So let me wrap up then with one of the most unholy statements I've ever made...
Thank heavens for Ron Paul. Of all the candidates running for US president in the spring of 2007, Ron Paul has clearly done more than the rest of them put together to inject serious talk about real issues. Whether you agree with his outlook on any given issue, he's got a serious and well considered viewpoint that bears consideration.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Brian
You article is well written and I can honestly say I don't agree with everything Ron Paul stands for either. But to claim that Ron Paul is taking an over simplified view of the terrorism is really the pot calling the kettle black here. First of all, saying that a government has done immoral things that have in part led to the a terrorist attack is the same as justifying the terrorist attack. I may be that US have no right to be there to do something to actively try to do something to try to get our troops out is not in itself a crime, but an attack on innocent civilians is never acceptable for any reason.
Where you really have trouble understanding the implication of foreign policy is that you think we can eliminate a group of terrorists and be done with terrorism. The problem is every terrorist you kill creates 2 more so to speak. Pulling out is the only way to stop them from growing in numbers.
So how do we fight the ones already in existence? We fight them here with improved security. Ron Paul wants to pull our forces home, not only from Iraq but from everywhere. Even with out military budget sliced into fractions, we still we have more security in the US then ever in the history of this country.
27 - Steven T. Cramer
Personally I believe Ron Paul would be very strong on defense. Once elected he would pull our troops home from around the world and at the same time he would let the world know that we are non interventionists. He would gain the world’s leaders respect by respecting them.
Most constitutionalist here in the USA are not only non-interventionists but also gun owners. If you think they are pacifists, try breaking into their homes? (just making a point not a real suggestion) “Never mistake meekness with weakness”, after pulling out our troops and getting out of the worlds business, If anyone attacked USA soil, I would be willing to bet that Ron Paul would be stronger in defense of us than any other candidate running for President. After we have stopped being involved in others politics and internal issues and stopped policing the world, the entire American people and most of the world would also support us. This man has fought for his principles for many years and has stood strong amongst a group of the most corrupt. Once he is President and re-establishing liberty in America, he will defend America. Would he act irrationally? No, but he would be stronger than any other President. Principled people are very easy to understand and deal with, but they will defend their principles. Read the blogs of the Ron Paul supports. Do these people sound like they are week to you? Ethical yes, but not week, these people believe in private property, liberty and independence more than most. They would fight to the death defending their nation of liberty and freedom. After all the founding fathers who wrote the document, Dr. Paul is supporting, fought in a war for the principles they believed in.
Hillary on the other hand, who’s only goal, it seems to me is to be President. I don’t think she even knows why other than she just has worked for so long to get there. She may very well decide that she wants to be the leader of a North American Union. So in time of attack instead of defending us she may very well sell us out. Socialism really thinks government is the solution so why not solve more people’s problems? She after all thinks her ideas should be implemented on the American people so why not help Canada as well? . I guarantee Ron Paul won’t do that. He believes in supporting the smallest minority, the individual. His principled ideology is that the individual makes the best choices for them self not some collectivist elite or paternal government acting on our behalf.
28 - dogmatic
I don't buy that admitting we were wrong to invade Iraq and changing our foreign policy will encourage our current enemies. That is a HUGE assumption and if you really think about it does not make a bit of sense. If you had an antagonist that admitted they were treating you badly, then made efforts to rectify the ill treatment, would you step up your attack on them? I feel that most people would not. They radicals of the world would actually lose steam from a non-interventionalist policy.
29 - Rob Price
"chum in the water," ??? You fail to support this conclusory assertion with either evidence or argument. To the contrary, we would be far stronger. We could actually protect ourselves, here, rather than fail to protect ourselves, there.
30 - Al Barger
Dogmatic sez If you had an antagonist that admitted they were treating you badly, then made efforts to rectify the ill treatment, would you step up your attack on them? I feel that most people would not. That seems like a very reasonable point, but I'll have to take issue with it.
When I suggested re-examining premises, that kind of thinking was the top thing I had in mind. A lot of libertarian or classical liberal thinking is premised on some basic ideas about human nature. Basically, everyone seeks self-interest. They want to not get killed, and to have the most they can get for themselves and their people. If you've been harsh with someone and then start making nice, then they'll be better disposed toward you. That's how I'd do it.
But that road map doesn't seem to apply to a lot of the modern Muslim world. By their continued actions for example, the Palestinians clearly care more about killing Jews than they do about having anything for themselves or a future for their children. People who gladly send their children off as suicide bombers are not working from the same template as US.
In fact, the US has not been any egregious abuser of poor Muslims. We just haven't. You could fault US some, or argue that we shouldn't be anywhere in their part of the world at all, but that's not the real beef. Other countries have done far worse- but they don't rail against the Russians, and we've done a lot to try to help them. The hatred and violence towards US and others doesn't seem to be much related to our supposed sins.
31 - Al Barger
Rob Price sez We could actually protect ourselves, here, rather than fail to protect ourselves, there.
That sounds nice, but it's really just a dumb platitude that has no connection to reality. We seem to be in fact successfully protecting ourselves over there. Yes, we have soldiers getting killed - but those are trained volunteer soldiers in a foreign theater, rather than Americans in our own cities.
Arguably, in some part Bush has been a victim of his own success. Iraq is a complicated mess, inevitably, and Bush hasn't done a very good job with it in some aspects. But we haven't had another major terror attack at home, perhaps in substantial part because we've been on offense. It surely ain't because the Islamists have quit trying.
32 - brody
Ron Paul is the strongest candidate on national defense, would keep us the safest, and would not repeat mistakes from the past. And that's just on the defense issue, I mean how many other candidates are seriously talking about eliminating the IRS immediately?
33 - michael
Mr. Barger, one of the most disgusting, low-grade, twisted bait and switch articles I have yet to read about Mr. Paul. He has clearly stated on many interviews that he asked the congress to actually declare war. He stated he would have continued the search for Bin Laden. I think you do poor job of insightful writing. I wonder why you took so many words to blather it. Do you get paid by the word?
34 - kevin
you obviously don't care about ther hundreds of innocent people in the middle east who are tortured, imprisoned for months, then ditched in a completely different country and left to die--all results of BUSH's foreign policy--i believe if the iraqi people stopped dying (from american spawn violance)they wouldn't be as mad at us--- i think iran wouldn't be so testy if we didn't have carriers right on their coastline---you've drunk too much national security kool-aid
35 - Joel
I am glad this debate is on. Had Ron Paul been running during the Cold War, I probably wouldn't have voted for him due to his noninterventionist policy - but now it is absolutely right.
One way or another, you will probably get your second choice, Hillary, for president. If you think that the 137,000 vote margin in Ohio in '04 and the 537 vote margin in Florida in 2000 is still there - Get real!
What are the reasons for the US troops being deployed around the world? Any terrorist camp around the world can be hit and assaulted from US bases alone. If the bases are there to confront China, that is pure insanity. If we were ever stupid enough to go into a conventional war against China, you had better start learning Chinese. The only deterrent against a future aggressive China is our nuclear weapons. At this point in history, in a conventional war, we could walk over Russia. But no way could this happen because they are the second largest owner of nuclear warheads. If we are not in the Middle East, the radical governments will have no target to rally their people and the people will turn against their own governments. The fanatic in Iran lost out in their last election because they are tired of not having freedom.
If you think the Iraq war is serving our national defense - just how? Do you think it has made us highly respected in the Middle East and made them all want to be like us? Do you think it has put the fear of God in them to see the power of the US military? Maybe at first they feared the US military but now they are gaining confidence and shooting down that fearful Apache Helicopter.
If you think that this is fighting the terrorists on their own ground rather than ours, I would say this is more like if we dropped the 101th airborne division into Berlin during WWII and tried to hold the city.
Billions have been spent on homeland defense. Was it all the bloated "protect us agencies" that found out about the Ft Dix plot? No, it was the alertness of a private US citizen. Was it the bloated "protect us agencies" that stopped the shoe bomber? No, it was the crew and passengers. Only us as individuals have a chance to stop terrorism.
Am I one of those "Plot upon plot upon plot" freaks? Am I one of those liberals that believe no matter what the horror in the world, "it is America's fault"? Or maybe I am a drug using hemp voter? Or better yet, am I one of those "black helicopters are coming to get me" nuts? Probably not because I served in the National Guard 20 years and crewed helicopters for 14 years and kind of knew that black paint is called CARC paint (a radar absorbing coating).
My first active duty callup was during Desert Storm to back fill with my company in Texas and Honduras. Three of us would never come back from that deployment as a nighttime medevac mission went terribly wrong and two of our pilots and a flight medic would be burned beyond recognition on a Honduran hillside. My next deployment was in a place called Bosnia, and while we all came back, most of us will never forget the long awaited day of departure when an air war started in a place called Kosovo and the plane to take us home couldn't fly into the closed airspace. So since the politicians didn't want us to be too heavily armed in this police action, we had to give all our ammo to our replacements and make a bus trip through the worst area of the country, absolutely defenseless.
I was 14 years old, typing up my own Reagan posters in 1976, and raged as Nelson Rockefeller yanked a Reagan poster out of the hands of a Reagan delegate. I raged when establishment Republicans ridiculed the Reagan delegates for blowing their horns for Reagan for forty straight minutes at the '76 convention. I ranted every time I heard statements that the phony baloney actor cowboy from California would never win a general election. When the impossible happened and he was elected, I watched a good portion of Reagan's agenda go down to defeat against a Democratic Congress. I dreamed if only we could get the presidency and the congress, we could really lower the deficit, cut back on the government's size and intrusiveness, and make sure that US troops were never sent to a war that wasn't in direct defense of our nation, with their hands tied and given a mission they could never win. In the year 2000, by 537 votes, my dream came true. And how well I have been rewarded;
Mark Foley preaching of neocon morality while attempting to have a homosexual affair with a page and being covered up by those in power.
Finding out Newt Gingrich was having an affair at the same time as Clinton.
Listening to Rush Limbaugh from the day he started his talk radio on KFBK ridiculing people of the libertarian beliefs on drugs and then finding out he was smuggling and using illegal drugs himself.
Finding out that the great moralistic inspiring articles from the Hillsdale college were written by a man who had been sleeping with his son's wife for 10 years.
Watching Bush and the Republican congress give us a huge deficit with every kind of pork barreling you can imagine and growing the power of the federal government in every area.
Disregard for the Bill of Rights.
Young men and women fighting and dying in a war with no clear objective, being sent on multiple deployments, and then being hit with a stop loss when their enlistments were up and sent again.
All the while I am choking out excuses against critics.
I voted for Bush in '04 because how could I vote for a guy that openly admitted to committing atrocities in Vietnam while he was an officer and should have had the leadership and moral courage to stop it? I supported the war because I was told of the WMD by both Clinton and Bush. God help our civil liberties if Saddam drops one of those on a US city, I thought. I served my tour after it was decided the WMDs would never be found and stood by my helicopter and saluted with tears in my eyes as the body bags (some weighting less than 30 pounds) were loaded on my helicopter. Coming home from one of these missions, I read the string of increasingly frantic emails from my wife about the SuperStallion helicopter that had gone down in the western desert. She was reading the partial list of fatalities and recognized the names of our son's Marine buddies he had talked about in emails from Falujah. But God spared our son as him and a buddy were moved to Chock 2 at the last minute, sparing him the fate of 33 of his company comrades.
As far as my opinion of legalizing drugs, I have always been anti- drug despite growing up in the 70s and have no use for drug dealers. I don't use drugs, including alcohol which I consider the same. It was with this attitude that I volunteered for a mission to take out this horrible high producing meth lab hidden deep in the woods. After briefing for this full-on ground and air assault mission, we flew nap of the earth with release points and check points like any I flew in Iraq. As our flight of helicopters made precision landings around this lonely little house in the middle of nowhere to unload 16 heavily armed law enforcement officers, I could see a convoy of law enforcement vehicles approaching down the single dusty road. And down a hillside behind the house, a squad of officers rushed. I recall a horrible sinking feeling in my stomach as I realized I was part of this firepower directed at US citizens - and it only grew worse as the officers searched in vain for the meth lab that was never there. And it was with near grief that I watched the 3 year old asking her young mother, handcuffed on the ground, why she couldn't get up. For a wild turkey shot out of season and a few other small charges. we hauled them to the county jail. Needless to say that was the last time I ever volunteered for one of those missions.
So, when I hear about the kooky, liberal, left, fringe, anti-American Ron Paul supporters, I guess I must have miscategorized myself
36 - Philly Dave
Ron Paul too principled to protect our selves? Are you nuts?
Under Clinton 42 BinLaden should have AND COULD HAVE been captured or Killed.
Under Clinton 42 US servicemen were put in unfriendly ports with no ammunition in their sidearms and killed by terrorists in a dinghy.
Under Clinton 42 the official policy of Regime change in Iraq was formalized.
Under Clinton 42 hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children were starved to death as a result of US lead sanctions.
And you would choose a Clinton 44 because you think she would keep you safe from "evil bastards"? That is some derranged shit.
37 - Adam Skinner
I think you're pretty much off base, man. Just because we're pulling our troops from patrolling the borders and keeping a standing military presence in other portions of the world doesn't mean that we're "chum in the water".
What, is the boogie man going to come and get us *after* we've consolidated our power? If anything, we're more at risk now because we're spread too thin. Sun Tzu would roast us on a spit for spreading ourselves too thin; that makes us weak.
Ron Paul is simply advocating the non-interventionist doctrine our country was *founded* on. It's not unrealistic. The rest of the world seems to be doing okay without policing the globe. Why is it that America must needs be saddled with such a burden?
You don't honestly think that if we were attacked again, this "idealistic" non-interventionist would roll over? Is that what our forefathers did during the revolutionary war? If anything, we'd go in, kick ass, pull out, and say (as we should have said to the rest of the Muslim world after devastating Iraq): "Anyone else want what he got? Mess with me again. That was *your* warning."
38 - James Awood
Great job on the news story!
I would also like to add, that it doesn’t matter if a Republican or Democrat wins; they are both paid for by the same people, with the exception of Ron Paul. You are voting your freedoms away if you don’t vote for someone who has a proven track record defending our constitution like Ron Paul. Why else would the mainstream media be afraid of Ron Paul winning. Why? Because most of the people who own the media, like Rupert Murdock, have friends in the defense agencies who want to continue to make money from this war!
39 - mike
Paul would not necessarily be weak on defense. He has noted the Commander in Chiefs authority to act alone in the case of pressing national defense needs and would vigorously defend the nation's interests militarily when congress declares war. One of Paul's main points is that Korea, Vietnam and Iraq have failed in part because they were undeclared wars and never fully had the nation committed to the cause. I think you mistake his desire to only act when in our national interest as pacifist while I (and others) view it as prudent.
40 - Daniel
Ron Paul supports defending ourselves. As I understand it, he supports the President's decision to go after Bin Laden. He just doesn't support attacking other countries that do not threaten us. Also, he thinks that before we wage war on another country, the President should ask Congress to declare war.
41 - Alex Hammer
See also: Ron Paul Campaign: Key California Republican Group Endorses Ron Paul
Joe Klein in TIME - How Rudy Won the Second Debate
Ron Paul's supporters busted gaming Digg
42 - Jonathan
I'm impressed with the blatant ignorance of the pundits who manage to attack Paul for his comments while conveniantly ignoring that his comments were simply based on the factual content of the 9/11 report and other intelligence sources, not to mention in the words of terrorists themselves.
43 - Vic
On the whole very well balanced, but the weakest point in your article is that you don't justify your claim that "we'd be chum in the water" if we "start withdrawing our worldwide military presence wholesale".
Our defenses (air and naval) are superior to anything the opposition can hurl. External bases had a function during the cold war, but they've outlived their purpose as far as defense is concerned.
44 - Gary Johnson
The primary aim of all war propaganda is to paint the enemy as "malicious and irrational". He must be seen as having no regard for human life - his own or anyone else's. After all, if the enemy has no regard for his own life, we should have no compunction about killing him, even if it means bombing cities and destroying the lives of innocents. During WWII, Americans were taught this about the Japanese. Who today thinks the average Japanese doesn't care for his life or the lives of his family?
Television doesn't allow Ron Paul to go into detail regarding our government's record, spanning sixty years, of overthrowing democratic governments, aiding and abetting military coups, fixing elections and installing and propping up dictatorships and corrupt monarchies across the Middle East, Central and South America and elsewhere - all in the name of "realism".
To paraphrase Chesterton: it isn't that the nonintervention of Ron Paul has been tried and found wanting, but that it hasn't been tried. The "Realism" of the past 60 years has given us $9 trillion in debt, a collapsing dollar, and the enmity of the world. It's time we gave Dr. Paul's idealism a try.
45 - I_Like_Freedom
Why don't we just do a mass genocide as the neo-cons would have it. This seems to solve the problem. If you think it is too ideaological to think before you act then we are doomed. Paul only said that we need to relook foreign policy instead of acting blindly and continuing to follow bad policy. If we really wanted to get Osama we would be in Pakistan. However the neo-cons are not interested in fighting terrorism.
46 - Richard Brodie
Suppose we stopped dissipating our treasure as we are now doing on a futile effort to impose our alien political and cultural norms onto nations that don't want to be transformed. And suppose our productive energies could be unleashed by removing all the heavy regulatory and bureaucratic anchors that we have hung around our own necks. Then we could well afford to make our borders and ports totally impervious to the infiltration of terrorists and their weapons. And we could build and deploy a land, sea, and space based ABM system that could effectively frustrate any conceivable missle attack.
Take a look at the Ron Paul video I recently posted on YouTube based on the anagram RON PAUL = OUR PLAN.
And here are some longer anagrams for your enjoyment, one for each of the six major presidential contenders:
Ron Paul is running for president of the United States of America. =
Suasion of that principled man's effort earning our due interest.
Hillary Clinton is running for president of the United States of America. =
Don't let philanderer's menacing hussy, an irritant, in our loftiest office.
Barack Hussein Obama is running for President of the United States of America. =
Unseasoned man surfaced up in front? I bet that scenario is a big mistake - for HER!
Willard Mitt Romney is running for president of the United States of America. =
See unfit Mormon flip, turn, feint, twist story; Gad! One credential is dream hair.
John Sidney McCain is running for president of the United States of America. =
Reject on fence issues; Handcuff the noisy traitor and end immigration spin.
Rudy Giuliani is running for president of the United States of America. =
Off "hero" mayor's inanities; rid utter gas, inducing ineptitude's funeral.
47 - What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Ron Paul is not applying the "non-aggression principle" when he's saying we shouldn't be in over 100 foreign nations, and especially Iraq--He's applying the US Constitution. The US Military was conceived and originally chartered for national defense--not nation building.
48 - Lumpy
Oh come on. Even if Paul is as nutty as the worst people say about him he'd still be better than Hillary. Even a quasi-nazi like Tancredo would be preferable to that evil socialist witch.
49 - MBD
If Ron Paul and his policies had been in place before 9/11, it is likely there would have been no 9/11.
If Ron Paul is not elected the next president it likely we will have another 9/11.
The last thing we need is another demagogue.
50 - mark gilbo
Nice take numnuts... You'd take Hilary over Ron?? Are you nuts. He's the only man willing to defend our RIGHTS in this country which Hillary and our current nut Bush, will not. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are more important than any war with a third world country.
By the way, he's right when he says the CIA puts their hands in everyone else's biz in the world. They need to be slapped and reduced to info gatherers. They have caused more hatred against the US than any other entity in our gov't while all in the name of the people.
Wake up!
51 - Aaron
even if you don't agree w/ ron on everything - surely we can agree that he is brave and honorable to stand up against the neo-conservatives who are pro-war at any cost. If you are concerned about our aggressive foreign policy of "empire building", "policing the world", "pre-emptive strike" and going to war without declaring war (WWII was the last time we declared war as the constitution says we should) think about how many people needlessly die when we don't declare war - yet we go over in North Korea, and Vietnam. If you stand against this dangerous direction you should support Ron Paul - even if you don't vote for him (but please do--and you may need to register as a republican to do so - find out for your state) but even if you don't, we should support the truth on the left and the right - so that we all move closer to rational foreign policy. yeah, i'm a total nerd, i know. good night.
52 - Jack Bauer
Mr. Barger,
I'm not accusing you of anything, but I wanted to point out that it seems like you only addressed the stupidest of comments defending Ron Paul's PRO SECURITY record.
In #30 and #31, you addressed two very lightweight arguments.
What's your reaction to arguments such as the arguments presented by "G" in #8.
I am very familiar with this topic, as I have been discussing Ron Paul with my father and brothers over email for literally YEARS.
I do understand how the 30-second soundbites from the debate could leave you wondering "well would he fight terrorists or what?!"
But if you read any of his speeches about defense and foreign policy, he is not a fool.
Ron Paul's position can be summarized like this:
1. If a nation poses a threat to us, congress should declare war, we should fight and win.
2. No attack on innocent life should go unpunished, and if terrorists attack us, they should be hunted down and killed.
3. However, our foreign policy over the last 50 years has made us less safe by giving radical Muslim terrorist groups ammo for their recruiting videos etc. Our interventionist policies in the Middle East have caused a huge anti-American sentiment that the terrorists have been able to leverage. If we pulled out of the region, the recruiting numbers would go down drastically.
4. If we spent less money on foreign adventurism we could have have a much better defense here at home.
5. Our huge defense bureaucracy failed us on 9/11 and Homeland Security made that bureaucracy even larger and less accountable.
Etc. Ron Paul has said so many times that we should fight terrorists, and has frequently criticized congress and the Bush Admin for not taking terrorism as seriously as they pretend to.
This is just my impression from literally years of reading Dr. Paul's speeches on the subject; as opposed to just his 30-second talking points at the debate.
I think if you keep watching him (and you wisely mentioned that his presence is a good thing, so hopefully he will stay in the debates) you will come to realize that he would be a very tough executive.
Jack Bauer...
53 - Gloria
Your article was OK until the end, when you said Hillary would be better! Did you write that as a joke?
Ron Paul is an intelligent man who understands the issues. How would he not be a good president? He is the most engaging political speaker I've ever seen, and yes, I've seen Bill Clinton. The thing about BC was he was a talented speaker, no matter what he was saying. The great thing about Ron Paul is that he amazes for his ideas and how he really thinks about the issues and why they're being caused. He would never treat someone the way Rudolph the Red-Nosed Giuliani did in that debate, and I appreciate that in a president. We need a president who actually thinks about other people and who is willing to do what is best for America.
Ron Paul introduced a bill in Congress for Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would have allowed us to declare war on Osama, go after him with full force, find him and capture him. It would also have put a bounty on his head so that Afghanistanis would have a reason to turn him in. He supported the invasion of Afghanistan and is strong on defending America AND securing our borders, which we do not do. Osama's minions could fly to Mexico and walk over the border if they wanted. The National Guard is taken away from the Mexican border and sent to Iraq.
In other words, if Ron Paul had been in charge this whole time, we'd be in much better shape. I still hope you're kidding about not supporting him.
54 - Julius
Nice try at bait and switch, but you will find that you cannot keep a good man down. I had been a faihful viewer if Fox news, but no more . Their treatment of Ron Paul ,a true American was disgraceful. Your article was not much better.
55 - Jason
Your comment is good, but I disagree with you on a few points.
First, you cite Ron Paul's ideology as a weakness, but his ideology is liberty, the rule of law, and adherence to the Constitution. Our country was founded on these ideas, and if you are suggesting that an unwavering defense of these ideas is flawed, then, as Rudy Giuliani would say, I would ask that you withdraw that comment and tell us that you didn't really mean that.
Second, you claim that Ron Paul would somehow make our country less safe, but Ron Paul believes in a strong national defense. Your argument against his foregin policy implies that our current foreign policy is capable of preventing the problems you foresee in its absence; however, we currently have nuclear proliferation, terrorism, genocide, and war. We also have examples of our "strategy" becoming our threat such as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
56 - Jeremiah
The New World Order is coming to enslave America. Ron Paul is the only candidate who cares to stop it! Everyone else is bought and paid for.
57 - Iconoclast421
Al, you are spouting so much neocon rhetoric it baffles me that you'd have anything nice at all to say about Ron Paul. You're stuck in that mindset of "we gotta go over there and get them 'fore they get us!" No, we gotta obey the constitution, even if that means "fighting them here". It's our foreign policy, it's our problem. We should own up to it, and keep our guns oiled just in case. It's not the fault of average Iraqis. It is cowardly to use them as human shields so you can sleep better at night.
And you can't make generalizations about "the muslim world". Doing that is about as foolish as accepting Malkin as a credible news source.
And btw most palestinians aren't trying to kill jews, despite how much they've been [cesnsored] on.
And about the "we haven't had another major attack here" bla bla bla. Who in their right mind (or even in their wrong mind) would attack us? If 19 more SAUDIS attacked us, we'd probably bomb half of Kazakhstan next. (If not Iran...) And then we'd give the Saudi royal family more money!
58 - Davy C Rockett
Im a Christian Conservative and will be support Ron Paul in 2008 primaries and the general.
America has to decide what the role of the federal government is going to be. The politicians will not tackle this problem if we don't make them as a people follow Constitutional Rule of Law.
With a 60 trillion debt with future entiltement obligations, we have no choice but to reduce the size of government and we need to do it fast if we are to survive as a nation.
God help us all if we don't get serious about our government and it's blank check spending.
How anyone can spend trillions a year when their trillions in debt and not expect some blowback to come down the pike is not only stupid but insane.
59 - Dave Nalle
This article demonstrates why I'm concerned about a Ron Paul candidacy. The fact that he attracts so many complete loonies (see Jason, Jeremiah, Davy and Richard above) makes me very worried.
What is it about Paul which makes him so appealing to conspiracy nuts, the christian/terrorist fringe and racists? Either they're very confused or there's something creepy and dangerous about Paul.
If it's a one-way thing then it's just troubling. If he's giving them reason to think he's on their side then it's much worse than that.
Dave
60 - Angela G.
If we were attacked right now on our soil, we would not have our Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy to protect us? Bring our troops home, secure all our borders and get the government out of our private lives. I support the ideas of Ron Paul.
61 - Clavos
I'm amazed at the seeming inability of so many of the commenters on this thread (most supporting Mr. Paul) to string a few words together into coherent sentences, much less coherent ideas.
62 - MBD
I'm amazed that there are some so ignorant that they don't understand the reason that Ron Paul is popular is because he believes in the Constitution.
To the neocons that is heresy and it worries them.
63 - Richard Brodie
"I support the ideas of Ron Paul."
Well, Angela, I guess that's puts you in Davy Nalle's "loonie" category. Welcome to the Revolution!
The only downside I can see to Ron Paul saving our Constitution, our country, and our freedoms, is that name-calling neo-cons like Nalle will not be getting the future they would lead us to, but will instead be undeserving collateral beneficiaries.
64 - Dave Nalle
Richard, I didn't say that Ron Paul ONLY attracts loonies, just that it was troubling that he was attracting so many.
As a libertarian, his beliefs should stand in direct opposition to yours and those of many of the other fanatics who are supporting him.
The ideas Angie expresses are perfectly reasonable and Paul does share them, but what is it about his support of the Constitution and its defense of civil rights and equality for all which fits in with your philosophy of hate and exclusion, Richard?
Dave
65 - Al Barger
Jason in comment 54 sez First, you cite Ron Paul's ideology as a weakness, but his ideology is liberty, the rule of law, and adherence to the Constitution. Our country was founded on these ideas, and if you are suggesting that an unwavering defense of these ideas is flawed, then, as Rudy Giuliani would say, I would ask that you withdraw that comment and tell us that you didn't really mean that.
I tend to agree with the ideologies that Ron Paul represents, but I'm saying that ANY ideology followed blindly can lead you into trouble. Your philosophy has to reconcile with facts on the ground or give way. The map is not the territory, and Ron Paul's version of libertarian dogma is not matching up to dealing with pressing realities on the ground, ie people trying to KILL US.
I second Brother Nalle's comment 58. The tone of some of these Paul supporters certainly does not make me more inclined to vote for him. "Everybody else is bought and paid for." Really? Nor am I overly impressed with the constant invocation of the word "neocon" as a boogieman word to attack any critic of Paul's candyland foreign policy ideas.
Some of you more reasonable folk like Jason might want to ask yourselves how comfortable you are being associated with some of the hateful and strident nut cases who've been whipping their wee-wees out in this comment thread. Why DOES Ron Paul draw so many crazed hatas?
66 - Richard Brodie
"people trying to KILL US"
They sure aren't tryin' very damn hard!
There are millions of Saudi Arabian Wahabiist OBL types, many of whom are very well financed. If they had wanted to engage in post 9/11 terrorist attacks on our soil they could easily have done so, with all our borders wide open to them.
If you think those who perpetrated 9/11 were the last suicidal Muslims on earth who could be recruited, then you're a fool. And you are even a bigger fool if you think that they haven't attacked for over 5 years now because Bush has got them "pinned down" in the Middle East.
Think about how much the twin towers cost, about 50 billion - and then realize that we have been bled to to tune of half a trillion in Iraq - and that's justs so far!
They know how to destroy us, and along with it our liberties (Patriot Act, Real ID, Military Commisions Act, Internet Neutrality, Hate Crimes/Speech, etc., etc.) They don't have to "follow us home" (thank you Mssrs. McCain and Giuliani) we are doing a perfectly fine job of destroying ourselves for them.
67 - MJ
Wow, I am saddened to see those who don't support Ron Paul on this blog have resorted to name calling him and his supporters. So because many of those that support Ron Paul don't share your own beliefs you feel it necessary to call them loonies or christian/terrorist fringe or racists. It seems more clearly that you are the ones suffering from bigotry and probably insanity. This country was founded on individual liberties, Ron Paul is the clear choice for those of us who cherish and respect OUR Constitution.
Those who have taken shots at Ron Paul's foreign policy and ability to protect this country are proving themselves to be ignorant. Ron Paul was one of the first congressman to support a military campaign against Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He understood they are a true enemy as they did proudly take credit for 9-11 and other terrorist attacks against our interests. It appears that Ron Paul was doing his job properly when he voted against the Iraq War. He read the intelligence information available and actually took the position which was best for his country. Paul believes in having a strong military presence at home and really protecting our borders, so the argument of him being weak on protection is a mischaracterization at the minimum.
I don't think I am a "loonie" and I don't type on these blogs more than a handful of posts per week. I only vote for Ron Paul once per poll. Ron Paul will be receiving a donation from me and of course my vote.
68 - Jason
Dave Nalle in comment 59 asserts that I am a loon.
Dave, I made two reasonable points in my comment, and you respond with unwarranted personal attacks. Have you resorted to name-calling because you have no substantive arguments against Ron Paul? If so, you are clearly biased.
You also ask if loonies support Ron Paul because they are confused or because of Ron Paul's encouragement.
First, loonies by definition are confused. I am not saying that Ron Paul supporters are loonies. I am simply pointing out your poor logic.
Second, I believe the label you use refers to either the supporters with conspiracy theories or the passion of Ron Paul's supporters. You do not define your term; therefore, I am creating this assumption in order to promote a discussion with you regarding your concerns without resorting to simple name-calling.
Regarding the supporters with conspiracy theories, Ron Paul attracts these people because he defends civil liberties and the right to privacy. Ron Paul also has a healthy distrust of big government. Some of these supporters are paranoid, but their existence does not create an indictment of the principles of encouraging smaller government and promoting civil liberties and privacy.
As far as the passionate supporters, like myself, we are not loons. We support Ron Paul because he represents a change from the norm in Washington, D.C. Ron Paul answers honestly even when it is difficult. He does not pander. He does not deviate from his ideology, as Al Barger stated in his comment, and although Mr. Barger views Ron Paul's commitment to ideology as a weakness, I, and other passionate supporters of Ron Paul, view his commitment to the Constitution as refreshing in a culture of double-speak, pandering to special interest groups and playing to the ignorance of the general public.
69 - Joel
Wow, it is sure a wierd feeling to be getting called a racist from those in my own party. How that frusterated me when I heard Rush, Bush, and and others that I thought was conservative called racist by the left. I would scream in frustration, "I am not a racist just because I don't believe in the welfare state."
I have news for you, there are racists in every party I have cringed in horror listening to some conservatives expouse pure racism and been shocked to find out why that Liberal Democrat supported abortion was to cut down the growth of the black population.
"The map is not the territory, and Ron Paul's version of libertarian dogma is not matching up to dealing with pressing realities on the ground, ie people trying to KILL US."
They ARE killing us, the best and brightest of us, four and five a day and getting more. Again how is that helping our security? Every great general knew when he had lost a battle and had the sense to withdraw and reorganize and quit killing his army on a bad tactical error. A military leader quickly loses the support of his men if they feel they are dying in a stupid ill conceived tactical battle and even more so if that leader gives orders from the safety of the rear. Also when that leader didn't spend his time in the trenches in his youth.
70 - Loren
It's about color for me. We really don't care who Ron Paul is. Nobody cares who Hillary or McCain is, if we did, we would immediately press charges against them both for high treason. But in this country the voter does not care "who" the candidates are.
But one thing is for sure, like him or not Ron Paul is the first candidate I have seen--ever--who speaks absolutely strait. That in itself is enough for me to take a closer look at this candidate. So far what I have seen and heard from him is quite positive.
One of the things I've observed in his speeches is that he's the first candidate who represents all three basic color groups-red, white AND blue.
71 - Richard
I loved this article - especially the half that contradicted the other half.
The highlight/lowlight (it's ALL about the contradiction) in my mind was using a third-rate Kevin Smith movie to "prove" some ideological/anti-ideological point.
I have to concede his point though - we don't need a politician who believes what he says and acts accordingly. Let's see if we can find a candidate who would:
- claim to desire a "humble" foreign policy and then invade countries who had not attacked us
- claim to allow states to decide medical marijuana issues and then conduct DEA raids rounding up grannies in wheelchairs
- claim to be a uniter not a divider and lead to an electorate more polarized than any in a generation
- claim to oppose growth of federal government while overseeing record spending and deficits
Damn, we could REALLY use a candidate like that! Why, he might be the best/worst president in history!
This article was terrifically horrible!
Thanks, "chum"!
72 - Ron Paul Supporter
I am surprised you posted my comments about bait and switch, so I will give you credit for that and for responding to people, that is a first also!
But my friend, take a good hard look at your article, I actually think your afraid of the beautiful possibilities of an America that goes out into the world with GOOD INTENTIONS, I promise you, it is possible and I hope you come around, you seem like you want to believe, but you just can't do it yet.............you will.
thanks for your courage in at least responding and letting us "Ron Paul Spammers" have our say")
73 - Al Barger
Ron Paul Supporter- I'm more than happy to have your comments and criticism, and encourage more of them. Blogcritics is a pretty open forum. Generally, only the most purely egregiously libelous or personally abusive comments are ever edited - and not usually even then.
Then again, those open comments here from some of the Paul supporters are distinctly making me less inclined to support Paul. The cheap sarcasm and mindless blathering about the New World Order and such are less than impressive.
Again, I WANT to support Ron Paul. I've repeatedly been a Libertarian Party candidate, most recently for US Senate in 2004. If it wasn't for that part about not being even vaguely credible in the area of national defense, I'd be out pimping for Paul much as I was in 1988. Even with his shortcomings though, he's got a lot of highly valuable points to contribute to the debate.
74 - Nate Borcherding
"
Some of you more reasonable folk like Jason might want to ask yourselves how comfortable you are being associated with some of the hateful and strident nut cases who've been whipping their wee-wees out in this comment thread. Why DOES Ron Paul draw so many crazed hatas?"
Well, that's called guilt by association, and it is a logical fallacy. Further, I'd be perfectly happy to put the comments your article has drawn against any random forum of Clinton/Obama/Giuliani supporters (but do they really exist?) That someone like Dave, who seems to spew ad hominems and accusations of racism at anyone he disagrees with, is against Paul only makes me that much more favorable towards him. If anything, the fact that he's the only one going to bat for you says something about your article.
"But of course, that's turning a blind eye to the malicious and irrational nature of the enemies that we face. It's careful editing of facts to get the result you want. Yes, sometimes our enemies claim they are attacking us because we're in Iraq. But then they say a lot of things, don't they? Watch closely, and you can see our enemies parroting back our own left wingers, bitching about lax US campaign finance laws and absolutely quoting Noam Chomsky."
You really do seem to be making the argument that they hate us because they're totally crazy and loathe our freedoms. Well, supposing for a second that this is why 9/11 happened, it is unfortunately the case that our government has still given them more than enough provocation to attack us, even apart from any irrational, religious hatred they may have for us.
What matters isn't that Osama hates us because we were in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and support Isreal. If it's only a group of zealots that want to kill us, they can be dealt with using special forces or mercenaries. What matters is that 1 billion Muslims hate us for exactly those reasons. Osama knows this and that's why he gave them as his reasons for attacking. So long as we continue to be in their lands, interfering in their business, Al Qaeda will never be short of supporters. As such, even if they do actually hate our freedom, by reigning in our government we have at least eliminated several direct, galling reasons for them to resent us. Of course, it also bears asking why they aren't attacking the freest place on earth, Switzerland, if they loathe freedom so much? Why haven't any South American countries been targeted? As far as religion goes, they should be much greater infidels, to a Muslim, than we are.
As for the argument that what Bush is doing or what Clinton would do is somehow making us safer at home, I simply can't buy that. In the almost 6 years since 9/11, hundreds of thousand of immigrants have crossed the border, many unknown and illegally. Bush's open the borders, let loose the military strategy is the worst of both worlds. We destroy their homes, wreck their country, kill their relatives, and then invite them to live over here. This is making us safer how?
75 - Al Barger
Richard [re: comment 71]- Those "contradictions" you mock would better be described as mixed feelings. The world is very complicated, and individual people and belief systems have different aspects, some of which are better and worse, some of which are subjective value judgments and some of which are more objective. Idiots are certain that they have The Answer which fully and truly explains everything in the world. Educated and thoughtful people tend to have mixed feelings about a lot of things.
As to your reasoned debate tactics, smug sarcasm about Bush doesn't qualify. My general advocacy of muscular national defense is not equivalent to blindly supporting the current president, for whom I have never voted.
If you were paying attention, you'd notice that I spent most of my article on defending Ron Paul, and praising his contribution to public debate. I WANT to support him.
A more thoughtful Paul supporter would be looking for ways to show the likes of me that Paul really is serious about defending the country, rather than simply being hateful with an obviously sympathetic critic such as me.