Much has already been made of the interest shown in the Ron Paul campaign by groups on the reactionary right, from 9/11 'truthers' to white supremacists. Less widely reported but of growing concern to those watching the Paul campaign and wondering if it is going wildly astray is the involvement of far-left groups who are flocking to Paul's banner for reasons which may be genuine or may mask an effort to undermine the entire Republican primary. I like Ron Paul and what he stands for on a great many issues and especially his devotion to the Constitution, but I can't help but worry about the unsavory character his campaign is beginning to develop.
Stories are circulating on GOP email lists of interested Republicans attending Ron Paul meetups around the country and being confronted by openly hostile leftist/progressive/socialists who seem to be supporting Paul, but have no love for regular Republicans who also support the candidate. There are accounts that confrontations have become heated at some of these meetups, particularly the one held in Las Vegas earlier this month. Suspicion particularly focuses on attendees who are believed to be MoveOn.org operatives and why they are so interested in Ron Paul. Is their interest genuine, or is it only part of a campaign to disrupt the Republican primary?
The involvement of MoveOn.org in the Paul campaign can be confirmed on their page at Meetup.com where they are shown as co-sponsoring a number of the regional Ron Paul meetups and they have also released a video ad in support of Paul. Paul's campaign has also received positive public response from a variety of prominent leftists, including Cindy Sheehan. One socialist in the Netherlands of all places, makes a compelling argument for why US socialists should support Ron Paul.
Most Republicans see the objectives of MoveOn.org as inherently antithetical to the basic beliefs of the Republican Party. MoveOn.org is an openly anti-Republican, anti-Conservative and anti-Libertarian organization which is openly funded by a wealthy international socialist whose goal is to undermine and control the Democratic Party, and it is largely run by people with past associations with the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America. With its position at the far left of the American Political spectrum and as the main instrument through which George Soros seeks to undermine and control the American political system, it is understandable how Republicans might be concerned about MoveOn.org's interest in and support of Ron Paul.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Almost Speechless
I must say this is a twist. I am not sure who this will and should change anything. Ron Paul has always voted consistently with the Constitution. When he says he doesnt care who supports him, he doesnt. I only see it as a problem if they think they will get something special - If they think they will get special treatment then they are mistaken.
There is no reason to assume after a combined 30 years of principled voting in congress he would change now. His position in the LB party was for one year when he ran in 88, but he has ran and won both before and after the 88 election as a republican. In Texas they dont even field candidates to oppose Paul he wins so often. They call him an enigma for a reason.
If this is true this is some socialist plan, I think it would be great if it backfires on them and he wins. This would make a little sense, they cant seem to stop him in Texas, to get his name out now so the GOP wont elect him would be a good strategy so he wont run against Hillary. Ron Paul will beat Hillary, this is a no brainer with this broad base of support.
I can live with a basic conservative president. I am not sure what he could do, but I know what he wont do, and thats go to war with Iran. I hope he can also bring back Gold and Silver as a competing currency to the dollar and work on phasing out the fed entirely. These are not unreasonable goals. I find it very frustrating when we as American we can think we can do anything, like run the world but we get get rid of the Federal Reserve. I find that very unamerican for not even trying.
2 - Scott
Meanwhile, the Zionists and CFR supporting both the neocons and the Democrats is ok, right?
3 - Jack
The article says:
"Although he has promised that if he fails to get the nomination he will not jump parties and run as a Libertarian, he doesn't seem to care that the newly registered pseudo-Republicans he's creating will leave the party the moment the primary is over, even if one of the more moderate somewhat libertarian candidates wins."
I don't understand this remark. What "more moderate somewhat libertarian candidate" might win the Republican nomination? As far as I can tell, the conventionally denominated front-runners (or potential front-runners) are all big government types, running the gamut from the out-and-out fascist Giuliani to the "compassionate conservative [sic]" Huckabee who thinks that government is the answer to all social ills. Romney has renounced all positions he once held that might generously be classified as "libertarian." McCain who is far too much of a warmonger to be classified as a libertarian of even the modest sort; as Camille Paglia astutely observed, he's a "seething nest of proto-fascist impulses." And Fred Thompson never met a government program or a spending bill he didn't like. Or at least one he wouldn't vote for.
So please enlighten me. Apart from Ron Paul, who on the Republican side has established a track record as even a moderate libertarian? I think Dennis Kucinich, reprehensible socialist though he may be, it at least as "libertarian" as the non-Paul Republicans.
4 - John Simmons
You think Lew Rockwell is a socialist site? Aahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
My God, this is an epic troll.
5 - Joseph Zrnchik
You guys are idiots to call Justin Raimondo "anti-property".
Anti-war.com has and LewRockwell.com are two of the biggest "pro-private property" groups on the internet.
Did you ever consider that the message of individual liberty, peace, and limited government cuts accross all party lines in the U.S.?
I have news for you, in the Republocratic Party of Big Government there is not a dime of difference within the empire.
From someone who has been in the military for 25 years: VOTE RON PAUL
6 - Dave Nalle
I don't understand this remark. What "more moderate somewhat libertarian candidate" might win the Republican nomination? As far as I can tell, the conventionally denominated front-runners (or potential front-runners) are all big government types
Then you aren't familiar enough with their records, or are making the same mistake as a lot of the leftists supporting Paul and basing everything you think about a candidate on a single issue - like the Iraq War.
running the gamut from the out-and-out fascist Giuliani
Who the Republican Liberty Caucus rates 60 on economic issues and 60 on social issues, placing him in the moderate libertarian section of their rating system.
to the "compassionate conservative [sic]" Huckabee who thinks that government is the answer to all social ills.
But who stated unequivocally last night that his prime target as president would be the abolishment of the IRS and who is an advocate for the Fair Tax.
McCain who is far too much of a warmonger to be classified as a libertarian of even the modest sort;
Like I said, there's a hell of a lot more to libertarianism than just being anti war and no candidate is going to be perfect on every issue.
And Fred Thompson never met a government program or a spending bill he didn't like. Or at least one he wouldn't vote for.
Thompson has an overall rating of 81 on libertarian issues from the RLC, one of the best ratings of a legislator right behind folks like Ron Paul and Jeff Flake. When the LP was still doing their Freedom Index Thompson ranked at 80% with them, making him a moderate libertarian. He's also expressed support for the Fair Tax, though not as strongly as Huckabee. You call him a big spender, yet in his last year in office he was rated 90% by CAGW, 6 points HIGHER than Ron Paul and rated 7th overall among all congressmen and senators as a fiscal conservative.
I'm saying more here about Thompson solely because he has a legislative record which is verifiable, not because I necessarily support him.
The point is that this is the MOST libertarian selection of candidates the GOP has ever offered, even if you don't include Paul.
So long as you accept the basic political reality that not every candidate is going to hold the position you want on every issue, you ought to be able to find something to like in Giuliani, Huckabee or Thompson - unless, of course, you're a fanatical one-issue voter.
Dave
7 - Dave Nalle
You think Lew Rockwell is a socialist site?
Who said that? I think that Justin Raimondo is a social anarchist masquerading as a libertarian. I think Lew Rockwell's site is for extremists of many varieties.
Dave
8 - Dave Nalle
Meanwhile, the Zionists and CFR supporting both the neocons and the Democrats is ok, right?
Ok with me, but thankfully I don't bear the burden of being both a racist AND a conspiracy nut at the same time.
Dave
9 - Lester
Of course he isn't going to speak out against a certain "group" supporting him. Each group is comprised of individuals and these individuals are entitled to believe whatever they wish and have the right to express their beliefs--rights which he has vigorously defended for ten terms in Congress.
Maybe these people support him because their #1 priority is ending the war in Iraq. The reason they may want to end it could be completely different than Dr. Paul's, but they know for a fact that if he is elected he will do it because he has kept his word for 50 years to his wife and for 20 years as a representative--regardless of whether or not it was popular. Possibly they understand that if we save enough money under President Paul that when a democrat is eventually elected again, we could spend even more money on terrible programs they support. Maybe they understand that unless we change our foreign policy and spending, we are going to find ourselves in a horrible economic depression--the kind of depression Germany found itself in when Hitler rose to power--the same kind that leads to totalitarian regimes--the same kind that actually set the stage for WWII and all of these results are far worse than anything they'd have to sacrifice in terms of lost federal grants and loans.
10 - Anon
Hey Dave, CFR is not bipartisan ? (and please don't tell me that wikipedia is unreliable, it's not the point here):
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an influential, independent, and nonpartisan foreign policy membership organization founded in 1921 and based at 58 East 68th Street (corner Park Avenue) in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, D.C. Through its membership, meetings, and studies, it has been called the most powerful agent of United States foreign policy outside the State Department. It publishes the respected bi-monthly journal Foreign Affairs. It has an extensive website, featuring links to its think tank, The David Rockefeller Studies Program, other programs and projects, publications, history, biographies of notable directors and other board members, corporate members, and press releases.
11 - Gene
This reports is bogus. There has been no "heated exchanges" with folks from different political backgrounds at Meetup groups. The meetings are only centered on how to best promote Ron Paul to the public, anything to contrary is a political hack.
12 - Notta
You just do not get it do you? We, the unwashed masses do not care about your little parties. They are absolutely useless to us. They do nothing but hold us while the other robs us. We are sick and tired of the same old same old; and Ron Paul is the symbol of that tiredness.
13 - Sam
Sorry for the rude remarks, like you've probably noticed soem of us are total A**holes. Anyway...you make a good point with one minor problem......The problem is, Ron Paul is a principled Conservative anti-socialist. So for liberal groups to support him is stupid on their part, not on Pauls. How is supporting technically the most conservative candidate undermining the republican party? if he should win the socialists would be worse off than they are now. Paul's smart, he doesn't agree with them but he sure as heck isn't going to demand they not vote for him.....if they want to be stupid and vote agaisnt tehmselves and give money to him....well the rest of America thanks them.
14 - troll
Gene's observation raises a critical point -
now that BC sees itself as 'an online magazine' it behooves its staff to develop publish and adhere to a consistent code of journalistic standards and ethics
I recommend that the politics editor pay particular attention to sections covering the sourcing of information and the differentiation of news from opinion
15 - Dave Nalle
now that BC sees itself as 'an online magazine' it behooves its staff to develop publish and adhere to a consistent code of journalistic standards and ethics
We do our best, troll.
I recommend that the politics editor pay particular attention to sections covering the sourcing of information and the differentiation of news from opinion
As you may have noted in the discussion of SJ Reidhead's article I tracked down and verified all of the sources AND we still labelled it opinion.
In the case of this article, it's also labelled opinion, and every fact is linked to, except for the one which Gene takes exception to which originates from discussion on private mailing lists, and thus I refer to them as 'stories' and 'accounts', indicating that they are not first-hand reports.
Was that what you had in mind?
Dave
16 - Les Slater
There is another issue where many on the 'left' and Paul find common ground. That is on the 'neocons'. Paul seems careful not to get too explicit but many of the anti-neocon crowd are anti-Semitic. A thread running though much of their thinking is that Israel is behind U.S. policy in middle east.
This is, of course, nonsense, but does play into the Jew-hatred that is deeply ingrained in society.
These leftist's support of Paul represents a real shift to the reactionary right by them.
17 - RhodeIslandforRonPaul
There is a very good reason his support comes from all over the place. PEOPLE are all over the place. Why label everyone then wonder why certain labels support him? Did you ever wonder that it may be this simple... people from all groups -- Republican, Democrat, Left, Right, Middle, and so on and so on, like what he stands for. The Constitution. Non-intervention (not isolationism) foreign policy. Smaller government. Less tases. It's so simple to understand yet so many people like you don't see it. The man is simply a rare commodity in the world of politics - a straight-shooter who's not afraid to tell it like he sees it, no matter who he offends OR attracts.
18 - Dave Nalle
But the evidence suggests that Paul's support doesn't come from regular people with normal concerns from everywhere, just that it comes from crazy people with bizarre concerns of all varieties.
Dave
19 - Les Slater
Yet another reactionary position in common with Paul and much of the left is that they are both nationalistic and back U.S. sovereignty.
U.S. nationalism of today is no more progressive than the German nationalism of the '30s.
For example, NAFTA is not criticized as an imperialist boot on these countries but rather a loss of U.S. jobs.
20 - Dick The Former Dem
BCP has already show it's stripes as a hit piece rag. They can't argue with Dr. P's truly American message so they try whatever angle they can to disinform the most reactionary of the public. Unfortunately for them, most of those people aren't even on the net. So it looks like they're disinfo game is doomed, bros!
So keep on supporting the most morally bankrupt of our candidates rather than the most admirable...because that's what you do!
Ron Paul in 2008!