Is Ron Paul turning into a real politician who will take support from any quarter no matter how unsavory?
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.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Bill
My take is that no other Republican candidate is fit for the white house other than Ron Paul. If liberals invade the primary and twist the outcome, so be it. Neocons have hijacked our once proud party and true republicans will take it back any way we can. Once RP is the president, we can deal with socialists and communists on a state level. First, the country will be free. Next, the states will be free. Last, we will be free. Go Ron Paul!!!
27 - Al Barger
If I were a big supporter of Paul, I might be worried that some of these commie types could make him look bad, but I'd be more concerned that way about just the wacko conspiracy nuts and such.
However, I'm not concerned that the leftists supporting Paul are going to hurt the movement. Paul is in fact a real politician - in a benign sense. He's been getting elected and re-elected year after year with famously NO support from the Republican establishment.
So, he has and pays attention to his political skills or he wouldn't be where he is now. But he's obviously not and could never be a political hack who will be giving special interest earmarks or legislative favors. You might accuse him of being something of a crank, but Ron Paul is pretty much THE most corruption-proof major politician in the country.
So then, if George Soros wants to funnel a few million dollars Paul's direction, good on him. Paul's going to be using that pinko money to promote his own free market agenda. Other than on the anti-war front, he'd be giving his money to fund propaganda directly the opposite of his own belief system.
And for that matter, Paul's anti-militaristic philosophies will ultimately tend to undermine even a lot of their goals. Most left wingers aren't against the use of military force per se, they just oppose using it for pro-American ends. But Paul, and anybody influenced by his rhetoric, are going to be just as opposed to the next military project that comes along favored by the left as well.
28 - Pumaz
The authors conclusion: "Paul seems to have decided that whatever advances his campaign is a good idea, no matter where that support comes from or what strings may be attached to it. Distressing though it may be to admit, it looks like ambition is turning Ron Paul into a real politician." is unfair.
Ron Paul is drawing interest from a wide varity of supporters that have no affiliation with the campaign. He nor anyone in his campaign can have control of the grassroots movement is growing stronger every day. If you believe in his message, don't be distracted by the media's focus on the small number of extremists that support him due to the common goal of less government involvment in our lives.
Join te rEVOLution
29 - Jack W
Looks like the MSM marching orders involve promoting Huckabee endlessly. Ron Paul had 2-3 questions and limited time. He still crushed them all (how come every article forgets to include his comeback to McCain which mentioned that Ron Paul gets more Military Contributions than any other candidate?). Mitt is dead after desecrating the Confederate flag. Many Southerns died under that flag. Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
30 - marcus
i've been in a meetup in san diego and we are networked in the so cal region. i have never encountered any arguements of any sort between members in regards to politics and religion. it is self serving to get the point of ron paul across.
his message of freedom,liberty, fiscal responsibility, common sense foriegn policy transcends party lines. the meetup peope are issue driven. we are heading to a perfect storm for the US, i.e, falling dollar, real estate/mortgage crisis, national soviergnty, civil rights, international perception. its all crashing down. these people are concerned citizens for the US...nothing more. very generous and giving for the cause.
what i have to commend to dave nalle is the hackjob of an article. it is obvious bias and fox insprired print. well, judas....i hope you can look at yourself in the mirror and be proud for taking 30 pieces of silver for true democracy.
31 - Kevin
Your mistake is in buying into the false dichotomy of left and right that is represented by the democrats and republicans. It is a false division
Both parties represent cobbled together alliances that are often at odds with each other. Poor white evengelicals allied with wall street bankers. Blue collar manufacturing Union members allied with pro gay, pro immigration, pro welfare social workers. I know a lot of people who voted for George Bush but were really voting against John Kerry. I know people who voted for Kerry primarily as a vote against Bush. That is a sad commentary on our options. Ron Paul represents a new option
Ron Paul represents a different kind of alliance
32 - SamE
This article should make Ron Paul supporters laugh out loud. It declares, in not so subtle tones, just how worried the Republican establishment is about the movement. The GOP is engaged in a fight to maintain the status quo, but people from all walks of life aren’t buying it anymore. It truly demonstrates how disconnected the party is from real Americans and the real issues of our time. People that care deeply about the direction of our country do not care about party; they are looking for a leader with vision who’s unafraid to speak the truth and someone who has the character and the commitment to follow through. It is the Republican Party that is the fringe, not the ideals and wisdom of the Constitution and our founding fathers espoused by Ron Paul.
Many people freely admit that they don’t necessarily agree with all of Ron Paul’s positions, but they respect the fact that he lays them out for everyone to see and does not change them suit the situation. His stance on and willingness to change the direction of U.S. foreign policy is, to say the least, refreshing. No one in either party, save Dennis Kucinich, is willing to address our government’s desire to force our ideas on other nations. No one from either party wants to admit that we are bankrupt primarily because of our foreign policy and empire building. No one wants to talk about how our monetary policy accepts, even encourages, inflation as the norm while it robs people of their savings. How could he not draw supporters from both parties?
It is that hard to see that the vast majority of Americans are absolutely disgusted with our government and political system? As ashamed as I am, I admit to voting twice for Bush. I was so sickened by him that I voted for the Democrats in 2006, but that has proved disappointing as well. I was beginning to panic at the thought of having to hold my nose and pick one in this cycle; I, like many Americans clearly realize what is at stake this time around. Then I started seeing posts about Ron Paul. At first they were like obnoxious children and I ignored them. One day my curiosity got the best of me; I had to see what was making these people so crazy. I went to ronpaul2008.com and was simply amazed. For the first time in my life I actually liked and understood someone in political office. For the first time in my life I was genuinely excited about a political candidate. And for the first time in my life I felt like donating to a political cause.
No this is not an undermine the Republican primary conspiracy theory; it’s a move by a very large, frustrated and forgotten group of Americans to take back the control of our own destiny.
33 - Dave Nalle
reporting that there have been confrontations at the meetups is not a matter of opinion and (ethically speaking) requires full sourcing
If I had reported it as a specific event with details, then I would agree, but I am not reporting on the confrontations, but on the belief that such confrontations have taken place which is circulating on some mailing lists. Not the same thing. I'm not reporting it as a fact, but clearly identified as hearsay.
and: on BC "the separation of news columns from the editorial and opposite-editorial pages is solemn and complete...nothing in this separation of function and powers is intended to eliminate from the news columns honest, in-depth reporting, or analysis, or commentary, when such departures from strictly factual reporting are plainly labeled." (quoted from Bradlee's statement of standards and ethics for the Washington Post)
Last I checked this wasn't the WaPo.
We do have standards, and I'm working on a written formulation of some of them along with guidelines for news writing, but this remains the blogosphere, and we do accept a small amount of editorial interpretation in our news reporting.
your last on Chavez was full of opinion and labeled news
I disagree. It was full of specific info with a bit of interpretation.
...this one contains news (albeit unattributed) and is labeled opinion
But it's not news. We've only got two categories to choose from. IMO news is reporting on specific and timely events in a primarily factual way. Something like this article which investigates a particular topic not tied to a specific news event falls outside the limits of straight news.
But I will keep your thoughts on this in mind as I work on newswriting guidelines for BC. It's certainly something we want to try to keep a handle on.
You're welcome to write your own article and show us how it's done, any time.
Dave
34 - Dave Nalle
If liberals invade the primary and twist the outcome, so be it.
Not liberals, leftist/progressives. I've got no problem with actual liberals.
Neocons have hijacked our once proud party and true republicans will take it back any way we can.
The neocons are essentially dead as a movement and control nothing.
Once RP is the president, we can deal with socialists and communists on a state level.
Will that involve rounding them up and putting them in death camps?
First, the country will be free. Next, the states will be free. Last, we will be free. Go Ron Paul!!!
Nice slogan. Will the beer be free?
Dave
35 - Justin
"Although he has promised that if he fails to get the nomination he will not jump parties and run as a Libertarian"
He has? I haven't seen anything to support that RP is 100% not going to run on another ticket. Does someone have a link showing he said this?
But keep posting these articles! It's a great opportunity for supporters to define and clarify the good Dr's positions, respectfully of course.
36 - Dave Nalle
Paul has said he will not run as anything but a Republican a number of times before and he also said it at last night's debate, as you can see from this video.
Dave
37 - Bkusz
Boy thats a new spin however I must congratulate the writer though for trying to come up with a reason not to vote for Ron Paul without insulting name calling and other typical anti-Paul baseless statements.
I do not think the writers story says much credible Imo, however, again, I do appreciate the fact it was not another ugly article.
Mahatma Gandhi said "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight ..."
Myself and other Ron Paul supporters are now looking forward to the fight!
Regards to all
Bkusz
38 - troll
Dave - *your last on Chavez was full of opinion and labeled news
I disagree. It was full of specific info with a bit of interpretation.
...this one contains news (albeit unattributed) and is labeled opinion
But it's not news. *
I'm suggesting as gently as possible that you need an editor looking over your work to help you clarify the difference -
*Last I checked this wasn't the WaPo.*
I only provided Bradlee's take as an example to work from and look forward to your write up that balances journalistic ethics and the freedom of the internet
(as for me writing - you may have noticed that I write poorly...I wouldn't want to burden your editorial staff - and I'm able to get my few points across in the comments section )
39 - Dave Nalle
I'm suggesting as gently as possible that you need an editor looking over your work to help you clarify the difference -
Troll, one BC policy which is absolutely firm is that NO editor's work is published without another editor going over it first. This article was reviewed by one of our editors who I hope was as thorough with this article as I am with those I edit, like the Reidhead pieces.
(as for me writing - you may have noticed that I write poorly...I wouldn't want to burden your editorial staff - and I'm able to get my few points across in the comments section )
I bet you could write something coherent once in a while. And I bet I'll have edited worse - I've edited gonzo, after all.
Dave
40 - handyguy
Dave, it needs to be said by someone that your categorizations are your own, and not nearly everyone agrees with them, to wit:
- Soros: a "socialist"
- leftist/progressive: the evil-twin "opposite" of a liberal
- MoveOn.org: consists "almost entirely" of socialists
You toss this stuff around like it's proven, or a given. It ain't. You twist these words and their meanings to suit yourself, just as you deliberately distort the histories of the Republican and Democratic parties to suit your own quite odd, very idiosyncratic worldview.
MoveOn began with a group of people who wanted Congress to "move on" from the paralyzing and pointless Clinton impeachment. I believe you even agreed with them then. They have morphed into a group that tries to defeat conservative Republicans in congressional and presidential elections. They call themselves liberals, and that's an accurate way to describe them.
George Soros's self description says he is working for "the creation of open, democratic societies based upon the rule of law, market economies, transparent and accountable governance, freedom of the press, and respect for human rights." Born in communist Hungary, he is vehemently anti-totalitarian. Maybe that is socialism to you [if so, I'm a socialist too], or maybe you just think he's lying. Or maybe you're not as interested in truth as you are in applying convenient pejorative labels to people you oppose politically.
In any case, as editor here, when your own opinions are that far out of the mainstream or the generally accepted facts, you ought to acknowledge that and comment on it. In some way other than: "This is the simple truth. I'm right. Get over it." Which is your frequent response to critics.
41 - TxSundance
I wonder if the republican hawks will support Ron Paul when he wins the nomination or will they fall in lock-step with Hillary (who is currently receiving the largest share of donations from the arms industry). Somehow the neocons feel the primary process is being subverted because their candidates aren't really showing that well. National polls indicate voters name recognition of the candidates. I think that Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry all registered about the same place as Ron Paul in national polling at the start of the primaries before going on to win their party's nomination and 3 of those 4 became president. So why question the followers of the candidate with clearly the most momentum about where they will go when he loses? Why not ask the neocons will you support Ron Paul or will you go start a third party? Maybe the American's for Empire Party, the Globalist Elite Party, or the Former Republicans for Voldemort Party. I'm coming back to the Republican Party because of the integrity of Dr. Paul. I will only support a candidate I trust to do what they say. That eliminates most of the field from both parties and those not eliminated are less likely than Ron Paul to win their parties nomination. If the choice is Hillary or Rudy I’ll be voting Libertarian, because voting for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil.
42 - troll
one BC policy which is absolutely firm is that NO editor's work is published without another editor going over it first. This article was reviewed by one of our editors who I hope was as thorough with this article as I am with those I edit
...well then never mind - I guess my issue is with whoever is editing your stuff and allowing you to blur the distinction between news and opinion
43 - Martin Lav
"unless, of course, you're a fanatical one-issue voter."
Dave Nalle
Dave,
What you fail to continually realize is that while you accuse democrats of being socialists and faithful only to the party, most people are not faithful to their party, but faithful to an issue that's of concern to them. ie....the Iraq War and any other pending wars. People like you see everything as black and white and "principled" while the majority of people like the centrist position and have the ability to compromise their ideas depending on good sound philosophy.
You see wolves in wool and socialist hiding under every rock.
Come out of the compound and don't be so scared to face the real world.
You're paranoid man....
44 - Dave Nalle
Boy thats a new spin however I must congratulate the writer though for trying to come up with a reason not to vote for Ron Paul without insulting name calling and other typical anti-Paul baseless statements.
Let me make absolutely clear that I have NEVER said that any of this was a reason not to vote for Ron Paul. I encourage everyone to vote for him in the primary. It's a reason to be concerned about where the Paul campaign is going and whether it will be good for the GOP, but purely on his merits, Paul remains a worthy candidate.
Dave
45 - Dave Nalle
You toss this stuff around like it's proven, or a given. It ain't.
Sorry, Handy. I realize it strikes too close to home for you, but for those not of the far left these things are indeed given facts.
You twist these words and their meanings to suit yourself, just as you deliberately distort the histories of the Republican and Democratic parties to suit your own quite odd, very idiosyncratic worldview.
Again, that's your opinion, and as has been demonstrated before it's often incorrect purely on the facts. What you call 'distortion' I would call an attempt to be accurate.
MoveOn began with a group of people who wanted Congress to "move on" from the paralyzing and pointless Clinton impeachment. I believe you even agreed with them then.
And I still do. I wish that original spirit carried on to applying the 'move on' philosophy to the equally irrational vendetta against Bush, but apparently it doesn't.
They have morphed into a group that tries to defeat conservative Republicans in congressional and presidential elections. They call themselves liberals, and that's an accurate way to describe them.
Except that it is not an accurate way to describe their beliefs in any normal usage of the word. Liberals would not try to silence the political opposition or promote laws for 'media fairness', or insist on tests of ideological purity for candidates, or actively campaign agaisnt candidates in their own party who don't conform to certain minority positions.
Maybe that is socialism to you [if so, I'm a socialist too], or maybe you just think he's lying. Or maybe you're not as interested in truth as you are in applying convenient pejorative labels to people you oppose politically.
Have you read Soros' The Crisis of Global Capitalism? It is at the very least a socialist treatise on moving Capitalism away from a free market to a government controlled market, and at worst it could be considered open advocacy for some form of fascism or government controlled capitalism.
That Soros is a socialist is NOT something I made up or that is a strange or obscure opinion. It's widely accepted, not a problem for his supporters, and pretty well documented. Being a socialist doesn't make him evil even in my eyes. All modern governments have socialist elements in them, and that's tolerable up to a point.
You can read a good article on Soros' background and peculiar motivations here.
In any case, as editor here, when your own opinions are that far out of the mainstream or the generally accepted facts, you ought to acknowledge that and comment on it. In some way other than: "This is the simple truth. I'm right. Get over it." Which is your frequent response to critics.
But I have you here to comment on it for me. And I still maintain that these opinions are hardly out of the mainstream, even if they are out of YOUR mainstream.
Dave
46 - Dave Nalle
What you fail to continually realize is that while you accuse democrats of being socialists
I don't accuse democrats in general of being socialists, just some of them - a growing number, of course.
and faithful only to the party, most people are not faithful to their party,
Statistics show about 30% of people are party loyal first. That's a strong minority.
but faithful to an issue that's of concern to them. ie....the Iraq War and any other pending wars.
What I referred to as 'single issue fanatics'.
People like you see everything as black and white and "principled" while the majority of people like the centrist position and have the ability to compromise their ideas depending on good sound philosophy.
But this is the exact opposite of the position I've taken here. I think that the single issue voters are the problem and I side with those who are prepared to compromise some of their positions in order to satisfy others.
Dave
47 - moonraven
Right.
If Nalle is mainstream the US is doomed to sink into the sea in the next 15 minutes.
Oh oh. Bye bye, suckers.
48 - Dr Dreadful
"Statistics show about 30% of people are party loyal first. That's a strong minority."
Not really. It's less than one-third.
49 - Martin Lav
"But this is the exact opposite of the position I've taken here."
Exactly Nalle......don't you get it?
You are now accusing the dems of taking one issue (the War) and therefore dividing or skewing the Republican party to the detriment of the Republican Party. BUT it is the Republicans (and shrills like you) and your "single"-philosophy mentality that is sinking the Republican Party.
If you hadn't gone on your Democratization and Freedom Plan across the Middle East and then doggedly stay the course like one of the stray dogs with a bone that you shoot on your property, then a crazy candidate like Ron Paul wouldn't even have a chance and you could be having Jeb Bush run for your President.
Get it?
50 - Dave Nalle
Exactly Nalle......don't you get it?
Apparently not. Maybe you're not making it clear enough.
You are now accusing the dems of taking one issue (the War) and therefore dividing or skewing the Republican party to the detriment of the Republican Party. BUT it is the Republicans (and shrills like you) and your "single"-philosophy mentality that is sinking the Republican Party.
Ok then, what is my 'single' philosophy, because I was pretty sure that my argument was that you shouldn't pick a candidate or support a party based on a single issue.
If you hadn't gone on your Democratization and Freedom Plan across the Middle East and then doggedly stay the course like one of the stray dogs with a bone that you shoot on your property,
When was that MY plan, exactly>
then a crazy candidate like Ron Paul wouldn't even have a chance and you could be having Jeb Bush run for your President.
Can I pass on Jeb? I'll stick with Paul givenm that choice.
Dave
51 - Dr Dreadful
"What will leftist/progressives who are flocking to register Republican so that they can vote for Paul do if he doesn't get nominated? Would they stick with a candidate like Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson who share many of Paul's positions on issues other than the Iraq War, or will they flee back to the Democratic party once Paul loses the nomination and they've done as much damage to the primary process as they can?"
Ah, I suspect that at such a point, the excreted solids will come into abrupt contact with the air circulation device.
52 - Martin Lav
"Ok then, what is my 'single' philosophy, because I was pretty sure that my argument was that you shouldn't pick a candidate or support a party based on a single issue."
My point is this......if you believe in smaller government, less taxes, death penalty, tougher sentences for criminals, man and woman only marriages, etc......but not WAR then you should have thrown Bush out of the White House long ago. The single biggest issue to the moveons etc...is the War and they will allow all the other issues to go.
Kerry could have one the last election if he hadn't pandered to the far left and now the Republicans, namely Ron Paul, could win this next one if they DON'T pander to the far right.
When WAR is at stake, that trumps ALL other issues for a lot of people, so any Republican nominee, like Paul that takes that off the table, stands a pretty good chance of swinging some votes.
What I'm specifically accusing you of NALLE is trying to scare republicans away from Paul because he is being supported by left-wing wacko's so you can continue with your war-monger candidates, because it is apparent to me that you LOVE WAR.
53 - James
This essay is absurd.
The writer's argument assumes the red herring that Ron Paul has supporters because he is willing to accomodate them.
The truth is that Ron Paul has supporters because he is unwilling to compromise his constitutionalist principles for anyone or any group.
Ron Paul has been in Washington for 10 terms and no lobbying group, special interest group, or pressure from his own party has ever managed to get him to change his stance on anything.
He makes a point of promoting the U.S. Constitution as the fundamental law of the land.
So, if Socialists, Communists, Nazis or even people who want to return us to British rule support him, it only means that they either can't read, or that they're so happy to finally see someone who promotes the Republic in a real way that they're dumping Socialism, Communism or Nazism for a nice helping of old fashioned Constitutional Republicanism.
54 - Dr Dreadful
Another in the looonngg list of mr's apocryphal trades/occupations/experiences.
Doesn't she also run a theatre company?
I used to do that too. I have had very few actual paid jobs (tend to stick around), but as an actor I have had many, including:
- megalomaniac mad scientist
- terrorist
- actor
- politician
- psychiatrist
- policeman
- vaudeville performer
- fighter pilot
- signalman
- drill sergeant
- angel of death.
It's an exciting life...
55 - Erik
I think the most succinct comment here is #31 from Kevin.
People who voted for previous nominees of the major parties (or any candidate, for that matter) were never united in full agreement with every position of that candidate or party. In a representative system, voting is ALWAYS a matter of assigning weights and priorities, to some extent choosing a least of multiple "evils," or a most of multiple goods if you're a positive thinker.
Of course I don't agree with EVERYTHING R. Paul has ever said. I don't imagine many people, if any, would find that they do, if they look long enough at his record. But isn't this always true, of any potential candidate? You have to decide what combination is most appealing to you, each time around. The interesting thing here is that Paul represents a very different combination than has previously been offered at a national level before, at least for a very very long time. It is entirely natural and reasonable that he would attract a different conglomeration of supporters than any other recent candidate. I don't believe his supporters are more likely to be dupes, or "voting against themselves" than are supporters of any other candidate. They're just making their choice on different terms, and this is hard for some to get their minds around because we haven't seen these terms before.
Ron Paul may not become President, or even a nominee, but his strong showing so far will have ramifications for the American political process which will echo far beyond 2008.
56 - JustOneMan
BREAKING ELECTION NEWS
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have joined forces to run as co-presidents on a third party ticket.
This assures them key support from both moonbats and martians. When pressed Dumbocrats and Republicans offered no comment.
57 - moonraven
Sorry--You're a day late and many dollars short.
Moonraven would not stoop so low as to vote.
58 - Dave Nalle
My point is this......if you believe in smaller government, less taxes, death penalty, tougher sentences for criminals, man and woman only marriages, etc......but not WAR then you should have thrown Bush out of the White House long ago. The single biggest issue to the moveons etc...is the War and they will allow all the other issues to go.
But for me war is NOT the single biggest issue. It's an issue, but I place a number of things ahead of it, the first being sound economic policy.
When WAR is at stake, that trumps ALL other issues for a lot of people, so any Republican nominee, like Paul that takes that off the table, stands a pretty good chance of swinging some votes.
And my belief is that war trumps everything else for a minority in the same way that abortion does for another minority, but that most people don't put either of those issues above things like the economy, national security and civil liberties.
What I'm specifically accusing you of NALLE is trying to scare republicans away from Paul because he is being supported by left-wing wacko's so you can continue with your war-monger candidates, because it is apparent to me that you LOVE WAR.
And you've reached this conclusion based on what? My repeated statements that I'm basically opposed to war as an instrument of foreign policy? Or perhaps on my repeated explanations of how the Iraq war went wrong and how it was poorly conceived? Or perhaps on my suggestions of other ways the terrorism problem could be solved?
Let me suggest another answer - you base it solely on the fact that I don't denounce Bush and the War at every opportunity and instead try to understand them like a rational person.
Dave
59 - Willy Loman
You have to hand it to the 'publicans for doing the big tent thing. The Reps' are like Starburst--same packaging different flavors. The Dems' on the other hands are M&M's--different candy shell, same chocolate. TASTE THE RAINBOW, moonbats!
60 - Martin Lav
Nope Nalle, I base it on the fact that you just wrote an article (see above) where you warn people of all the crazy moonbats that are now supporting Ron Paul and question his "principles" based solely on this support. It sounds to me that you are warning the other Republican voters to NOT vote for him, because he could be ........ dare I use the word........ DEMOCRAT ........ in Republican clothing.
Am I wrong?
61 - Neil Gregory
wow.. even know I am not impressed with this articles attempt at relating socialistic and liberal view points to Dr. Pauls message. I am impressed with Dave Nalle. Way to talk to the bloggers I like that. It shows you are honest in your forthright attempt to report.
Much Love
Vote Ron Paul 2008
62 - Dave Nalle
Nope Nalle, I base it on the fact that you just wrote an article (see above) where you warn people of all the crazy moonbats that are now supporting Ron Paul and question his "principles" based solely on this support.
No, I question his principles based on his willingness to pander to these constituencies in the same way that I might question Edwards for being in the pocket of the trial lawyers.
It sounds to me that you are warning the other Republican voters to NOT vote for him, because he could be ........ dare I use the word........ DEMOCRAT ........ in Republican clothing.
Am I wrong?
Absolutely wrong. I have never said that Republicans should not vote for Paul, and I'll clearly say here that they should vote for him. However, I think they SHOULD make an effort to remind Paul that he's running as a Republican and that the values of some of his supporters are incompatible with the beliefs of the party where he has made his home for 20 years.
What I'd like is for Paul to stop downplaying his other positions while playing up his anti war position. I want him to make clear to the leftists what he really believes on issues other than the war which they care about, and I'd like him to come out and clearly state his opposition to racism and his belief in civil rights.
Dave
63 - EARL
Imagine that !
People from all walks of life are supporting Dr Paul and it is stirring up resentment everywhere with those who expect folks to "stay in line"....
Well, folks from all around are "getting out of the line" and putting Party horse poop aside and voting for the man they genuinely feel is honest and will continue to work towards upholding the Constitution....
And everyone must put his "spin" on it....
Again.....Imagine That !
64 - Martin Lav
"However, I think they SHOULD make an effort to remind Paul that he's running as a Republican and that the values of some of his supporters are incompatible with the beliefs of the party where he has made his home for 20 years."
On another day, on another thread, to another party, you would say this is pandering to the base and not upholding your true beliefs.
He makes it clear where he stands to all and you shouldn't be so scared that he is a liberal democrat posing as a conservative republican.
Next thing you know he'll let gays marry, stop injecting inmates and STOP subsidizing factory farms. Oh by the way, I saw that no one tackled that question the other night. Fair to our farmers, level the playing field yadayadayada...
65 - A.K. Smith
Dave - Your article is fallacious to say the least. I am one of the organizers of the Ron Paul Las Vegas Meetup and the "confrontation" you site never happened. I know just about every person who has ever attended one of our meetups and can say categorically that no "left wing" supporters attend and the "regular Republicans", myself included, are always welcomed into the group and very much appreciated. So, I don't know where you got your info, but you started with an obvious whopper. In fact, some of our group were Democrats prior to the campaign, but I have never heard even one of them fail to be in favor of property rights and limited government, Paul-style.
You know I've posted on your blogs before, Dave. And I think we've had civil discussions of our differences. But you're merely parroting a bunch of Hannitized dopes' wild conspiracy theories here. A.K. Smith (Check it out. I am one of the Las Vegas group organizers: ronpaul.meetup.com/47)
66 - Mike4Freedom
A man puts together a coalition of different folks who have some common goal and you find that disruptive. Dr. Paul is truly a uniter, not a divider.
If ending the war and restoring civil liberties and the constitution is what it takes to put together a winning coalition, great! What better result can you ask for from one election?
67 - Rad Geek
As typified by Justin Raimondo, they are the anti-property, anti-war and anti-nationalist element of libertarianism.
Dude, Justin Raimondo is a lot of things, but do you have any evidence at all, in print or in other media, that Justin Raimondo is either "anti-property" or "anti-nationalist"? If so, what is this evidence and where can I find it?
Please also note that "anti-property" and "anti-nationalist" are not synonyms for "extremist" or "anarchist" or "advocate for views I strongly disagree with." I already know that he's an extremist and I already know that he's an anarchist and I also already know that he has many beliefs you would disagree with. But I am interested to know where you came up with the specific accusations that this Buchananite paleolibertarian is "anti-property" and "anti-nationalist."
68 - Dave Nalle
He makes it clear where he stands to all and you shouldn't be so scared that he is a liberal democrat posing as a conservative republican.
Again, Martin, I never said anything remotely like this. If you want to just argue with yourself I can start ignoring you. Please point out where I said a single word about Paul himself being a liberal democrat or anything like one.
Next thing you know he'll let gays marry,
It's an entirely different issue, but one of my other problems with Paul is that he cops out on the gay marriage issue because of his religious beliefs and doesn't believe the federal government has a responsibility to protect the eqaul rights of gay citizens.
Dave
69 - Dave Nalle
Dude, Justin Raimondo is a lot of things, but do you have any evidence at all, in print or in other media, that Justin Raimondo is either "anti-property" or "anti-nationalist"? If so, what is this evidence and where can I find it?
I'm actually reconsidering the wording of that section. Raimondo is of that wing of libertarianism, but at the same time he writes on a very limited range of topics so I can't be absolutely certain he shares all of their views. Obviously his partnership with the anti-war extreme left places him in a natural position of suspicion, but since he doesn't write on a broad range of topics it's hard to tell if he partakes fully of the social-anarchist philosophy of just picks and chooses.
But I am interested to know where you came up with the specific accusations that this Buchananite paleolibertarian is "anti-property" and "anti-nationalist."
Good point. I should have addressed Buchananites and so-called 'paleoconservatives' as well. Too much to cover in a limited article like this. Always risky to just touch on broad topics like that.
Dave
70 - Dave Nalle
I am one of the organizers of the Ron Paul Las Vegas Meetup and the "confrontation" you site never happened.
A.K., the source I got this from attended a meetup at which the 'regular republicans' walked out because of the activities of antiwar leftists dominating the event.
Do you deny that moveon.org cosponsors a lot of these Paul meetups?
you're merely parroting a bunch of Hannitized dopes' wild conspiracy theories here.
The people I've talked to who have these concerns are hardly 'hannitized'. They're serious libertarian Republicans who are concerned that the Paul campaign is going off the tracks.
I'm hardly the only person to raise these concerns either, and they're just the tip of the iceberg of problems that people who share many of Paul's professed beliefs have with him. Mona Charen has a rather good article on some of the other issues.
Dave
71 - Jason Summers
I don’t know what your intent is Dave but it somewhat appears you are attacking Paul indirectly through people who want to support him. Why is it okay for every other politician to enjoy the company of big business lobbyists and this is seen as acceptable? Yet you find it wrong for an underdog to go about getting support from all citizens and all backgrounds that might vote for him?
I went to one rally in the summer and “felt” Ron Paul is basically an average person that truly believes in liberty. I have the impression that he actually has a philosophy in the classical libertarian sense, which is considered insane in our new businessman media washed consumer society. He did have some people with oddball ideas but they were basically good people that care about America. Many people are frightened with all the talk about terrorists and other things in the news and there is almost no counter information beyond government information. In many ways the government has asked us the people to believe in what they say, literally expecting blind faith. And people like you support this such that anyone who even cares to question, even if a bit odd is slighted for being crazy.
For the most part they were basically people you would see at a consumer convention or a craft faire. But would you ever see a rich Harvard businessman at a craft faire? Probably not! And are such Harvard graduates average and representative of the American people in the first place? Maybe we have a massive culture shift right now as those that lead us don’t live with us anymore, if they ever did. Society is moving so fast for those of us on the bottom of “normal” society that you don’t even know what we care about or what effects us.
Were a few of his supporters at the rally a bit out in space, yep. Even so the ones that were seemed safe enough and were concerned in their own way that we are losing our liberty to a government system that doesn’t listen to anyone but an elite few. It has been a long time in coming as many people feel that voting doesn’t matter because leadership, who are often the wealthy won’t listen to us anymore. Because of globalization, do the wealthy have to listen or are we simply being told to sit down and shut up for the ride?
The difference is Ron Paul does listen to people. He was very approachable but also stood firm on what he believes. He didn’t hide behind security as an outsider to average citizens but was right out in the open, talking and chatting with people. Another way to look at it is that he has a very good bedside manner and many Americans need that right now. Many Americans don’t trust our government anymore. Crazy or not as that is, that is pretty normal in wartime such as this within a society based on liberty.
In some ways your piece of writing actually makes me think you are the one that is somewhat crazy. If you really respect liberty and believe liberty works then accepting all other citizens as equals is very important. Even if you disagree or think they are a bit addled in the head.
Maybe it is actually very simple. His supporters are not TV quality. They are actually average citizens with all their weirdness. You just haven’t looked that close at America lately. You might have a rude awakening if you do. If you are looking for Harvard graduates, media elites and wealthy supporters in his crowd, you won’t find many of them sorry.
72 - Jacob
Dave Nalle #23 “No, my point is that he [Ron Paul] is turning into a REAL politician - a politician of the special interests.”
Ron Paul is definitely a politician of the special interests, a.k.a. the American people.
73 - Rad Geek
Obviously his partnership with the anti-war extreme left places him in a natural position of suspicion, but since he doesn't write on a broad range of topics it's hard to tell if he partakes fully of the social-anarchist philosophy of just picks and chooses.
Justin Raimondo has been a libertarian activist for at least two and a half decades now and, while he has been focusing very heavily on anti-war activism for the last ten or so, his positions on a lot of issues aren't hard to find if you go looking for them. It is not that he is "picking and choosing" elements of social anarchism to follow. It's just that he believes in a different political theory, specifically anarcho-capitalism in the tradition of Murray Rothbard, in its paleolibertarian form. Anarcho-capitalists are all pro-private property -- indeed private property rights are the basis of their entire social philosophy -- and paleolibertarians, like paleoconservatives, generally tend to believe in some fairly strong form of cultural nationalism.
Anarcho-capitalism has some important similarities with what is usually called social anarchism (hence the "anarcho") and also some important differences (mainly having to do with private property rights, natch); it has even more similarities with individualist anarchism. But it is its own thing, and Raimondo is fairly closely identified with it, unless something changed while I wasn't looking.
74 - Dave Nalle
Rad, when dealing with anarchists there are all sorts of degrees and definitions of being pro-private-property. Raimondo seems to be very much in the mode of left-libertarians or market anarchists. But maybe I just find him irritating because he's a Rothbardian absolutist.
Raimondo is the epitome of what drove me away from the Libertarian Party after 25 years as an activist. He's full of the self-righteous absolutism which makes them incapable of ever becoming a functional political party. How any thinking person can go on and on doing something which clearly has never worked and will never work rather than making some rational compromises in order to actually achieve something is beyond me. Doing the same thing over and over again and thinking you'll get a different result is the definition of insanity.
Dave
75 - neil gregory
"Mona Charen has a rather good article on some of the other issues."
Alright man, just to let you know I wouldn't listen to Mona Charen if my life depended on it. She is so full of herself, and just a bad journalist to say the least. haha dude, your way off your rocker talking about Mona Charen. What is this so called journalism anyway? Come on man, I think you have a lot of potential, but you need to focus on the positive aspect of Dr. Pauls campaign. Don't listen to second rate oppinion columns and, well period. haha jeez... I wish I was getting paid to write half decent slash articles on good people. Must be nice benifits. Is ole Rupert paying you himself? Would you do a slash article on Malcom X? or Martin Luther King? they had they're extreme base too. Would you write an article like this on John F. Kennedy? Why don't you write about the less desirable people Bush deals with on a daily basis? You are seriously out of touch with what this country was founded on. Try listening to a few of Dr. Pauls speeches. Try reading the constitution. Dr. Paul is fighting for your rights, brother. I hope you learn to appreciate him.
Call your senator today and tell them to vote "No" on S Bill 1959 The Homegrown terrorist act. Start acting in the best interest of the people. Realize that we are in a war against our liberties perpatrated by our own government. We must win with peace and not violence, We the people must win with Love and not Hate. God Bless you sir. Keep up the work.