Hemp 08
I was really into Ron Paul in college and in 1988 I even voted for him for President on the Libertarian ticket. But I was recently trying to think, trying to remember exactly why...
Whoaa! Dude, I just remembered!
Actually I was trying to find the latest recording of Ron Paul's appearance earlier today on 9/11 truther and all-purpose whack job Alex Jones's radio show. I know it's at least appearance number 4 in a year. Personally I liked former Pres. Bill Clinton's recent reaction to a disruptive member of the mindless "9/11 Truth Movement": "HOW DARE YOU!"
Hi Pauli,
ReplyDeleteI was just over at Mark Shea's blog and saw the latest post on how Ron Paul is supposed to be Mr. Morality according to some document by Catholic bishops. (I saw your comments there too.) Now, I swore I would resist posting there after the anti-Canadian t-shirt flap, but I just can't stand how the people over there are studiously ignoring the Ron Paul/Alex Jones/neo-Nazi stuff. So against my better judgement, I posted a comment with appropriate links. I can't wait to see the kind of insults I get this time.
Their counter argument would no doubt be something like "I'm so sure that no neo-Nazi ever gave to Bush & other Repubs."
ReplyDeleteWhat they "forget" is this: serious politicians who seriously think they have a serious chance to win ABSOLUTELY RUN from these shaky associations (Walden's point). Remember Bush & McCain running from Bob Jones U? Bigoted they might be down there, but not anti-American Jew-haters like these AFP twerps. These jerks are holocaust deniers to boot. And Alex Jones, Mr. Troofer? Paul's been on that show numerous times. How's his score looking on the ol' chart?
That's what every serious campaign does when there exists a serious charge. Hillary even responded to the question-planting thing which, BTW, I did not think was a big deal. (Sorry, Rush....) Serious people realize that even the perception of wrongdoing needs to be explained; campaigns do it all the time.
OK -- I'm using the word serious in just about every sentence. But in a sense, Paul's crime in my book is his un-seriousness. On Medved's show he stammered at questions about possible make-up of his cabinet, merely muttering something about getting people from outside DC. If you really think you'll make it through the primaries as a candidate, you can't go on a NORML-sponsored program called the "Audio Stash" and winkingly sermonize about how great hemp products are, throwing in a sheepish line about how you're ACTUALLY against drug use. It's a point to arcane for a Pres. race that you are against drugs AND the "war on drugs"; I think the Catholic Bishops would respect the "war on drugs" as necessary to keep at least some of the stuff from flooding high schools and playgrounds. As would most voters.
And speaking of voters: the cherry on top of the sundae of unseriousness is how good they claim they are doing in the polls. Paul is at about 5% nationally and he's around 1 in Iowa.
The non-response (at least it is so far not on his press page) to the acceptance of the Nazi donation is problematic. It could be cleared up in a matter of MINUTES. Andrew Sullivan stated this, someone who probably likes Ron Paul a lot more than I do.
I know there are a bunch of well-meaning folks out there who believe that yeah, he won't win, but they will build on Ron Paul's success in the future, that he's the new Goldwater and than we're on the verge of a "revolution". I feel like sensible conservatives like myself are going to be ignored in that revolution, should it come, for the reasons I've given. But I'm not very worried.
Pauli,
ReplyDeleteI just checked the responses over there and I've come to the conclusion that debating crazy people is a waste of time. I'd rather do something more productive, like ram my head against a brick wall.
I posted one more response pointing out the obvious -- that the libertarian Ron Paul would simply make abortion a states' rights issue and would not favor a constitutional ban on abortion. That fact right there would mean that Paul would not pass their own pro-life purity test.
But according to them, I'm a phoney pro-lifer because I would vote for Giuliani if the only other choice was the rabidly pro-abortion Dem nominee (Hillary, most likely).
Whatever, I'm done with those people...
it's not a "podcast". it's an "audiostash". dude!
ReplyDeleteI didn't quite know what to think of the Paul phenomenom so I ventured over to his website and read his positions. It is the most incoherent pile of sub-literate nonsense imaginable. High on emotion and low on coherence. Ya might as well vote for Mickey Mouse. I guess you could make a protest vote with him but I'm not even sure what you'd be protesting except maybe the war in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteHe strikes me as the republican Larouche. More of a bizarre cult figure for the mentally challenged or perhaps deranged.
The anti-Paul two minute playa-hate continues...
ReplyDeleteWhen President Guliani appoints a pro-abortion Justice to the bench in 2009, will anyone here have second thoughts, or will rationalization and denial rule the day? I'll guess we'll have to wait and see. My money's on denial and rationalization, however.
Yeah, Ron and Rudy are the only two persons running for the Republican nomination.
ReplyDeleteAnd the "how dare you?" declaration from our former rapist-in-chief? Not admirable. Pathetic. The man has no shame.
ReplyDeletebroken clock... twice a day...
ReplyDeleteAndy, were you the Twoofer that Clinton yelled at?
And the fact that the GOP establishment is basically copacetic with Guliani while contemptuous of Paul shows where the priorities of the Republican party lie: it is much safer to be pro-war than pro-life.
ReplyDeletewhat the freak is a "two minute playa-hate"? is that a hip-hop Orwell thang yo?
ReplyDeleteKathleen,
ReplyDeleteWord.
I didn't quite know what to think of the Paul phenomenom so I ventured over to his website and read his positions. It is the most incoherent pile of sub-literate nonsense imaginable. High on emotion and low on coherence.
ReplyDeleteSteve, shhhhhhhhh! Don't tell anybody that.
And the "how dare you?" declaration from our former rapist-in-chief? Not admirable. Pathetic. The man has no shame.
ReplyDeleteWell, Andy, Charlie Sheen -- actor, whoremonger and cokehead -- is a troofer and has even appeared on the Alex Jones show and took pictures with him. So I guess that evens things out. ;-)
Again, amidst this sea of ad hominem invective, I make the irrefutable point: it is safer among the GOP establishment (as displayed by the acceptance of Guilani as a grand statesman and the corresponding shunning of Paul) to be pro-war than to be pro-life. Anyone care to challenge this point?
ReplyDeleteI make the irrefutable point: it is safer among the GOP establishment (as displayed by the acceptance of Guilani as a grand statesman and the corresponding shunning of Paul) to be pro-war than to be pro-life. Anyone care to challenge this point?
ReplyDeleteAndy,
Actually, at this point in time, that is probably the cold, hard truth. The reason for this is that, like it or not, the voting public are much more concerned with pro-defense issues (a term preferable to "pro-war") than they are with abortion. Personally, I think both are important, but I'm not the typical voter that the GOP is trying to court. If this upsets you, take it up with Joe Sixpack, not the GOP.
Not related to this, but here's a particularly hilarious bit of info that should really confound some folks. Recently, I lurked at a blog frequented by pretty solidly left-wing, anti-war, pro-abortion types. Many of them are Ron Paul supporters. Weird, huh?
Susan, unless you disbelieve the polls, a significant majority of Americans want out of Iraq. Yet the Republican establishment portrays Paul's oppositon to the war as some sort of fringe-crackpot stance.
ReplyDeletePaul is 100 percent pro-life, yet he gets savaged here and elsewhere by supposedly pro-life people because he's against the war. Meanwhile Guliani, a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, vice-soaked serial adulterer gets a pass. It's frankly unconscionable.
Many voters may want us out of Iraq, but I think they want us to finish the job properly and they draw the line at the "America deserved 9/11" crap Ron Paul spews.
ReplyDeleteC'mon now, really-- Saying "the terrorists attacked us because of our foriegn policy" is not the same thing as saying "America deserved to be attacked." You can't really be so dense as to conflate the two, the way Guilani the shameless demogogue did in the particular debate. That's just silly.
ReplyDeleteAgain-- to return to my main point: for the GOP establishment, it's more important to be pro-war (NOT just pro-defense) than pro-life. And so many supposed pro-lifers, here and elsewhere, seem cool with that...
If Ron Paul gets the nomination, I will vote for him and hope that the craziness was just an act, a kind of idiot-genius strategy. But 4 out of the 5 top GOP candidates are pro-life which makes the "you must support Ron Paul if you are pro-life" case much weaker.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say "you must support Ron Paul if you are pro-life"-- but rather, "why (among the GOP establishment) is it a greater liability to be anti-war than it is to be pro-abortion?"
ReplyDeleteWell I don't think it is, Andy. That's your narrative. I think it's a bigger liability to be perceived as wacky. For example, I don't remember George Will being villianized for being against the Iraq war. Of course he doesn't write for American Free Press either.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Will is a pretty poor counter-example; he's turned against the war primarily on questions of expediency, not principle. It's not so much that it was wrong, or a mistake, but that it's been fought badly.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, anyone with a principle-based opposition to the notion of preventative war, or to American interventionism in general, as culturally/socially conservative as he may be on an issue like abortion, is automatically reviled as a wack job by the GOP lamestream.
Case in point: You and your friends here seem to be spending a lot more time bashing Paul for having one unsavory financial contributor than taking the loathsome Guliani to task for anything whatsoever.
Okay Andy, I'll take Giuliani to task for several things:
ReplyDelete* His position on abortion is grieviously wrong.
* He has a bad reputation for not respecting 2nd Amendment rights.
* I think it was tacky and immoral for him to cheat on his wife and then shack up with his mistress before marrying her.
I am not a Rudy supporter!
There...happy?
Regarding this:
Saying "the terrorists attacked us because of our foriegn policy" is not the same thing as saying "America deserved to be attacked."
No, it isn't, but I only find the former a little less deplorable than the latter. For one thing, there's no truth in it...it's just an excuse Islamist apologists and America-haters use. Also, we should not let what Osama bin Laden or any other Islamist scumbag thinks determine our foreign policy.