The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul

[xnavy]

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnH...rackbacks=true

The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul
By John Hawkins
Friday, June 15, 2007

Even though he's not one of the top tier contenders, I thought it might be worthwhile to go ahead and write a short, but sweet primer that will explain why so many Republicans have a big problem with Ron Paul. Enjoy!

#1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative: I have nothing against libertarians. To the contrary, I like them and welcome them into the Republican Party. But, conservatives have even less interest in seeing a libertarian as the GOP's standard bearer than seeing a moderate as our party's nominee. In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side. So, although he is a small government guy, he very poorly represents conservative opinion on a wide variety of other important issues.

#2) Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy: If you're so inclined, you can click here for just one example of Paul talking up a mythical Bush administration merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, but you're not missing much if you don't. Reputable conservatives shouldn't be spreading these crazy conspiracy theories and the last thing the GOP needs is a conspiracy crank as our nominee in 2008.

#3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts: Even though Ron Paul admits that he does not believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy, he has been flirting with the wackjobs in the "truther movement," like Alex Jones and the "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." Republican politicians should either ignore people like them or set them straight, not lend credence to their bizarre conspiracy theories by acting as if they may have some merit, which is what Ron Paul has done.

#4) Ron Paul's racial views: From the Houston Chronicle, Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

..."Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

...He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote."

Ron Paul has since claimed that although these comments were in his newsletter, under his name, he didn't write them. Is he telling the truth? Who knows? Either way, those comments don't say much for Paul.

#5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating: There are, without question, plenty of decent folks who support Ron Paul. However, for whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner to spam polls and try to annoy everyone into voting for Ron Paul (which is, I must admit, a novel strategy).

#6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. Since then, the world has become even more interconnected which makes Ron Paul's strategy of retreating behind the walls of Fortress America even more unworkable than it was back in the thirties.

#7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq: Even if you're an isolationist like Ron Paul, the reality is that our foreign policy isn't currently one of isolationism and certain allowances should be made to deal with that reality. Yet, Paul believes we should immediately retreat from Al-Qaeda in Iraq and let that entire nation collapse into genocide and civil war as a result. Maybe, just maybe, Paul's motives are better than those of liberals like Murtha and Kerry, who want to see us lose a war for political gain, but the catastrophic results would be exactly the same.

#8)
In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on America with this comment about 9/11:

"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda.

This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for that matter. If you want to truly realize how foolish that sort of thinking is, imagine what the reaction would be if we had bombed Egyptian or Indonesian civilians after 9/11 and then justified it by saying "We attacked them because those Muslims have been over here."
#9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans. That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988. Granted, Paul would do considerably better than that if he ran at the top of the Republican Party ticket, but it's hard to imagine his winning more than, say 35%, of the national vote and a state or two -- even if he were very lucky. In other words, having Ron Paul as the GOP nominee would absolutely guarantee the Democratic nominee a Reaganesque sweep in the election.

Summary: Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable qualities. However, he also has a host of enormous flaws that makes him unqualified to be President and undesirable, even as a Republican Congressmen.

[Pat H]

The above quoted article has all the markings of being written by the neoConservative Smear Bund.

NeoConservatives are an odd combination of the communist politics of Leon Trotsky, the progressive Woodrow Wilson, and socialist new dealer Lyndon Johnson. Their guru is professor, the late Dr. Leo Strauss.

Each accusation has been well and truly debunked months if not years ago.

Dr. Ron Paul is no racist, nor is he anti-Semitic in any way.

Further, Dr. Paul isn't an isolationist, a term coined during the 1930's by a run away Roosevelt Adminsitration trying to get involved in european politics, it's exact origins are murky, but thought to be among the large body of Communist Party members closely associated with Roosevelt.

Be that as it most certainly is, I expect these old saws to continue to appear throughout the campaign, and be just as effective as they've always been, which is to say, not at all.

Regards,

[Dannavy85]

"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

From one who served 7 years in the dirt with the Navy, Ron Paul isn't lying. Not only was the Clinton foreign policy on Iraq an idiotic disaster. It was an assist in a greater war crime undertaken by the United Nations of protecting Saddam and his regime while assisting in the starvation and murder of thousands of Iraqis through illegal sanctions, underhanded oil deals and policy destruction.

Osama Bin Laden used Clinton's indecission and stupidity on Iraq as propaganda value to build his operational and monitary capabilities, his 1998 Fatwah with Iraq as a central theme was OBL's justification for war with the United States.

I was out there and like many who deployed with me, officers and non-coms alike, we were ****** off as to the absolute worthlessness of Southern Watch, endless days of worthless missions and pointless bombing targets all the while Saddam remained in power, continued to defy the United Nations and all we saw from the Clinton regime was stupidity compounding stupidity.

In a way Ron Paul was right, we should have gone all the way in 1991 and killed that S.O.B., Iran was militarilly weak in 1991 and the Iraqi Shia under Grand Ayatollah Sestani, who by the way had fled Iran under a death decree from Khomeni and was fiercely against involving politics with Islamic life, would have blessed the removal. 1991 was our best chance and now we're screwed unless we allow the troops to use more aggressive and destructive means to affect victory.

[Dannavy85]

NeoConservatives are an odd combination of the communist politics of Leon Trotsky, the progressive Woodrow Wilson, and socialist new dealer Lyndon Johnson. Their guru is professor, the late Dr. Leo Strauss.

You don't want to start hearing what I want to call you.....jerk.

[nate45]

Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable qualities. However, he also has a host of enormous flaws that makes him unqualified to be President and undesirable, even as a Republican Congressmen.

Which candidate of either party is serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders?

Dubya sure as heck hasn't been.

Maybe the vast majorty of support for Ron Paul comes from people who see no one else in the field who is stressing small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders.

Except prehaps with only lip service depending on who their audience may or may not be.

[Dannavy85]

You know, maybe if some idiots had listened to us "Neo-cons" when we were demanding the United States retalliate big time after every Islamic inspired assault of murder against our troops over the past 25 years...perhaps there would have been no September 11th.

What did the liberals do? Ever since Jimmy [redacted] Carter they have tried to appease the Islamists, make peace with the Islamists and convince the Islamsits of their "shared vision of non-violent co-existance"

Never learn from history, typical liberal mantrah. We so called "Neo-Cons" were warning the rest of you that if we didn't deal with Islam soon enough after the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis, worse would be upon us.

The liberals seem to forget that it only took 4 years for Nazi Germany to go from a depressed state to a regional military power. Winston Churchill warned the world in 1935 that Adolf Hitler couldn't be trusted, that Nazi Germany was a rising threat to world peace...

All the liberals called him a kook.

Iran is now a dominant regional threat in the Middle East and has been the chief exporter of Islamic madness around the world, unopposed now, for 28 years. My how some of you ignorant people forget your history!

You keep calling us "Neo-cons" you "fascist liberal Conservative [redacted]" You keep screaming for a retreat from Iraq so you can watch survivor from under your beds and worry forever about the Islamic boogyman. One day you will wake up out of your PS2, Carbon Footprint, Harry Potter pedophile pot dreams and wish you'd listened to us Neo-cons.

Remember how Bill Clinton called the 90's an era of "Peace, Prosperity and Progress." well it certainly was that for radical Islamic fascism wasn't it? Someone should have told captain cigar [redacted] that a domestic surplus doesn't make up for a failed foreign policy, you can not have domestic tranquility in a world void of peace.

And there end the lesson to all you neo-con hate mongers. Reap what you have sewn, we shall be proven right.

[Crosshair]

OK, now lets hear the conservative case FOR any of the other candidates?

*crickets*

OK, solves that issue.

BTW, Dannavy85 is right, all of what is in the first post is either taken out of context or seriously exaggerated.

What are you talking about? Ron Paul's voting record is CLEARLY conservative. He does not like big government and is for returning many powers that the fed currently has back to the states. You may not like what he has to say on some issues, but he is very consistant and does not waffle like others in congress do.

As for "Racist" comments about blacks. The FACT is that while blacks are a minority, a disproportionate number or criminals are black. As even Bill Cosby has pointed out, black culture is largely to blame. (Though not the sole cause.) I have black co-workers, black classmates, even black people at the range and that I have met elsewhere. I have learned much from them and respect their views and opinions.

Black people are not the problem. Black CULTURE is the problem. The gansta wanna-be people I run into every once and awhile are just pitiful. The white people that try and emulate this, even more so.

People love to call any legitimate criticism "racism" when that criticism is pointed in their direction. They also call it sexisim, bigiotisim, whatever is convenient, to try and shift the blame from themselves onto others.

He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

So he is for being tough on gang members, even young ones. Again, a large proportion of violent gang members are black. People are trying to find racism when there is none.

Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Again, large number of criminals are black and blacks tend to be good at physical activities like sports or running like mad. Though I am not sure if the quotes from him were taken out of context, as they may have been.

As for "cut and run in Iraq", what exactly is the better solution? What we are currently doing isn't really solving much. As pointed out by Dannavy85, we should have finished everything in 1991. We missed our chance and that is how life is sometimes. We screwed up.

Bad things are going to happen in Iraq regardless of whatever we do. The Iraqi people have to stand on their own, we can't and won't be the babysitter forever.

The other politicians keep telling us what we want to hear. Ron Paul tells what we need to hear and it isn't always good things.

[Pat H]

Good post, Crosshair. I'm retired military with service that began in 1967, ending in 2003. I find Ron Paul's description of the US government's foreign policy, not for the last 15 years, but for the last 80 years to be precisely correct. I studied US foreign policy extensively, both during formal education in graduate school, and as a particular personal interest sparked by the US government's Vietnam policies and other overseas failures.

It really comes back to things warned about by some of our brightest founding fathers; George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison All had significant warnings and fears about any US government involvement in overseas military adventurism.

They've been proven correct time and again in my opinion.

[GoSlash27]

Wow. What a silly, half-baked smear job.
Nice to see he rates the attack tho'.

[xnavy]

Ron Paul is a KOOK and has NO CHANCE to win the nomination let alone the Presidential Election. All of you who want to throw your vote away, go ahead and do so, but don't come crying when BILLARY is elected because you were too stupid to realize that you threw your vote in the garbage can voting for an unelectable KOOK like Ron Paul.

[Pat H]

Ron Paul is the most conservative, most pro-Constitutional rule of law candidate currently running.

He is as electable as any current Republican candidate, not just capable of winning the primary, but the Presidential campaign in the fall of 2008. In fact, Ron Paul is more likely to finish ahead of every candidate running as a Republican except one, Mitt Romney, and we'll see how the campaign unfolds with regard to Romney.

I've found that the just about everyone that opposes Ron Paul's candidacy fall into one or several of these pigeon holes.

1. True believers in the Rooseveltian/Wilsonian program of worldwide spread of empire "for their own good".
2. Those who like bullying people who live in countries unable or unwilling to prevent the bullying.
3. Believers in one world government with the US government calling the shots, a version of number one.
4. Those who believe the US government should simply "take the oil" and kill anyone who says different.
5. Those who believe the US government should expend American lives and treasure to defend other foreign government(s) at any cost.

There may be other descriptors, but that's a start.

[Silver Bullet]

Nice to see he rates the attack tho'.

Exactly. The waves he is generating are starting to rock some boats.

[nate45]

Ron Paul is a KOOK and has NO CHANCE to win the nomination let alone the Presidential Election. All of you who want to throw your vote away, go ahead and do so, but don't come crying when BILLARY is elected because you were too stupid to realize that you threw your vote in the garbage can voting for an unelectable KOOK like Ron Paul.

Well xnavy why don't you give us your pick for the nomination.

Then we can show you all their faults and start calling them names.

[xnavy]

Well xnavy why don't you give us your pick for the nomination.

It's not about name calling or anything else. Ron Paul has no chance at all and anyone who beleives he does just lives in a fantasy world. I know you need proof don't you, well here you go. Ron Paul has less than 1% of polling numbers at this stage of the game. HE WON'T WIN THE NOMINATION AND HE WON'T WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ITS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

Released: July 17, 2007
Zogby: Clinton Builds Sturdy Lead; Thompson & Giuliani Battle for Top GOP Spot

Zogby International's nationwide telephone survey shows Clinton takes a chunk of Obama's liberal base; Thompson's strength in the Heartland gives a boost


The candidate who seems to have been running forever and the one who has yet to enter the race are leading their respective nomination contests in a national preference poll by Zogby International.

Democrats
July 14, 2007
May 20, 2007
Feb. 26, 2007

Clinton
37%
39%
33%

Obama
25%
24%
25%

Edwards
11%
11%
12%

Richardson
3%
2%
5%

Kucinich
2%
1%
Less than 1%

Biden
1%
2%
2%

Dodd
Less than 1%
Less than 1%
Less than 1%

Gravel
Less than 1%
Less than 1%
Less than 1%

Someone else
2%
3%
3%

Not sure
18%
17%
20%




The survey shows New York Sen. Hillary Clinton with a 37% to 25% lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is a distant third at 12%, while New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson leads the also–rans with 4%. Clinton’s edge over Obama has shrunk slightly since late May – she has lost two points and Obama has gained 1% since that last Zogby poll of the race.


Eighteen percent of Democrats remain undecided, the same as in late May.


On the Republican side, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, as yet a non–candidate, has climbed to the top of the GOP leaderboard, winning 22% support, compared to 21% for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney remains in third place with 11%. Arizona Sen. John McCain continues his dramatic slide, from second place in late May to fourth place now, supported by 9% of likely Republican voters nationwide.


One in four Republican voters are undecided, about the same as late May.


The latest Zogby International telephone survey was conducted July 12–14, 2007, and included 396 likely voting Democrats. It carries a margin of error of +/– 4.9 percentage points. The Republican segment included 364 likely voters and carries a margin of error of +/– 5.2 percentage points.

Hillary Wins Liberal Support

Republicans
July 14, 2007
May 20, 2007
Feb. 26, 2007

F. Thompson
22%
10%
7%

Giuliani
21%
26%
29%

Romney
11%
10%
9%

McCain
9%
13%
20%

Huckabee
5%
4%
7%

Brownback
2%
3%
4%

Hunter
1%
1%
1%

Tancredo
Less than 1%
1%
1%

T. Thompson
Less than 1%
1%
Less than 1%

Paul
1%
Less than 1%
Less than 1%

Gilmore
Less than 1%
Less than 1%
Less than 1%

Hagel
Less than 1%
Less than 1%
Less than 1%

Someone else
2%
4%
4%

Not sure
25%
26%
19%


The survey shows Clinton has picked up steam, especially among younger Democratic voters. She wins 59% support among those aged 18–29, up 10% since late May. Meanwhile, Edwards has lost significant ground in the same demographic. In fact, lower tier candidate Dennis Kucinich, at 6% among those under age 30, has more support than Edwards in that group.


Clinton has also maintained her base of support among moderates, while expanding her support among progressives to 36%, up from 31% two months ago. Her backing among progressives appears to come out of Obama’s liberal base, as he has slipped from 35% to 27% in that group.

Thompson Winning Hearts in the Heartland

Republican Fred Thompson has built his tiny lead on strength of support in the South, from which he hails, and the Midwest. Rudy shines in the east, and Romney and Rudy are tied for tops in the West. McCain manages to eke out a third–place showing in the South, but is otherwise badly weakened following a bloody legislative loss over immigration reform and a spate of bad news about his campaign fund–raising woes and loss of staff. News reports have his campaign contracting to three key states – Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Thompson’s strongest appeal comes from those who consider themselves to be “very conservative,” as 35% in that group said they favored the former Tennessee Senator–turned–actor. Giuliani finished a distant third in that group, followed by Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. McCain finishes fifth among very conservative voters.


Among mainline conservatives – the largest subgroup of GOP voters – Giuliani wins 21%, compared to 20% for Thompson, 13% for Romney, and 12% for McCain.


However, those who support Giuliani and Thompson are also those Republicans who said they are most likely to change their minds before they vote in their state primary or caucus.

For a detailed methodological statement on this survey, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1200

(7/17/2007)

[xnavy]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ation-192.html

He is so far down on the food chain that he doesn't even show up, lol.

[Pat H]

I think this article differs from your assertion, xnavy.

Ron Paul Leads in Polls of People Who Have Heard Him Speak

by Jennifer Haman

After the first three debates on National television, three mainstream news channels featured polls asking the American people who won. After the first debate on May 3rd, MSNBC ran a poll obtaining over 72,000 responses showing Ron Paul was the most convincing candidate receiving 45% of the vote. His nearest competitor was Mitt Romney who received 18%. Fox news ran its own poll after the second debates on May 15, and with over 40,000 votes Ron Paul came in second with 25% of the vote. Watching Sean Hannity's face was priceless as while he was saying that Ron Paul's chances were over in this election, Fox's polling numbers flashed across the screen and had Ron Paul in the lead. He immediately did his best spin to claim the polls had been rigged. MSNBC also ran a poll about that debate and discovered Ron Paul was, again, the most convincing candidate with 64% of the over 25,000 responses. After the third debate on June 5, CNN's poll of over 25,000 respondents showed Ron Paul won with 60% of the vote.

One would think with such a strong showing on the online polls for a "second tier" candidate that the mainstream media (MSM) would have discussed this phenomenon at length and on the front page. However, no such stories appeared. In fact, MSM pundits did their best to ignore these figures and instead focused mainly on who they deemed to be the top three choices; effectively, taking control of the election and deciding quite undemocratically who was a "real" candidate.

Even though the MSM is largely ignoring him, Ron Paul is taking the Internet by storm. His name leads in searched terms ahead of even Paris Hilton, his YouTube videos have been viewed over one million times and he has more Meetup groups than all other GOP candidates combined. Poll after poll conducted on the Internet shows Ron Paul winning or at least in the top three. Yet, these polls are completely discounted and Ron Paul's tremendous Internet support is sloughed off by the MSM. Occasionally, the MSM will grant some notice of the huge grassroots support online but then discount it by saying "he may be doing well online but he is only polling at 1 or 2 percent." Doesn't anyone see a disconnect between those two clauses? Who do they think is on the Internet? Pet mice running around in tubes? The Internet, for those who seem confused, is a link of people who write things and have ideas and OPINIONS. The 300-plus Meetup groups he has across the country are also attended by people. The MSM is trying to get us to believe that Ron Paul is only polling at 1% because that is what was said on a few polls and the fact that he is polling much higher on the Internet does not count. It is as if they believe that the people on the Internet are not real, their opinions do not count, and the Internet polls could not possibly be correct. The argument is absurd, insulting and designed to keep Ron Paul out of the mainstream public's eye. The MSM ignores his success because of the misguided concept that people do not want to "waste" a vote. It is never a waste to vote for what you want: indeed, nothing could be more wasteful than voting for what you do not want because you think it the lesser of two evils. Voting for evil is always a bad idea.
READ THE REST:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/haman1.html

[miboso]

Ron Paul is a KOOK and has NO CHANCE to win

If this is so, why are SO many trying SO hard to tear him down?

If something has no effect on you, you ignore it. If it has a chance to affect you, negatively or positively, then you give it a lot of attention.

Ron Paul bashers are giving him a LOT of attention. Thank you.

[CDFT]

Originally Posted by Pat H

I've found that the just about everyone that opposes Ron Paul's candidacy fall into one or several of these pigeon holes.

1. True believers in the Rooseveltian/Wilsonian program of worldwide spread of empire "for their own good".
2. Those who like bullying people who live in countries unable or unwilling to prevent the bullying.
3. Believers in one world government with the US government calling the shots, a version of number one.
4. Those who believe the US government should simply "take the oil" and kill anyone who says different.
5. Those who believe the US government should expend American lives and treasure to defend other foreign government(s) at any cost.

There may be other descriptors, but that's a start.

6. People who think he's a nice guy with some good ideas, but find that he comes off as a bit flaky. Or at least as wanting to tone the government down too much too fast (read: incrementalism).

And re: Dannavy85:

Yes, I suppose a better idea would be to kick in the door of every country that looked at us funny, guns blazing. Forget about intelligence and counter-intelligence, the spec op boys are hogging all the fun! Let the ordinary ground troops have a good time too! People in the past have done nothing, so the only alternative is to do everything.

And finally, re: "The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2.":

Odd, I thought WWII was caused by a bum treaty that screwed Germany so hard that it allowed some crazy scapegoating whackjob to be swept into power.

[divemedic]

So, to sum up the discussion:

My choices for president are between:

Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Thompson
Guiliani
Romney

Aren't they all pretty much the same? In other words, the only ones who can win, are people who are abhorrent to me and my ideals.

Exactly how are you NOT "throwing your vote away" if you vote for someone you abhor, just so you can claim that you voted for the winner?

[Freedom_1st]

Another thread on this forum attacking Paul, wow, thats a suprise.

He must really have you neo-cons feather's ruffled.

[Carryabigstick]

"#1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative: I have nothing against libertarians. To the contrary, I like them and welcome them into the Republican Party. But, conservatives have even less interest in seeing a libertarian as the GOP's standard bearer than seeing a moderate as our party's nominee. In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side. So, although he is a small government guy, he very poorly represents conservative opinion on a wide variety of other important issues"

He does differ from the Republican majority on some issues. I disagree with him about the death penalty. So that is true.

"#2) Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy: If you're so inclined, you can click here for just one example of Paul talking up a mythical Bush administration merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, but you're not missing much if you don't. Reputable conservatives shouldn't be spreading these crazy conspiracy theories and the last thing the GOP needs is a conspiracy crank as our nominee in 2008."

The North American union "conspiracy" isn't without fact to back it up. Ron paul has a right to be concerned over this issue. Do you want a north American union? Ron paul believing this to be possible is fine. It doesn't hurt us.


"#3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts: Even though Ron Paul admits that he does not believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy, he has been flirting with the wackjobs in the "truther movement," like Alex Jones and the "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." Republican politicians should either ignore people like them or set them straight, not lend credence to their bizarre conspiracy theories by acting as if they may have some merit, which is what Ron Paul has done."

Not everything the "truther" people say is wrong. They do some things that deserve merit. Of course they say a whole lot more that doesn't. Which is what Ron Paul would say. Just cause someone is a bit wacky doesn't mean they are never right.


"4) Ron Paul's racial views: From the Houston Chronicle, Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

..."Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

...He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote."

Ron Paul has since claimed that although these comments were in his newsletter, under his name, he didn't write them. Is he telling the truth? Who knows? Either way, those comments don't say much for Paul."

I really don't know enough about the story to comment.

"#5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating: There are, without question, plenty of decent folks who support Ron Paul. However, for whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner to spam polls and try to annoy everyone into voting for Ron Paul (which is, I must admit, a novel strategy)."

Very true! I really somethimes can't stand the retoric from the pro Ron paul camp.

"#6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. Since then, the world has become even more interconnected which makes Ron Paul's strategy of retreating behind the walls of Fortress America even more unworkable than it was back in the thirties."


I think that it may be a good idea to have different exit plan than "up and leave". However the important thing is that we do leave. That includes all the middle eastern states and anywhere else around the world.

#7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq: Even if you're an isolationist like Ron Paul, the reality is that our foreign policy isn't currently one of isolationism and certain allowances should be made to deal with that reality. Yet, Paul believes we should immediately retreat from Al-Qaeda in Iraq and let that entire nation collapse into genocide and civil war as a result. Maybe, just maybe, Paul's motives are better than those of liberals like Murtha and Kerry, who want to see us lose a war for political gain, but the catastrophic results would be exactly the same.

His idea is to change our policy. Changing it to a better policy.

#8)
In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on America with this comment about 9/11:

"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda.

This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for that matter. If you want to truly realize how foolish that sort of thinking is, imagine what the reaction would be if we had bombed Egyptian or Indonesian civilians after 9/11 and then justified it by saying "We attacked them because those Muslims have been over here."

Ron Paul didn't say anything about 9/11 itself. He wa addressing the fact that our poor policies help others to hate us. Which is true.


#9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans. That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988. Granted, Paul would do considerably better than that if he ran at the top of the Republican Party ticket, but it's hard to imagine his winning more than, say 35%, of the national vote and a state or two -- even if he were very lucky. In other words, having Ron Paul as the GOP nominee would absolutely guarantee the Democratic nominee a Reaganesque sweep in the election.

We will be with a president who is for leaving Iraq. 70% of Americans want us out. Ron paul (out of republicans) has the best chance after the primaries.

Summary: Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable qualities. However, he also has a host of enormous flaws that makes him unqualified to be President and undesirable, even as a Republican Congressmen.

Ron Paul is not perfect. Nobody is claiming he is. He is a man whom is for the shrinking of government and giving liberty back to the people. So he gets my vote.

[xnavy]

Any credible reliable poll has Paul with less than 1% or he doesn't even show up. Ron Paul scares nobody he is a flake and nothing more. I just find it funny how the Ron Paul supporters seem to think he is gaining traction, when he doesn't even come close to polling what Ross Perot polled.

I will put in in 6 inch letters right now for all to see. This is my prediction mark the thread for all the Ron Paul supporters to see.

Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination and he will not win the presidential election as a third party candidate.

[Pat H]

xnavy says: he will not win the presidential election as a third party candidate

That's correct, he's running as a Republican, he's a 6 term Republican congressman now. He's stated that he's not running a third party campaign, though there has been suggestions that several third parties ought to endorse him after he wins the Republican nomination next spring.

I agree.

[xnavy]

LOL, If you are going to quote me at least get it right. I said he would not win the republican nomination or the presidential election as a third party candidate. Since he won't win the republican nomination his only chance at a presidential run would be as a 3rd party candidate.

See this is the problem with you Ron Paul supporters, you try to twist things around even when they are in simple English.

[miboso]

Let me 'splain something to you, at least from my point of view:
With any of the other candidates, Rep or Dem, it is "status quo". Would there be any discussion of constitutional issues without Paul in the race?
I support the constitution. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who wholeheartedly supports the constitution, therefore he is the only candidate I can support. Ideally, he would win. However, we don't need him to win for the country to win. All we need is for more people to be aware of the federal government's role in our lives (minimal). Ron Paul is helping that happen now, and it's got the anti-constitutionalists running scared.

XNAVY, I have a question for you: Why are you fighting so hard AGAINST someone who is fighting so hard FOR the constitution?