerhalls, i’ve stated this before, but i think the Paul supporters have a similar mentality, and yes that does include virulent anti-semitism, he wouldn’t be getting key support from neo-nazis if that wasn’t the case.

golembythehudson on May 28, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Aaaaand the Godwin award goes to…

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Godwin’s Law. You lose.

Oh, and you lose twice over because of being such a paranoid dittohead that you think the Ron Paul movement will result in anything like the Nazi Party. The gay zealots are more dangerous, for crying out loud.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Damnit I need to learn to refresh more.

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Anybody who supports moRon paul is either a racist, an anti-Semite, a supporter of nukes for ahmadinejad/Iran, or a person totally ignorant of his disgusting idiotic policies. (i.e., a typical lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist).

TeaPartyNation on May 28, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Aaaaand the Godwin award goes to…

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Don’t forget the theme music. Orchestra! To the tune of “the merry-go-round broke down!”

Dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dummmb…

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Ron Paul delegates to the RNC will support the nominee. However, integral to that support is holding the candidate and the party to the fundamental principles of limited government and personal and economic freedom. Constancy to principle is the ultimate loyalty.

While that’s all well and good, the problem with RON PAUL!!!!1!!!! is that he also holds many over the top positions, like isolationism. Many of his more fervent supports are cranks, Truthers, potheads, conspiracy nuts, and neo-nazi white supremacists. Paul has so far refused to these people to knock it off and that he wants nothing to do with them.

Furthermore, many of these same Paul supporters turn Conservatives and Republicans off with their constant insults.

Oh, and Paul is a complete hypocrite when it comes to earmarks.

William Teach on May 28, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Anybody who supports moRon paul is either a racist, an anti-Semite, a supporter of nukes for ahmadinejad/Iran, or a person totally ignorant of his disgusting idiotic policies. (i.e., a typical lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist).

TeaPartyNation on May 28, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Uh-oh, TPN’s onto us.

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 2:52 PM

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 2:45 PM

why is it Paranoia?, he has deep and extensive ties to both Don Black, the founder of stormfront, and David Duke, for starters. In any case i’m merely discussing the trajectory of the movements and their similar ascension. Both rose up in a period of financial and national distress, both used Jews and their nefarious influence as whipping posts for their ills, Pauls best friend and advisor Lew Rockwell is a deranged anti-semite who finds a jewish conspiracy under every rock, and that’s not even touching upon the newsletters…

golembythehudson on May 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Anybody who supports moRon paul is either a racist, an anti-Semite, a supporter of nukes for ahmadinejad/Iran, or a person totally ignorant of his disgusting idiotic policies. (i.e., a typical lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist).

TeaBaggingPartyNation on May 28, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Gee, how original. The charge of ‘racism’ stolen from leftist grievance mongers and the rest of your post is retarded rightwing bullcr@p.

It couldn’t possibly be that we’re sick of the Rebumblican Party’s total failure to bring about change. No, it’s because your puppetmasters have spoken and they say we’re raaaaycist Joo-h8ing turrist lovers.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Furthermore, many of these same Paul supporters turn Conservatives and Republicans off with their constant insults.
Oh, and Paul is a complete hypocrite when it comes to earmarks.
William Teach on May 28, 2012 at 2:51 PM

The irony of your post is completely lost on you.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Many of his more fervent supports are cranks, Truthers, potheads, conspiracy nuts, and neo-nazi white supremacists. Paul has so far refused to these people to knock it off and that he wants nothing to do with them.

All of Mitt Romney’s fervent supporters (I know, I know, all 15 of them, most of whom post here) are dishonest, irritating trolls. Mitt has so far refused to tell these people to knock it off and that he wants nothing to do with them.

Armin Tamzarian on May 28, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Ron Paul is a big fat hypocrite.

Dashiell Bennett:
Of the 620 bills sponsored by Ron Paul during his long career in the House of Representatives, only four have ever made it to a vote on the House floor and only one of those became an actual law. An analysis by The Washington Post shows that Paul’s success rate of 0.2 percent falls far below that of most legislators, as Paul has chosen to stand up for his personal crusades, rather that build coalitions for more popular, but less ambitious, proposals.

Paul, who has served 11 terms in three different stages dating back to 1976, didn’t get a single law passed until 2009, when he authored a bill that allowed for the sale of a customs house in Galveston, Texas. Failure is often the norm in Congress, where only 4 percent of proposed bills get a President’s signature, but Paul’s approach to lawmaking is particularly suited to not getting things done.

Now on to his never voted for an earmark claim…

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2821103/posts

Paul made over $157 million in earmark requests for FY 2011, one of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks. Additionally, he made over $398 million in earmark requests for FY 2010, again one of the leading Republican House members. These earmark requests include:

•$8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Piers.
•$2.5 million from taxpayers for “new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting.”
•$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an “Economically Disadvantaged” area.
•$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a “Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center.”
•$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to “encourage parents to read aloud to their children.”
•$18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
•$4 million from federal taxpayers for the “Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative.”
•$11 million from federal taxpayers for a “Community-Based Job Training Program.”
•$2 million from federal taxpayers for a “Clean Energy” pilot project.
•$5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
•$1.2 million for a “Low-income working families Day Care Program”
•$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.

All of the above earmarks can be found on Paul’s own congressional website. While Paul does not digitize the requests prior to FY 2011, they’re still available as PDFs. Paul typically will make the earmark request, but then votes against or abstains from voting on final passage, so he can maintain his claim to have “never voted for an earmark”, even the earmark requests he himself made. He defends the practice here.

What a fake POS this guy is…. If you kool-aid drinkers can’t see the truth when it’s in front of your stupid face so be it..

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Aaaaand the Godwin award goes to…

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 2:47 PM

probably to Occams’s razor

golembythehudson on May 28, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Ron Paul only supports going to war with a declaration of war from the Congress. He supports 100% free trade with nations around the world. This is not, and cannot be and has never been isolationist.

We have learned, however, that there are a lot ignorant people in this thread. You people who’re so ignorant about Ron Paul’s foreign policy, yet spout your mouth are only shining a bright light on just how in the dark you really are.

Grow up, grow a pair and accept the truth. Our actions around the world militarily only seek to create more enemies for us. Nation-building is as wrong as bailing out private companies with government money. It all stems from the same CONSERVATIVE principles of limited government.

We should only go to war with a declaration of war from the congress.
We should never nation-build.
We should never police the world.

This is not isolationism. This is not hating Israel, morons. This is the advice of our founders for a WISE foreign policy which seeks to create less enemies, not more.

This is not a football game.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM

golembythehudson on May 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM

It’s deranged because they, all put together, have been less of a threat to the United States than even the anti-Christian gay nazis…or the ACLU…or the Black Panthers…or any of a half-dozen leftist groups I could name.

His fringe ties are just that: fringe. As in “small to the point of nearly irrelevant.” And that’s where they’ll stay, like your lame attempts at fearmongering. Not even the resident hard-core rightwingers are buying into it.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Oh I guess it all depends on what IS IS …. idiots..

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Paul made over $157 million in earmark requests for FY 2011, one of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks. Additionally, he made over $398 million in earmark requests for FY 2010, again one of the leading Republican House members. These earmark requests include:

And he voted against everyone of those.

Nice try, next trick?

You interventionist goon.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 28, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Should we explain to Rocky how the discretionary spending system works, or just leave him be?

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 2:59 PM

You know who consistently gets the fewest votes in republican primaries? Ron Paul.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Rebar, correct (mostly) on that. My point about Ron Paul getting the loudest applause at the R debates was just to show that in many ways he strikes a chord with even the most conservative of voters. He can engender intense enthusiasm, and that can be contagious.
And as far as the issue I talked about in the last comment, the unwiwnnable drug war, I think those that gave him loud applause at the debates would go along with his call to end the drug war, even if right now they don’t really care one or the other. And the drug war is currently undergoing an “evolution” in public opinion. You can expect within 4 years to have majorities opposing it, not just among the youth.

anotherJoe on May 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

If it wasn’t for his outright ludicrous foreign policy ideas, Ron Paul might actually do something.

But seriously, suggesting it’s okay for a regime like Iran to build a nuclear weapon is so far out of the mainstream it’s not even funny.

We saw what happens with appeasement and it wasn’t pretty.

ButterflyDragon on May 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Should we explain to Rocky how the discretionary spending system works, or just leave him be?

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Save your breath. You couldn’t get points through a skull that thick if you could resurrect Samson.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Anybody who supports moRon paul is either a racist, an anti-Semite, a supporter of nukes for ahmadinejad/Iran, or a person totally ignorant of his disgusting idiotic policies. (i.e., a typical lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist).

TeaPartyNation on May 28, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Such babble. Hmmm none of the Paul supporters I know are like that but hey I bet you always like it simple.

CW on May 28, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Rick Perry, if he could just remember them all.

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Hahahaha

ButterflyDragon on May 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM

If it wasn’t for his outright ludicrous non-permawar foreign policy ideas, Ron Paul might actually do something.

FTFY, but I agree with you at heart. The Permawar Brigade is so powerful that directly opposing them has really crippled his career. He’d be way better off letting them get their way until a majority of Americans become sick and tired on their own.

Right now he doesn’t have enough support in that line, and what he does have is constantly shouted down or scared away by being called “racist”/”Anti-semite”/etc.

But seriously, suggesting it’s okay for a regime like Iran to build a nuclear weapon is so far out of the mainstream it’s not even funny.

ButterflyDragon on May 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Yeah. I’m as much for national sovereignty as the next guy, but that remark crossed the line.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 3:04 PM

But seriously, suggesting it’s okay for a regime like Iran to build a nuclear weapon is so far out of the mainstream it’s not even funny.

ButterflyDragon on May 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

As opposed to a regime like N Korea, China, or Pakistan? Funny, I don’t remember us going to war over any of those nations’ acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Can you provide a link?

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Save your breath. You couldn’t get points through a skull that thick if you could resurrect Samson.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Yea, you’re probably right. Somehow, I always naively try to reason people out of positions they weren’t reasoned into in the first place…

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Nice try, next trick?

fatlibertarianinokc on May 28, 2012 at 2:58 PM

So, pork is pork, unless it’s Ron Paul’s pork, then it’s demanded in the Constitution or something?

Please, that tired old lame excuse was worn out in the last primary.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 3:06 PM

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 2:56 PM

How is it fake for him to say that he never voted for an earmark when you state yourself that he never voted for an earmark?

My personal view, based on the Constitution, is that ALL spending should be earmarked. The alternative is Congress abdicating it’s spending authority and essentially handing unelected and virtually unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch a blank check.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM

And he voted against everyone of those. Nice try, next trick? You interventionist goon. fatlibertarianinokc on May 28, 2012 at 2:58 PM

So putting earmarks into legislation that he eventually voted against is true statecraft?

More likely, he knew he could tout the earmarks among constituents as “bringing home the pork,” then vote against them and tout fiscal conservatism, counting on his true believers not to catch on: or care.

RP: the candidate of those who don’t pay attention.

Go on, call me names.

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 3:08 PM

As opposed to a regime like N Korea, China, or Pakistan? Funny, I don’t remember us going to war over any of those nations’ acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Can you provide a link?

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Better strike China from that list; they won’t nuke us b/c it would mean blowing up their future property, but that’s not the case with the other two nations.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I wonder why Ron Paul’s detractors are so obsessed with his attitude towards Israel? They talk more about it than he, or any of his supporters, do.

Armin Tamzarian on May 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM

And from people who have no problem with the leader of our party/POTUS telling Israel that their capital is Tel Aviv, when Israel says it is Jerusalem, and Ron Paul agrees with them.

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 3:12 PM

…not beyond the cringe.

hillbillyjim on May 28, 2012 at 3:12 PM

How is it fake for him to say that he never voted for an earmark when you state yourself that he never voted for an earmark?

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Exactly what I would expect from a true believer..

“The end justify the mean” …

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 3:13 PM

My personal view, based on the Constitution, is that ALL spending should be earmarked. The alternative is Congress abdicating it’s spending authority and essentially handing unelected and virtually unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch a blank check. iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM

All spending should be allocated. Big difference.

Earmarks are pork, 40% paid for by borrowing.

But so long as it’s RP doing the earmarking, then voting against it, you’re cool with it.

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Better strike China from that list; they won’t nuke us b/c it would mean blowing up their future property, but that’s not the case with the other two nations.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 3:11 PM

When China first developed nuclear weapons, there were hawks warning us up and down the pike that we had to get them before they got us.

And now we sell them delicious hamburgers and tacos…

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM

More likely, he knew he could tout the earmarks among constituents as “bringing home the pork,”

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Instead of what, letting his constituents money be taken by the federal government and then never trying to return a portion of it back to them? You think if it were up to him, he wouldn’t cut this kind of thing out of the budget post-haste? But as it is, as long as the people are being robbed, the least he can do is try to return some of the stolen goods to the rightful owners.

If you were mugged, and then the mugger gave you 10% of your cash back, are you a hypocrite for not refusing it?

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 8