Is Ron Paul becoming just another politician?

Love him, hate him, or ignore him, Ron Paul is at least unique. He presents a libertarian agenda that’s clearly at odds with today’s Republican mainstream; he’s an ardent opponent of the party’s neo-conservative foreign policy; and he’s generally seemed more intent on expressing his ideas than winning a presidential election, whether those ideas are ridiculous or not.

That said, slowly but surely, Ron Paul seems willing to drop his quirky libertarian schtick and act like a (gasp!) conventional Republican presidential candidate. Consider, for example, his latest direct mail piece in South Carolina.

Ron Paul is sending a defense and veterans-focused mail piece into South Carolina homes that doesn’t mention the chief calling card of his campaign — his opposition to the Iraq war.

In fact, the piece touts at the top that Paul “Pushed for an official Declaration of War with Iraq.”

Now this is true, but he did so only because he takes a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

This is the only mention of Iraq, though, so it may leave a South Carolina voter who is uninformed about Paul’s anti-war views to think he merely wanted a congressional green light to topple Saddam and was fully on board with shock-and-awe.

Hmm. When Paul talks about foreign policy and military matters, he generally denounces neocons and emphasizes a worldview premised on non-intervention. In this mailing, though, Paul characterizes himself as just another member of the Republican mainstream, bragging about his role in pushing for “an official Declaration of War with Iraq.”

This strikes me as interesting for a couple of reasons. First, I didn’t really expect Paul to sell-out. Second, it suggests Paul is trying to transition from a quixotic candidate hoping to make a point to a candidate who actually expects to compete. If that means compromising a bit on his ideals, so be it.

What other motivation could Paul have for a mailing like this? It suggests he’s not trying to win over voters by taking a firm stand on behalf of his ideas, it suggests the polar opposite — he hopes to win over voters by telling them he’s part of the Republican mainstream on Iraq and the military.

What’s more, it’s not the first direct-mail piece that’s made Paul look conventional. Last week, the libertarian candidate who has rarely expressed concerns about immigration, dropped an anti-immigration mailing on South Carolina Republicans.

Some of Ron Paul’s fans, who are accustomed to seeing him as different from his GOP rivals, might be disappointed by this new mailer Paul has dropped in South Carolina, which was forwarded our way by a GOP operative.

It traffics in nativism every bit as rank as that espoused by the other GOPers.

Paul’s piece denounces “amnesty,” blasts “welfare for illegal aliens,” and vows to “end birthright citizenship” as mandated in the 14th Amendment.

Maybe all this attention is going to Paul’s head? He’s raised some money, topped 5% in a few polls, so now he’s going to start pandering to pick up a few more votes?

What a shame.

For a candidate who “doesn’t stand a chance” of winning the Republican nomination according to right and left wing authoritarians alike, Ron Paul sure receives a lot of play at the Carpetbagger Report.

Or did I miss all of the coverage on Duncan Hunter?

  • bah. I like the mailing. Ron Paul has been labeled as being soft on National Defesnse which he is not. His proposition for a Declaration of War was one of the bravest things he’s done in Congress. He tried to keep the greatest power a government has, namely going to war, where it Constitutionally belongs.. in Congress. The rest of the bastards were too scared and wanted to give up their power and responsibility to Daddy Bush.

    It shouldn’t be a surprise he needs Republican voters to keep in mind that he IS for National Defense, but only when it is handled the right way.

  • Ron Paul has always held the same positions on immigration, you can pull youtube videos a year old of him saying the same things as in that mailing.

    As to leaving some things out and emphasizing others, that’s not dishonest in any way, that’s just plain marketing and political strategy. You find out what appeals to the demographic you’re speaking to and you focus on those issues.

  • Ron Paul actually has been strong on immigration. You’d know it if he had more time in debates, but they only ask him about the war and whether he’ll support the eventual GOP candidate. I think the mailings could have been worded differently, but he didn’t lie about anything in the mailings. I received a mailing several months ago asking for campaign contributions and it sounded very Republican. I didn’t like it. But, I look at his track record in Congress, his economic stance, his war stance, and his liberty stance and can accept some of his statements that I disagree with because I firmly believe that as President, he will do what he has always done, and that is follow the Constitution. He’s got shortcomings, but don’t we all? Phraseology is one of those shortcomings.

  • I have heard Dr Paul speak about this. He was pushing for a proper declaration to be voted on so that if we were to go to war we would be both following the constitution and also having a better chance at success. He still was going to vote against the declaration but felt that if we were going to do it should be done right.

  • “the libertarian candidate who has rarely expressed concerns about immigration”

    You are either uneducated or dishonest. He has regularly expressed his concerns and ideas about immigration and has never contradicted himself on the issue. Perhaps you don’t see as much media coverage of his stance on this issue because his beliefs on the topic are very popular. When you want good rating, you focus on the unpopular aspects of a candidate, not the popular ones.

  • The charge being made in this blog post is absurd.

    Ron Paul has consistently, and without hesitation, promoted his non intervention foreign policy in every televised debate and every national interview in which the topic was discussed.

    The suggestion that Ron Paul is “selling out” simply because he chooses to highlight different aspects of his record or of his campaign platform to the voters, is a form of dishonesty on YOUR part not his.

    Ron Paul clearly states his positions on his website, which presumably the recipients of the direct mailings would visit if they wanted to learn more about him.

    The claim that “uninformed” voters would be mislead by the piece calls into question the role of and effectiveness of the establishment media’s supposed role of informing the public. We are supposed to believe that there are masses uninformed voters that wil somehow ignore all the various means of investigating a candidate they might be interested in supporting (the typical establishment news outlets, the internet, etc.) and will instead be base their opinion solely on a direct mail piece, which an uninformed voter of the like you refer to would almost assuredly ignore just like they must have done to all the other information that is made available to them.

    Ron Paul is proven himself to be consistently principled politician. Dr. Paul has proven during his political career spanning 30 years and 10 terms in Congress to be a very astute politician. Dr. Paul understands that the establishment is trying its best to pigeonhole his campaign as a dove-ish anti-war candidate, which does not accurately reflect his actual stance on war and foreign policy. He is using his resources to bring balance to the picture that the voters have of him as a person, his political history and of his campaign platform for President.

  • I’d be curious to see if Paul is using that much vaunted republican strategy of micro-targeting which would allow him to tailor his direct mailings to specific audiences receptive to that particular message. If he did, Paul would certainly e trying to be all things to all people — very much any other politician vying for elected office. So much for the r3volution ….

  • “Now this is true, but he did so only because he takes a literal interpretation of the Constitution.”

    Gasp!!!! Oh no!! We can’t allow “a literal interpretation of the Constitution”!! What would happen If someone actually FOLLOWED the Constitution??!!

  • What’s wrong with pandering for votes? The means justifies the ends. If that’s what it takes to get a libertarian in office, then great. If you don’t pander for votes you don’t get elected. It’s that simple. Your principles are screwed up if your principles keep the goal from being acheived.

  • Mr. Paul needs to rent the old Robert Redford movie…The Candidate.

    Mr. Romney already has Redford’s role in “The Candidate” covered, soup to nuts, hair included.

  • This Ron Paul nonsense is nauseating. To top it off, I’ll bet Dr. Jerk will keep campaigning even after he crashes and burns, just to make me miserable.

    Mark my words, Ron Paul will be this generations Lyndon LaRouche.

  • Wow, it’s quite obvious that the Paul supporters here don’t even have a clue what Carpetbagger was trying to say. He’s not saying that Paul changed his position on wanting a formal declaration of war. He’s saying that Paul was trying to deceive South Carolina voters by leaving out the fact that he would have voted against it and has always opposed this war. And he’d do that because many South Carolina Republicans would hold that against him. As written, Paul’s mailer makes it sound like he supported a formal declaration of war because he supported the war. And that’s very deceptive and should be beneath any politician who really says what he means. If Paul’s position were more popular, he just would have stated that he opposed the war. But it’s quite obvious that he felt he couldn’t do that, at least not in South Carolina, anyway. So he’s trying to trick them into thinking that he supported a war that he didn’t support.

    I can’t believe I had to explain this to you people, but I guess if I didn’t have to, you wouldn’t be Paul supporters.

  • Ron Paul is the only Statesman running for president.

    The attempt to read some sort of foolery into what was or was not included in a mailer is childlike.

    The Message Is More Important Than The Man.

    Please Attempt To Raise Your Standards; Talk About The Message.

    Put The Republic Back In Republican; Vote Ron Paul !!!

  • BTW, Paul voters: This is a fairly Liberal website. I don’t think putting the “Republic back in Republican” is a good selling point for people who fantasize about single-payer healthcare.

  • Funny, Brad, your post actually suggests the very opposite of “The Message is More Important than the Man.” Carpetbagger, Petorado and Dr Biobrain are all addressing the message – and pointing out that it is hardly “straight talk.” The message in Paul’s South Carolina mailing is intentionally taken out of context — by the campaign itself — to suggest a position absolutely contrary to Paul’s position.

    You, on the other hand, want everyone to ignore the message — and the fact that Paul twisted it like any non-messianic politician would — because you would rather attend only to the Man, Ron Paul as Icon of a New Kind of Politics.

    You, Brad, are the one elevating hero worship for the Man, regardless of what he says or does, over a true analysis of the message. Such an analysis in this case shows that Dr. Paul can be just like any other politician, not some special new revolutionary type. He spins, he dissembles, he twists, and he panders as shamelessly as the next guy. Recognizing that in the South Carolina is focusing on the message regardless of the man.

    I know this is heartbreaking for those naive enough to look for a savior in a political campaign.

  • Dr Paul wasn’t trying to deceive anyone – he has already sent out 4 mailers to South Carolina stating his position on the Iraq war. So now he sends out 1 with some of his other views, and he’s being deceitful? I think not. He’s trying to get some of his other viewpoints across to the voters.

    It seems to me the author of this article is the one being deceitful since they failed to mention the other mailers, with his Iraq viewpoints included, that were sent out. I guess this site is “becoming just like all the other slanted media outlets.”

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com

    http://www.teaparty07.com

  • #17: “…Talk About The Message.”

    The message is that Ron Paul’s campaign is trying to mislead potential voters.

  • If South Carolina voters don’t research a candidate before they vote for him then don’t blame the candidate. God forbid a politician act like a politician and “market” their ideas. He’s not lieing, he’s not misleading, he’s stating his record. If people are too lazy to look into something it’s their own fault.

  • Forget about this Ron Paul guy. He’s got no chance. Let’s hear about a REAL contender. Alan Keyes!!!

  • So Justin, when RooDee or Mittens or McCan’t or Frederick of Hollywood or even ol Huckster flip-flop, we should expect the Paulies to give them all a pass? Maybe we just have a different stripe of Paulites around here, but that isn’t really the reaction I’ve seen. What I’ve seen a lot of here and elsewhere is “vote Ron Paul, he’s the only one that tells it like it is!” and “vote Ron Paul, at least you know where he stands!” Now you say, “caveat emptor – buyer beware,” and blame the voters for taking Paul’s South Carolina brochure at face value.

    I understand why everyone is so defensive — when your main selling point is “I’m not like all the other guys” and suddenly you are caught politicking in a way that would make Ghouliani proud that tends to burst everyone’s bubble. But your audience here is too attentive to not notice when the Paulies go from defending their guy as purer than driven snow to defnding his god-given right to be muddy.

  • My understanding was this mailer was going out to Veterans. I guess the message would be targeted at veterans as well. Love him I do – and Ron Paul remains consistent to the core, and the best hope America has for a free society.

  • Free healthcare isn’t a good selling point either, except for people who believe in printing money out of thin air. When the dollar crashes from that sort of behavior what will we do?

    Fact is we are broke. We owe China nearly $1,000,000,000 for this war. Do we start selling cities to them, or entire states?

    The monitary issues should be our biggest concern in this election. Once we get those figured out, sure, we could go a long way. Open your eyes to the entire field and you will notice that neither party is debating monitary or fiscal issues. Most know in a debate with those who understand it (Kucinich, Gravel, Paul and possibly Obama and Dodd) they would shoot strait to the bottom of the polls. Of those who do understand it Paul would still win any debate. Just look at the jobs these candidates do for us and you will notice Paul works on fiscal policy and foreign affairs, the two things that have won him the most support.

  • I think that referring to anyone by the title of “doctor” outside the medical context is silly. I don’t care whether it’s a snooty professor showing off his PhD, or an actual medical doctor running for political office. If they’re not acting in their medical capacity, the “Dr.” is just silly. That doesn’t apply to myself, as that’s my name, not a title. But I am a CPA, yet no one mentions that title when saying my name. It’s only the doctors who have the inferiority complex that makes them insist that people include their official title with their name.

    And btw, people: It’s “Doctor” Biobrain, not Dr. I’m not sure why everyone always does that, but it’s not a title. It’d be like calling Ron Paul “Rn Paul”. But then again, most conservatives refuse to say my name at all and insist on calling me names like Doc Biobutt, so I guess I shouldn’t complain.

  • I’m not a “Paulite” nor do I have a “selling point” about Ron Paul or any other candidate. In fact, I never claimed to even support his candidacy. I do however respect him even though I may disagree with him…something that seems to be lost in today’s politics. This is not a flip-flop. This is not a “I supported the war, before I was against it” moment. He never stated he supported war. He makes his position more ambigous though, and that is exact science of political marketing. Ron Paul has never claimed to be above politics. Ron Paul IS a politician. I would like to repeat though, if one is too lazy to research a candidate, one simply cannot complain they were misled.

  • sorry Doctor. my bad. lazily shortening words (and syntax) is a bad IM/e-mail/’net habit.

  • Blah, blah blah…

    Do you know Ron Paul haters have two pairs of lips?

    So they can bitch and moan at the same time.

    Ron Paul opposed war with Iraq because he knew it was a bad bad idea. He also supported a declararion of war because he knew that if we were going to go to war, we better at least declare it, have a specific goal and then we could come home once the goal was achieved. That would prevent an ongoing occupation like we currently have. Duh!

  • #31: I really don’t think what Ron Paul supported, or why, is in question. It’s his misrepresentation of his position in the campaign literature that makes him just like all the rest. And for those that like Ron Paul, that should be a disappointment: if it’s not, you should refrain from drinking anymore Cool-Aide.

    Duh!

  • ***Is Ron Paul becoming just another politician?***

    In a word—yes. And unlike the shallow-as-a-paperclip individual at #4, “this” Steve (the one that’s been giving wRonG Paul groupies cardioinfarctions on a wholesale level, multiplied by the now-defunct smiley-guy from WalMart and squared by the cubed-root of a KMart Blue Light Special) finds to be accurate that the assumptive measure within the core message of this topic is not immigration; it is, rather, whether this “Manchurian Quixotic Hybrid Candidate” has taken to disseminating an incomplete message.

    Paul is famously anti-war; he’s played it to the hilt; his minionesque, howler-monkey pander-platoons who keep trying to peddle their precious “Precious” (talk about your godless weasel-hordes of Gollums) as “the only candidate who will end the war” should be bowing their protohuman heads in absolute shame at this blatant revelation. Their priceless candidate has spewed endlessly about how wrong the Iraq incursion has been—not because of some “Constitutional technicality,” but because there was never a reason to go to war against Iraq in the first place. Not once have I seen so much as one post, from one Paul-pusher, bring to the table of discussion the concept of the Iraq War being illegal on the basis that there was no formal Declaration of War by the Congress.

    A candidate cannot be “anti-war” and “pro-declaring-war” at the same time. Such would be the ultimate purification of hypocrisy, and the query must be made at this point: Does Paul now seek to promote himself as “the Candidate of the Purified Hypocrisy Party?” Inquiring minds want to know.

    Oh, and by the way—T-minus 62 days until the Fabulous Fry-Off of February 5—when wRonG Paul becomes Gone Paul—and counting….

  • Just consider that the actual declaration of war is a huge action that the United States has not decided to do in over fifty years. If we were forced to make a declaration of war before we went into a military situation, we would have our forces involved in international situations far less frequently.

    Additionally, consider that the declaration of war would be a huge galvanizing force. If we actually did declare war, we would focus all of our resources on getting the job done correctly and quickly. We have not had single minded focus on one cause since World War II. After Pearl Harbor we declared war. After 9/11 we declared eternal police action and military intervention in situations around the world.

    Finally, by our not declaring a war on a specific opponent, everyone in the world feels threatened by our hubristic military action. We seem to be preparing to launch a military intervention against anyone who doesn’t like us and could conceivably, at some distant point, hurt us. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are nations that disagree with us on many fronts, but we can not in any way better the situation by sending our troops around the world. If we could expand our economy a lot more, it would be in everyone’s interest to engage in trade and business with us. So, everyone reading this should become a libertarian, if they even pretend to care about peace. Peace out.

  • Since misleading is the theme today I’ll stick with that. At what point did Ron Paul say he was above political marketing? At what point did he claim to be or even act like he is some innocent white knight on a white horse? Some of his supporters paint him as that and it’s wrong. Ron Paul will be the first to tell you that. The people who think of Paul as being this have misled themselves about Paul the man and his candidacy, not the other way around.

  • Tell us your conspiracy theory that Dr. Ron Paul is in the pocket of corporations and that he wouldn’t end the war, “THE” Steve.

    We could all use a laugh.

    Thanks.

  • JKap @1 – I’m thinking ol Duncan himself saw your post and chimed in at #9. 🙂

    When Duncan Hunter actually says or does something newsworthy, I’m sure someone will cover it. But that may be a long, long wait. (Which is to say “coverage” and likelihood of election are not the same. Tancredo got a fair amount of coverage early on, but it was largely for being the angriest, most unhingedly hateful white man since Falling Down. it never meant he was a threat to get elected.)

  • I consider you a threat to our National sovereignty and defense. Now, if HR Bill 1955 and Senate Bill 1959 become law, which side of the law will you be on?

  • What other motivation could Paul have for a mailing like this?

    Politics aside, being an effective communicator means tailoring your message to the interests of you audience; as long as the principles of that message remains untouched, it makes sense for Paul to adopt a specific patois whether talking to The View or Bernanke.

  • At what point did he claim to be or even act like he is some innocent white knight on a white horse? Some of his supporters paint him as that and it’s wrong. Ron Paul will be the first to tell you that.

    Then it looks as if there’s no problem here. Paul’s supporters act as if he’s the second-coming of Honest Abe and a man who always proudly proclaims his beliefs, and Carpetbagger showed that he has started acting like other politicians and isn’t above a little deceptive marketing when it comes to selling himself. He’s very anti-war, but wanted to give uninformed South Carolina voters the impression that he was pro-war by telling them he supported a formal declaration of war. And so Carpetbagger called him on that, in order to dispell the myth that Paul is above such things.

    So what exactly is the complaint? If you think that Paul is being incorrectly labeled as someone who is above a little deceptive marketing and that even Paul doesn’t try to be that person, then you should agree with what Carpetbagger did. If anything, Carpetbagger is helping Paul set the record straight. Carpetbagger wasn’t suggesting that this was some devious practice that made Paul a worse candidate than the others. Merely that he is showing himself to be just like them; hence the title of the post.

  • One of my favorite movies, Falling Down. “You and me, we’re the same.”

    “We’re not the same. I’m an American. You’re a sick asshole.”

    Great movie.

  • Par for the course for Ron Paul. He has been doing the exact same thing here in his Congressional District for years. All his taxpayer funded Congressional office mailings to constituents are loaded with references to “Supporting our Troops,” and being “Tough on Terrorism,” and “supportive of the War on Terror.”

    The real question is how his campaign could be so inept? Did they really think nobody was going to catch this?

  • South Carolina has been, historically, a pro-military state.

    South Carolina is one of the few remaining states with a devout pro-Iraq-war philosophy.

    South Carolinians will not support an anti-war candidate.

    JKap’s “candidate” knows that South Carolinians will not vote for a devout anti-war candidate.

    JKap’s “candidate”—after disseminating a purely-devout, anti-war message via both conventional and virtual media outlets for a good many years now—suddenly finds the need to “redact” the message, effectively eliminating the purely-devout, anti-war content.

    “Conspiracy theory,” JKap? Why—whatever do you mean? I don’t see any “conspiracy theory” here—just another Paul groupie getting all bent over the fact that ‘his boy” got caught with both hands in the cookie jar. It should play well in the SC papers tomorrow morning….

  • I was nor am in no way saying Carpetbagger was wrong for doing this. However, this article does the very same thing that it reports Ron Paul doing. The title of this piece implies that he was at a level above “politicians” and has now somehow degenerated himself to that level. Where did the author get that idea from? “What’s more, it’s not the first direct-mail piece that’s made Paul look conventional.” Once again, implying that Ron Paul was not conventional, not a regular politician, not above politics as usual, but now he is because of his direct mail tactics. I will go one step above and say the author of this article got it completely wrong when it is stated that Ron Paul rarely talks about immigration. He talks about it a lot and it’s not like he can avoid it…being from a border state. When Ron Paul does talk about immigration, he always mentions getting rid of birthright citenship, no amnesty, and ending illegal immigrant welfare programs. He stated that before he even jumped in the race. This is not new. The way the article is written implies that he somehow didn’t have those views before, and now does.

    So here is the question. Is Carpetbagger becoming just another news and analysis site with sloppy and careless reporting? I would hope not. Maybe all these Paul supporters coming to this site is going to the author’s head. I say bring it on to these stories. Let it all out there!

  • Auuugh! The Paulies have descended!

    I can’t speak for CB, but personally I spend more time thinking about Paul than any of the other Repug candidates, because at least the guy has ideas– even if I don’t agree with most of them.

    But, yeah, if he wants to get elected, he’s got to pander just like the rest of ’em.

    Bummer to see him stoop to this.

  • The strategy is simple. Reach out on issues you agree on so they “know” you are a sensible person. Once that relationship is built, then you can talk about issues you might not agree on. This is a very basic strategy to persuade people.

    “I know this guy and like what he says. Maybe I should listen to his opinions and consider his point of view even if I disagree with him right now.”

    This is how Ron Paul won me over a few years ago. I liked his conservatism. When he talked against the war, I respectfully disagreed with him at the time. Since then, I saw that his logic turned out to be correct and I have changed my mind.

    No different here, but he does not have the luxury of years.

  • Oh Jesus, Eric Dondero is here. Everyone hide your children.

    #33 – THE Steve.

    Of all things, a Democrat talking about someone elses candidate using doublespeak… We’ve seen how well Democrats handled Congress in the last year, (Happy Anniversary of your astounding, nation-changing election, by the way). We can also consider how Hillary seems to have an ever-evolving platform of issues timed to sway with the latest polls. Obama is only marginally better, I haven’t really considered him since he lied while stumping in Selma about his connection to the civil rights movement. I don’t want to demagogue here too badly, though, many of you are intelligent and well-spoken. Even ‘THE Steve’ on occassion, although today he sounds like pop-culture loving Dennis Miller after a few beers too many and a lexicon too few.

    Let’s just be real here for a moment and talk about Ron Paul’s bill to Declare war on Iraq. For the record, and it IS on record, if you’d care to look it up, Paul is, was, and always has been, vehemently against the Iraq war. He sponsored the bill to Declare War in an effort to restore to Congress their congressional duty. He said, I am against the war, but if you want to authorize it, this is the only legitimate way.

    There’s no inconsistency with standing here. He is against illegal, undeclared wars. He is also against wars which fail to follow the ‘Just War’ theory of Christianity. Myself, I’m an agnostic and borderline athiest, but this suits me just fine.

    Perhaps the flyer to Veterans didn’t explicitly say “The Iraq war should end and the troops should come home immediately.” As a poster above stated, he’s sent other mailings to South Carolinians with that message, though. This particular one, crafted for Veterans, was geared towards the parts of his candidacy that reverberate the most with them.

    I contacted the Ron Paul campaign in the summer and received a letter from Paul to hand out to veterans at the VFW Annual Convention in Kansas City. In it, he talked of issues important to Veterans; healthcare, veteran’s benefits, the inefficiency of the VA, and taxation. Veterans are people who have been to war already. You think they don’t know the horrors of war firsthand? Do you really think they WANT their fellow veterans to stay in Iraq any longer than necessary?

    Paul’s made his message clear, time and again. Ending the war now may be his ‘signature’ message, but it is far from his only message. Paul’s adherence to the Constitution and to individual liberty enters into every realm, in taxation, eminent domain, habeus corpus, judicial review, reserve banking and fiat currency, etc.

    Paul is more than just a candidate who will end the war. He is a candidate who will end the war, stop our overspending, stop the over-taxation, and restore government to its proper role. The power of the government is diametrically opposed to the freedom of the individual. Cut government and you build man. Increase government, and you destroy your fellow men.

    Jason

  • I love how just mentioning Ron paul on blogs results in posters appearing out of the woodwork to praise him..

  • Ron Paul has received by far more coverage on his war position than on any other position. He is rightfully trying to get the word out on the rest of his platform, but if you listen to him speak you know that he hasn’t backed away or altered a single position he holds. This article is simply baffling unless it is your attempt at propagandizing against Dr. Paul.

  • Huh. Look at that. Libertarian Messiah Ron Paul is a politician. And he’s willing to weasel words to get votes.

    I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you! Why, I’ve been repeatedly informed by his supporters that he was a “new kind of politician” and that he “wasn’t afraid of the truth” and that he was the only candidate in either party who had principles and wasn’t afraid to stand by them.

    I wonder how his libertarian followers will handle the idea that their Messiah has to misrepresent himself to get votes. Will they excuse it as the “small lie” that needs to be told to do the “good work” (as evangelical fundamentalists often do to justify their lies to put the US back on the “godly” path of Christianity)? Will they ignore it and pretend like he didn’t do it (aka – the Republican response)? Will they just shrug and say that all politicians do it so who cares if their Messiah does it too? Or will they come up with something new – some new excuse I’ve never heard for a politician who turns out to NOT actually be the “new kind of politician” his followers have projected onto him?

  • I do not believe this is intentional misdirection or pandering. If I was Paul’s campaign manager, I would be particularly concerned that Paul is only seen as the anti-war candidate. This is especially problematic since most of the questions directed his way by the media are either regarding his stance on the war in Iraq and Middle East foreign policy, or are completely asanine. This means that unless one follows the campaign very closely, Paul’s stance on important topics like immigration, privacy rights, gun rights, and health care reform are overlooked by less committed voters. This campaign in SC, which takes the focus away from what voters already know about Paul, is a proper way to present Paul as a well-rounded candidate instead of a one-trick pony. However, even on these issues that I mentioned, Paul differs from many of the Republican mainstream candidates. He is more conservative on immigration than McCain, Romney, or Giuliani. He is the only real privacy advocate among the Republican candidates because of his stance against the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. He is much stronger on gun rights than Giuliani or Romney, and his background as a medical doctor provides him more leverage on health care issues than the other candidates. I’m sorry, but it appears to me that the author is maybe trying a bit too hard to find a way to discredit Paul, and thus has lost any objective perspective.

  • Paul wants to be President—and Paul wants an official declaration of war. If history serves me on this, then a declaration of war would effectively legitimize each and every excess of power currently employed by the Bu$h administration.

    Give Paul an updated version of the Creel Committee—and America gets bombarded by a plethora of Josef Goebbels ( several of whom have apparently pounced upon anyone daring to digress from the here-and-there Paul line of thinking). Give Paul a legitimization of war, and he can suspend Habeus at will, impede dissent by suspending the press, assume direct control of industry and private property, establish wage, price, and monetary controls unilaterally, and effect regionally-controlled rationing of all goods and services. He would be able to do anything he wanted, whenever he wanted—and it would be completely defensible before the Supreme Court as an “exigent circumstance.”

    For those who doubt, study the domestic history of the US once Wilson and Roosevelt were granted their declarations of war. A declaration of war, in the end, gives complete legitimacy to the concept of a Unitary Executive—which is why the Congress so rarely offers the President such a decree.

    One further item to consider, after reviewing Paul’s call to legitimaze the Iraq War with a formal declaration of war, is why he would call for such a declaration in the first place. He has consistently promoted himself as “the anti-war candidate”—and yet he seemingly suggests that he might have voted for the war if it had been done in a formal manner. Either he is for the war or against; he cannot be both, and no number of pro-Paul posters to this—or any other—discussion on the subject can, with candor, present the candidate’s official position. Only Paul himself can do that—and he has repeatedly taken a “hands-off” position on a great many issues.

    So—what is the “official” position of “congressman” Paul on this issue? Either he is against this war, or he is for it. If he is against it merely because of the technicality of a formal declaration of war, then what would his position be, had that declaration-vote been taken? Let’s have the candidate himself answer the question, once and for all, before the entire world—rather than hide behind one of his “many mouthpieces.”

    All it takes is one word: either “for” or “against.” No spin; no reserving the right to revise and expand remarks; no redactions; no hedging; no fence-straddling.

    “FOR” or “AGAINST….”

  • Firstly, Ron’s been saying the same thing on immigration all along. There’s nothing wrong with him reaching out to Republican voters on this issue.

    Secondly, on this mailer, as stated earlier, he’s sent out four mailers declaring his opposition to the war from the beginning. He’s not trying to deceive anyone. He’s stating facts, and he’s making the point that the war should have been declared if we went. I see nothing wrong with this, and he didn’t lie at all.

    This is just a case of anti-Paul bloggers trying to do everything they can to smear the man. They know that, in addition to being a libertarian and something different and unique that is attracting a lot of supporters, probably his biggest asset is his principles and his integrity. If he was trying to deceive people, he wouldn’t have made a point on the view today to Joy Bahar to say “So you want one of those pro-war people to get it?”

    You are a deuche, and so is Jonathan Martin.

  • Steve,

    Ron very forcefully spoke out against his declaration of war resolution when he introduced it in Congress, and he voted against it. He just made the point that if we were to go to war, it should have been declared. He has clearly stated this many times.

    It’s called “introducing legislation to make a point.” He does it a lot, and so do a lot of other Congressmen. Your spin on this is deceitful, if not ill-informed.

  • Ron Paul is honest, sincere, and will not tolerate any type of legislature that does not meet our constitution. The problem with Washington right now is they have been so wishy washy the past few years, and flying by the seat of their pants, they have forgotten about our Constitution. It would be great if some of the folks in the media field would read our Constitution just one time as well. Ron Paul has my vote and support. May God Bless this Country and it’s Citizens, and may we rise up and fight those that refuse us our Liberty and Freedom by voting and bringing in Ron Paul as our next President of the United States.

  • I’ve always thought if Ron Paul were so principled, why is he running as a Republican? The party platform is diametrically opposed to a good chunk of his views.

    Oh, that’s right- what other group would want low taxes, go-it-alone, GHWB-style voodoo economics, and is pro-life.

    The real story on Dr. Paul is up until recently he’s been an obscure Texas oil politician, following the GOP line in most respects. It’s only because of his radical views that the W crowd flows to him; they sneak out in the night to remove their Bush/Cheney 04 stickers and profess the next day to being a life-long Libertarians. It’s funny how few votes that party has gotten in the past, not to mention Dr. Paul’s limited support prior to this election cycle.

  • This posting is contradictory to the earlier one on RP. CB report blasted RP for its idiotic response to the conspiracy theory question in the debate. I agree not serious candidate would talk about the trilateral commission and the WTO controling our nutrients in a debate. He still spoke his mind (at the risk of loosing the vote of any mentaly sane human being). Now CB Report is saying that he is selling out on a mailing that was probably was sent at the same time of the debate? I don’t think he is selling out. I do think that he will continue to speak his mind. I may disagree (WTO,Nafta Highway, inmigration, abortion) but I respect the man.

  • There is no such thing as a Republican mainstream. The main “Republican” station on television, which supposedly represents mainstream Republicans, backs Hillary Clinton. The leading candidates on that side are stuggling to catch any kind of momentum. Mitt and Rudy spar, Fred is wood, McCain is insane just like Huckabee. None of those candidates represent actual Republicanism.

  • Comment #61 is way off base. The “W” crowd is most definitely NOT flocking to Ron Paul Mike goes on to contradict himself by saying that the party platform is diametrically opposed to RP’s views followed just a few inaccurate sentences later by a statement about Ron towing the GOP line. Even the last implications are incorrect as Ron Paul, as a tenth-term Texas Congressman, has not been on the national election stage. He mops up in his own district and has accumulated a large and loyal following over the past decade by pumping out more online reading material than any other politician. His support has not been limited, it’s just that we haven’t been able to go to Texas and vote for him in his district. A lot of things have changed since 1988.

  • Why is this such an important issue? No offense to South Carolina, but it’s not that critical to that State’s primary. What’s more important, is that this mailing confirms a pattern that we’ve seen here in South Texas.

    For years Ron Paul has been doing precisely the same thing with his tax-payer funded Congressional office mailings to constituents. They are all essentially campaign advertisements for Congressman Paul. There’s little if anything of substance in the 4-page pieces; just photos of F-14 fighter jets, aircraft carriers, Ron Paul meeting with Veterans, bold headlines that say, “Ron Paul supports our Troops,” and such.

    Now he’s using this exact same tactic in the Presidential race all the way in South Carolina.

    Who knows how this will affect the Presidential race. But if the Houston Chronicle catches wind of this, it could have a profound affect on Paul’s bid to win reelection to Congress.

  • On December 4th, 2007 at 3:30 pm, J Bradford said:

    Dr Paul wasn’t trying to deceive anyone – he has already sent out 4 mailers to South Carolina stating his position on the Iraq war. So now he sends out 1 with some of his other views, and he’s being deceitful? I think not. He’s trying to get some of his other viewpoints across to the voters.

    It seems to me the author of this article is the one being deceitful since they failed to mention the other mailers, with his Iraq viewpoints included, that were sent out. I guess this site is “becoming just like all the other slanted media outlets.”

    ————————————————————————————————————————-
    Funny how this post was completely ignored. Would like to see a response to it.

  • Comments are closed.