Skip to content
Categories:

Ron Paul As Conservative, Not Defender of Freedom

Post date:
Author:

Guest Post by Ron Chusid

Seeing Ron Paul debate his fellow Republicans on Iraq, and even criticize their lack of respect for civil liberties, brought Paul justifiably favorable attention. This has included the support of some liberals who have not looked carefully at Paul’s views beyond these issues. Paul has lost a considerable amount of respect the last few days after an article in The New Republic reported on the racist writings in his newsletter, but there were reasons for both liberals and libertarians to question Paul even before these revelations.

To bring those up to speed who might not have followed the events of past week, The New Republic‘s exposure of racist writings in Ron Paul’s newsletter was the final straw after which many libertarians who had previously ignored Paul’s past realized they must disassociate themselves from Paul if they wished to retain any credibility. I have quoted the responses of several libertarians here and here. Paul’s defense was that the articles were ghost written by others and that he had not read the articles. He also claimed that he disagreed with the views expressed.

Back in November I discussed how libertarians were beginning to dissociate themselves from Ron Paul, and even half jokingly suggested that Reason would eventually do so on its cover to differentiate themselves from Paul’s markedly non-libertarian views. This week Reason clearly did realize the danger to their reputation in being linked to Paul. This led to Reason doing investigative work to debunk Paul’s defense.

Reason has reviewed public statements from Paul over the years which are quite incriminating. At times Paul defended the writings, and the context of the news reports suggests Paul was aware of them even if a ghost writer assisted him. For example, the May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News contains this (emphasis mine): “Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.”

This hardly sounds like someone who is either denying that he wrote the articles or denying that he agrees with what is published. My post on this topic yesterday includes another quote from a libertarian, Megan McArdle, which further debunks the arguments of many of Paul’s supporters, as well as dismissing the question of whether it matters if Paul is personally a racist or enabling racism.

I’ve been following Ron Paul at Liberal Values for quite a while. Initially, despite some disagreements, I found aspects of his campaign to be of interest. Besides his views on Iraq and civil liberties, I saw Paul’s campaign as a sign of the general anti-government sentiment in the country, which liberals would be wise not to ignore. As I continued to follow Paul, and reviewed his writings well before The New Republic did, I found many disturbing aspects beyond the questions of racism.

One policy I generally followed in my criticism of Paul’s views was to hold him to a standard of supporting freedom, but generally ignored disagreements based upon basic libertarian views. We might disagree with Paul over issues such as eliminating certain government programs, but in discussing libertarians that goes with the territory. Such disagreements with liberals are to be expected. Objections are much more interesting when they pertain to areas in which the so-called libertarian’s views are contrary to principles of individual liberty.

Paul’s views are far better characterized as social conservatism with extreme support for states’ rights as opposed to libertarianism. Despite his reputation as a libertarian, Paul is actually hostile towards First Amendment rights where they conflict with his religious views. Besides the Iraq war, and related abuses in the “war on terror,” the greatest threat we now face to civil liberties comes from the religious right.

As I’ve previously noted, Paul has incorrectly claimed that, “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.” He has also supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, has co-sponsored the school prayer amendment, and supported keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn. Paul has both criticized secularism and claimed that the founding fathers envisioned a Christian America. Paul has supported the Sanctity of Life Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, and the Marriage Protection Act.

Paul’s views on abortion show both his lack of respect for the rights of the individual as well as how he is willing to ignore his principles on federalism to promote his personal views. Besides supporting the federal ban on so-called partial birth abortions, Paul has supported federal legislation to over ride state law which differentiates between a zygote and a fully developed human. I would expect someone with training in Obstetrics to be concerned about such scientific nonsense, but this is less surprising after hearing his views on creationism versus evolution.

Ron Paul supports a Constitution which is quite different from that envisioned by the framers. Besides failing to understand the intent to form a secular state, Paul’s views on federalism stem from a lack of understanding of the plan to have over-lapping sources of authority with blurred jurisdiction between federal and state power. Paul ignores the reasons why the framers supported a stronger federal government following the failings of the original Articles of Confederation.

Paul treats the Constitution almost as quasi-religious revelations as opposed to a political compromise made among men which would be expected to evolve over time. His view of the Constitution isn’t even shared by many libertarians, some of whom lean closer to the views of the nineteenth century individualist anarchist and abolitionist Lysander Spooner who rejects the authority of the Constitution upon individuals. Spooner’s works such as No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority remain worthy of reading by those interested in political philosophy regardless of whether you reject his conclusions.

The fight for liberty is an on going process, with the American Revolution and later establishment of our democracy being steps along the way. Few would return to the conditions of our early days when slavery was allowed and women were denied the right to vote. While some of the founding fathers wished to have the Bill of Rights extended to the states, this was a battle which had to be left for a later date. The Fourteenth Amendment ultimately extended such rights, but this view is rejected by Paul and many of his supporters.

The consequences of these views are of tremendous consequence. While traditional views of liberalism and libertarianism deal with rights as being inherent in the individual, Paul’s view of states’ rights leads in practice to a situation where state governments trump the rights of the individual. I discussed this a couple of weeks ago from the context of Paul’s view that state governments have the right to ban flag burning. Similarly, Paul’s views would have prevented the federal government from taking action against Jim Crow laws. With the Bill of Rights not being seen as applying to the states, any violation of our Constitutional liberties might be justified if coming from a source other than the federal government.

This also explains why extremist groups such as the white supremacist Stormfront have endorsed Ron Paul. They understand that, even if their views might differ from Paul’s personal views, Ron Paul’s philosophy of government would allow them the chance to impose their views upon others. It is far easier for extremist groups to receive a majority vote in a local area, or even an entire state, than nationally. A campaign which started with well-deserved opposition to the Iraq war has turned into one where the main freedom they are defending is the freedom to discriminate and oppress. Paul’s refusal to return a contribution from Stormfront founder Don Black was the point when many first recognized that there is something seriously wrong with Paul and his supporters who defend this. In addition, to see that he shares the xenophobia exhibited by his fellow Republicans, check out this ad which he ran on illegal aliens and those people from “terrorist nations.”

I’ve been criticizing Paul on these issues for several months. Thanks to all the talk around the blogosphere among libertarians following the story in The New Republic I find that some libertarian sites (such as here and here) have raised very similar objections. One question is where Ron Paul goes from here in light of having lost so much support among libertarians, along with the rare liberals who supported him based upon his opposition to the Iraq war. I’ve heard rumors even before this week that Paul is considering a third party run as the candidate of the Constitution Party which wants to “restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations.” I do not intend to report this as fact but as something to watch for.

Should Paul wind up the candidate of the Constitution Party it would provide further confirmation of my view that Paul is more a social conservative than a libertarian despite differing from social conservatives on issues such as legalization of drugs. Paul’s desire to appeal to such groups is certainly seen in this defense of him at LewRockwell.com. (Rockwell is a long time friend and former chief of staff to Paul. His web site is to Ron Paul what Fox News is to George Bush and Rudy Giuliani.) Regardless of what Paul does next, a full review of his views demonstrates that he has little to offer to either libertarians or anti-war liberals.

(Cross posted at Liberal Values)

Comments

  • Mayberry

    says:

    From Rons Website, written long ago:

    Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism.

    The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence – not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

    In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

  • Andy

    says:

    “Regardless of what Paul does next, a full review of his views demonstrates that he has little to offer to either libertarians or anti-war liberals.”

    And who is closest to your sacred views?

    What all of you should realize is even if the ideology does not match in perfect harmony, Dr. Paul is the closest with which you could negotiate in Congress with. None of the RINO or neodemacons will get you any closer to your goals and you fail to see the long road.

  • Chris

    says:

    “Paul’s views on abortion show both his lack of respect for the rights of the individual”

    Lack of respect for which individual? The irresponsible woman who chose to spread her legs, or the baby inside her that didn’t have a choice in the matter? Come on seriously, people that argue things like this act like its not going to be a baby when its born.. What else have women ever birthed besides human babies?? Nothing, so why not just tell the truth and call it an unborn baby, which is what it is.

    As far as him being a racist, if he was one, why would Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and Rosa Parks be his heroes? Maybe you should do a little more than look at one article written to pull support away from him. And if you dont think it was written for that sole reason, why did it come out just days before the NH primary when the newsletters were known about more than 10 yrs ago? Do a little research before you choose slander. And check out our next donation day @ http://www.freeatlast2008.com

  • Ed Stephan

    says:

    Too many right wingers mask their Inquisitorial instincts with what sound at first like libertarian slogan-thoughts. It’s freedom for them, tyranny for you.

    It’s like much Jesuitry during the counter-reformation and since, which draped itself in logic and reason but was, fundamentally, still theological iimperialism.

    The Jesuits then-new slogan was intelligo ut credam — loosely, I reason or think in order to find the true faith. Until then it had been credo ut intellligam — I believe iin or that I may know (truthfully). The trouble with both slogans is that reason and faith don’t have an intersect. If you and I accept a system of logic we can attempt to convince one another of the rightness of our inferences. There is no way (short of violence or the threat of it) that I can compel your belief.

    That’s why the genius Jefferson separated them constitutionally.

  • John

    says:

    Ridiculous! You are purposefully misleading your readers. You give no context of what the Dallas Morning News interview was about with, at a minimum, the headline of the article. You create your own context by simply taking one quote which contains a quote from Dr. Paul about something(?) he wrote if you can be trusted to accurately repeat the quote. You discredit yourself with distortion and misrepresentation so as to make it obvious of your bias against Dr. Paul. You have some interesting points which you could have given thoughtful discussion, but instead you write this garbage.

  • a Rocket Scientist

    says:

    The Constitution is a very specific document as to what the powers of the Federal government are. The best place to start is the much ignored Tenth Amendment. Try reading the constitution yourself sometime, it’s really not that complicated and doesn’t take a lawyer as Mitt Romney thinks. This Amendment hasn’t been repeal yet, and explain quite clearly the relationship between the Federal, State and “The People”.

    Your ignorance is showing. 🙁

    About more than just the Constitution.

  • truthseeker

    says:

    I can see the writer now going into the voting booth and excitedly hitting the push button for Rudy or possibly McCain as he anxiously awaits more wars and hyper inflation.

    Maybe in 4 or 8 more years after hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in more U.S. occupations- the writer can find a perfect libertarian to vote for .

  • Warren Silverwood

    says:

    How tall are you? Didn’t know they stacked crap that high! This is garbage fodder for mindless fools.

  • Devils Advocate

    says:

    I have really been struggling with these articles that were published and after careful consideration of the facts presented. James Kirchick is absolutely correct in his assessment. RP is a candidate that we would not want in the Whitehouse. The articles do have strong racial overtones and gay hysteria. Ron Paul did not pen them but he might as well have.

    America cannot tolerate, must not tolerate a President that would stop the war on drugs. Why would any reasonable person want a President to pardon these common criminals? We also must not tolerate a President that would prevent a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman and by proxy of the amendment declare gays as criminals. These dregs of our society deserving of the same punishment as those incarcerated on drug related charges.

    Thank you James Kirchick for your reasoning and logic for bringing these issues out into the open. Well done Kirchick, well done. Your bold vision of America is what we need. I now fully understand what you believe as truth. Racism and gay bashing must continue, it would be a tragic mistake to elect Ron Paul.

  • Chad_Underdonk

    says:

    #1 Your incriminating posts from 1996 are written by a reporter. Hello? What? How well have the reports been written this month in terms of bias? To presume that the phrasing of 1996 is no more biased than that of today is a bit presumptuous

    #2 Ron Paul may not be the “perfect” libertarian in your book. Regardless he is still the closest thing to a “true” libertarian in this race today, AND he is the only candidate to put forth these views while maintaining a snowballs chance in hell. He can only advance the cause of liberty, why distance yourself from him and deny him support?

    #3 Lets assume that Ron Paul won as an imperfect libertarian candidate. If this happened the debate would immediately be moved far closer to the libertarian positions than it has ever been. At that point you could comfortably raise any discrepancies with his platform and push the libertarian views further and farther than ever.

    #4 In my humble opinion it would be far better to support an imperfect candidate who helps you meet your political goals than to run him down and deny him support simply because he doesn’t meet the most stringent of standards.

    Libertarians will not find another candidate soon who will do so much to move the debate into their realm, they should welcome and support Dr. Paul, not vilify and divide themselves on whether or not he is worthy. This internal divisiveness has always been one of the greatest weaknesses (and conversely greatest strengths) that prevent the advancement of their own cause.

    Whether or not you want to split hairs with Dr. Paul, I ask that you the reader at least acknowledge to yourselves that he will do more for the cause of liberty than any other candidate in this race, and help him to if nothing else to further the debate about the future of this country rather than withdraw from him because of lesser disagreements on position.

  • dnA

    says:

    Ron, don’t you know if you say the words “Ron Paul” three times the Paulbots know exactly where to find you? It’s like putting on Sauroman’s ring.

    I wonder if Lyndon LaRouche is mad that Ron Paul stole all his crazy people.

  • charles ranalli

    says:

    how friggin’ boring.
    and how friggin’ predictable.
    why is it that every time somebody stands up for the people of this country
    (rather than the special interests and their lobbies)
    he gets accused of hating Blacks and Jews ?
    this is just laughable and Americans are laughing.
    charles ranalli
    albuquerque
    “not-a-bigot”

  • Alternative?

    says:

    Why drege this stuff up when the man has been consistent on his views of “change” positive, not like alTare supported by truth and truth hurts.
    Why would Dr. Paul advicate letting non-violent drug offenders out of jail and bringing our troops home immediately if 85 % are African American?

    This is the consistant candidate that will buy burkas from the Muslims (What is your opinon on John McCain’s racist statement 2 days ago?), Not more than a decade like Dr. Paul. I would like an email gtmair@yahoo.com

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cak5cX-l7s&feature=related

  • Baba Padmanabhan

    says:

    These are politically motivated allegations. Ron Paul is not a racist. These allegations are nothing more than the stunt they tried to pull last month, with a white supremist’s donation to Ron Paul campaign. As he gets more popular – this sort of attacks on him is only going to get worst. Brace yourselfs Ron Paul supporters.

  • dnA

    says:

    why is it that every time somebody stands up for the people of this country
    (rather than the special interests and their lobbies)
    he gets accused of hating Blacks and Jews ?

    Maybe because when you refer to “the people of this country” you mean “everyone but blacks and jews?”

    I really think George Romero needs to make a movie about Ron Paul.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    dNA,

    Ron, don’t you know if you say the words “Ron Paul” three times the Paulbots know exactly where to find you? It’s like putting on Sauroman’s ring.

    Sure, but without realizing it they tend to prove my point. It’s actually incredible what a number of his supporters have written in response to my posts in the past. (Obviously Paul cannot necessarily be blamed for the views of his supporters where they exceed him in extremism and support for racism).

    It only takes one mention, as some of Paul’s supporters have nothing better to do than sit around and follow links to any site talking about Paul. Actually, at least based upon my experiences at Liberal Values (and others have also noted this), the frequency of Paul supporters trolling the blogosphere has fallen tremendously since he did so poorly in Iowa. Many of his supporters actually believed their own claims that he would win.

  • RaferJanders

    says:

    I keep hearing “YOUR LYING SACK OF CRAP” you do yourself proud, we the people are sick of it and you think it is bad now? Can you imagine another 100 years in Iraq, the man Dr. Paul is not a racist he is a Doctor with a truth style of doing business, how dare you slander a man of his impecable record. But the Josef goebbels school of journalism is alive and well, hope that works well for you.

  • doubtful

    says:

    Ron Paul supports the (un)FairTax which, in my book, is nothing short of treason, anyway. Ultimately, his goal is strip all power away from the Federal government. I think he draws his rabid followers from the overlap in the Venn diagram of people who hate paying taxes and like smoking pot.

    Who knew they’d also be Google savvy?

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    Besides failing to understand the intent to form a secular state, Paul’s views on federalism stem from a lack of understanding of the plan to have over-lapping sources of authority with blurred jurisdiction between federal and state power.

    I know you’re trying to be charitable but I refuse to believe that Paul “fails to understand” the framer’s intent because that implies he’s making an unintended error.

    Nope, nope, nope. Due to the disaster of the past seven years, failure/inability to understand the Constitution is no longer acceptable from anyone who seeks an office higher than village idiot.

    He’s another braying jackass who is intentionally lying about this nation’s most important document. Just another ReThuglican hack who is trying to appeal to the TalEvan and the more reasonable elements of who ever still considers themselves a Republican.

    Fuck him. This country needs another Christianist in the White House like it needs a bigger hole in the economy.

    Now, about the so-called Paul-Bots here. This is the second or third Paulattack I’ve seen here and I’ve come to the conclusion that these people work for someone else’s campaign. Their mission: To make all things Paul related seem c-rrraaaazy.

    Look guys, you do a great job but you need to cut it out. And anyway Guliani isn’t paying you squat, so why not get a real job?

  • Will

    says:

    As usual, combining the words “Ron”, “Paul” and any sort of verb brings out his rabid enthusiastic supporters who all claim to be so much more level headed and reasoned than the rest of us…

  • RonChusid

    says:

    Will,

    What is even more absurd than their claims of being more reasoned is their claims of supporting freedom or defending the Constitution. Their form of freedom is hardly what most people would consider freedom, and as I noted they support an interpretation of the Constitution which is not based upon the actual document.

    Besides, if we really had a situation where one, and only one candidate supported freedom while the others supported tyranny, or if we really had a situation where only one candidate supported the Constitution, I would expect such candidate to have the support of more than 4% in the polls.

  • sickntired

    says:

    Are these really YOUR thoughts or were you forced to write this crap? I can’t belive the mass halucination taking place in the MSM. When is your sense of right and wrong going to override your greed and fear of whoever is controlling your thoughts?

  • HairlessMonkeyDK

    says:

    Ah, the PaulSuckers show up again, a moaning mob of miscreants.
    Ever notice how they don’t really answer/defend what they come to scream about?
    They just hurl insults.
    Hell, if the insults were only -funny- then it might be okay, but no…

  • Ed Stephan

    says:

    It’s as if “ron paul” is a strange infectious germ which, once it appears in a comment, attracts those already infected, after which you have a page full of gibberish. I think the Centers for Disease Control should be alerted. If there isn’t an inoculant by now they should get on it at once.

  • HairlessMonkeyDK

    says:

    ” 27. On January 12th, 2008 at 8:10 pm, sickntired said:
    Are these really YOUR thoughts or were you forced to write this crap? I can’t belive the mass halucination taking place in the MSM. When is your sense of right and wrong going to override your greed and fear of whoever is controlling your thoughts?”.

    Take your medication.
    No, wait a minute…
    Look behind you! THEY ARE COMING FOR YOU! RUUUUN!

    Sheesh…

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    Hey Ron C. . .

    When is your sense of right and wrong going to override your greed

    Just how much is Steve paying you to cover for him? 🙂

    [I wont even venture into the irony of libertarians, whose entirely philosophy is driven by the desire to keep all of their money and not pay any taxes that might help a fellow citizen, suggesting someone else is greedy.]

  • maxgmp

    says:

    So the shark attack feeding frenzy continues. This article is complete garbage. You think Ron Paul is a racist? Show me one quote out of his mouth that shows even the slightest bit of racism or bigotry. You simply can’t. You have no proof except the stupid newsletters. Paul has consistently denouced these writings over the years. He has steadfastly denied writing them and knowing about them. You are a sleazy, uneducated reporter. You don’t want to focus on the real issues in the campaign such as the impending economic crisis. You want to nitpick this silly stuff from the past to try to smear Ron Paul. You are pathetic.

  • DenisL

    says:

    Paul lent his name to a small newsletter for a short time that he did not edit, while he was out of politics and concentrating on delivering babies. I look at it as running an unmoderated blog in the days before the internet. The writing style was not Ron Paul’s. In his newsletters since being back in Congress, he is clearly in charge and they are wonderful to read. Clearly Paul is the most vehement anti-racist, anti-sexist, pro-individual, and pro-gay rights person in Congress. He ran as a Libertarian Presidential candidate for gosh sakes. The New Republic did not even contact Ron Paul to talk to him about their story and they did not seem to know that it had been discussed ad nauseum several times over the years and dismissed as not reflecting Ron Paul’s beliefs. The New Republic, if you will remember, compared Ross Perot to Hitler! Ron Paul is a good man being smeared for political reasons.
    Check out this website for the CNN interview with Ron Paul about this where all is explained:
    Hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/hotline_after_d_323.html

  • Chuck

    says:

    Your article is a combination of pointless smear, misrepresentation, and attack in the form of vague, vague generalities. Which of Paul’s stated views do you actually disagree with and why? I can’t tell. I’ll still take the candidate who wants to save this country from the creeping socialism of the left and the police state tactics of the (new) right. He must be gaining traction or people like you wouldn’t be stooping to this level to try and take him down.

  • Diogenes of Sinope

    says:

    Now is the time to rise! I’m a Yankee Doodle Paultard!

    Long Live Dr’s Martin Luther King (PhD) and Ronald Earnest Paul (MD)!

    Take to the streets on 1/21 after donating at least 10 of their evil dollars.

    “I have found an honest man.”

    Diogenes of Sinope

  • doubtful

    says:

    Honestly, if he’s not a racist, as so many of these cultists suggest, then you have to believe him: they were ghost written for him, and never read by him.

    That suggests someone who is too incompetent and doesn’t possess the attention to detail required to be President.

    Paulites, you can’t win here. He’s either racist or stupid. I’m actually thinking a little of both.

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    He must be gaining traction

    psst – hey Chuck! Um, hate to break it to ya, but he came in, like 5th in libertarian-friendly New Hampshire — and not significantly different that evangelical-friendly Iowa. if he didn’t catch on there, his campaign may be in traction, but it ain’t gaining traction.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    zeitgeist,

    Just how much is Steve paying you to cover for him

    When I’ve had posts like this at Liberal Values there have frequently been comments asking what corporation or other group paid me to write negative things about Paul. (I haven’t read all the comments here as they tend to make the same lame arguments repeatedly, so perhaps I missed the same today.)

    (Time to go try out the company Porsche that Steve is loaning me while I’m covering. I also have really enjoyed the masseuse as well as the open bar at Carpetbagger HQ 🙂 )

    I’ve also had some Paul supporters accuse me of placing the posts so that people will click on my ads and I could make money. First of all, except for the largest blogs I doubt such ads make anyone any money. Secondly, making this even more absurd, they didn’t even bother to note that I don’t place any advertising on my blog. Reality checks is a difficult concept for many of them.

    “I wont even venture into the irony of libertarians…” Keep in mind a tremendous number of Paul supporters are not libertarians, but are right wingers who think the term is cooler. Many of his supporters don’t even claim to be libertarians, and even Paul has not been using the label as when he was the LP candidate.

  • Robert Valdez

    says:

    Ron Paul’s voting record speaks for itself. He is the most upfront and principled member of Congress.

    Attacks against Ron Paul by every leftwing/marxist/neocon reporter do not help the minorities that are the issue of these attacks. The attacks are to further the leftwing/marxist/neocon agenda, not to help any minority. Ron Paul has outlined numerous ways to help all Americans and certain minorities that are not being addressed by the other candidates.

    These attacks show which reporters have allegiance to other agendas and that such reporters do not seek to aid the minorities at issue here.

  • cole

    says:

    Now what I find interesting Mr. Chubin…is why you are the main writer of so many of the negative things about Ron Paul. You have written no less then 5 different articles about how Ron Paul’s racism has turned off Libertarians. I can understand one well written article such as this one…but going to your website at the liberalvaluesblog and seeing a lot of article of Ron Paul’s Racism next to articles speaking in glowing admiration of Obama…well it sounds like you may not have ever approached this with the most open mind.

    To guess what is in a Man’s heart is impossible. I think only Ron Paul will ever know if he is a racist…trying to guess what is in his head is impossible. What I can see is Ron Paul’s record, and Obama’s record. In other words i can judge by their actions, and their thoughts belong to themselves. Ron Paul has consistently opposed the two most racist laws currently on the books: the war on drugs and minimum wage laws. As far as i know Obama has not claimed he is against either law, and judging by his political position i can assume he will support them.

    Now on one hand I have a candidate fighting racist laws and being accused of racism. On the other hand I have a candidate who is black yet shows no noticeable support for ending laws that encourage racism. That really is not a very hard choice in my mind to make. Ron Paul supports ending the most harmful outlet of racism-government laws that allow for discrimination.

    Actions speak louder then words In my opinion…and Ron Paul has taken clear action against racism, and is only accused of using racist words.

  • Retrocon

    says:

    Yawn. Dr. Paul is not a bigot, nor a racist. What is your reaction to his Wolf Blitzer interview, during which he explained himself? What do you think of the irreverent comments that some of the candidates made regarding Muslims during the SC GOP Debate on Faux News? There are bigots competing for the GOP nomination, but unfortunately for you Dr. Paul is not one of them.

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    I think the Centers for Disease Control should be alerted.

    The Pauldramada Strain.

    I’m still convinced these guys work for another campaign. They sound dumber than Bush’s remaining supporters (all 25 of them) yet they still manage to operate a computer.

    Does not compute.

  • Tess

    says:

    Wow! Are you saying he does not follow the Constitution, I did not read that in your hit piece did I? Now I can’t vote for Ron Paul……NOT!!!!

    I know you all need someone to read your articles, but please give it up already!!!
    I will support and vote for Ron Paul, and the reason is plain and simple, he is change for our country, which right now we need more than any of the same the others are offering. He is the only one that will do what he says, he is the only one with the voting record to prove it as well.

  • Nunya Business

    says:

    I really appreciate publications and journalist such as yourselves exposing yourselves for who you truly are. This is one of the greatest side effects of the Ron Paul revolution. No one will forget who was with us and who was against us.

  • Scott

    says:

    I was reading along, and more and more I was questioning whether I should be supporting Ron Paul, and then I started looking at all the links the columnist provided. Then the links showed Dr. Paul’s own writings and him speaking, and I was brought back from the liberal spin that can turn an unborn child into a thing called a zygote that can be killed without remorse because you just don’t know what a zygote might turn into if left to move into another phase of growth and mutation.

    In a long-winded way you are trying to deceive readers into believing that Ron Paul doesn’t stand for individual liberty and freedom when even your own provided links tell otherwise, not to mention the more clearer stated links you didn’t provide that spell it out loud and clear like this one for example: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8 Sure Ron Paul is a conservative, but not one like you have ever seen before, just look at how people are struggling and failing to stick him in a party.

    Another thing, he’s not about to try to force my kid to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school with the unintended words “under God” added to Edward Bellamy’s original version. If his school tries tries anytime in the future I will step in as a parent and object and/or I will tell my son to peacefully object which he will have the right in this country to do, especially under Ron Paul’s guidance.

    I love the anti-spam measure though

  • beep52

    says:

    Great post, Ron. To borrow a phrase that Huckabee borrowed the other evening, ‘you must be over the target to be drawing so much flak.’

    OT: Didn’t follow all your links, but did read your post about “the general anti-government sentiment in the country, which liberals would be wise not to ignore.” The term “big government” has been so abused that I find it essentially meaningless. What size should government be when it comes to something like Katrina, or the voting rights section of DOJ, or FDA enforcement of lead in toys, or mine safety? Does outsourcing to private contractors functions that were previously civil service constitute a reduction in the size of government? Is a flag burning amendment or the ten commandments in a courthouse an intrusion big government? Interesting questions worth discussing sometime.

  • Rob Lilly

    says:

    Beside RP naively lending his name to some scum-bags who have long since been disowned, there is no story here.

    We have another money Bomb scheduled for M.L. King birthday, (a holiday RP voted for the establishment of, back in the 80’s I might add).

    Go RP ’08

  • margaret harnish md

    says:

    ANYONE who argues that women do not have the right to contraception ,regardless of his opinion of abortion choice, is not fit proponent of the Constitution. Unless, of course, women are not people.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    Will you southern-fried braindead Paulies just go fuck yourselves back somewhere else, you halfwitted morons.

    Sig Heil! Herr Doktor Paul!!!!

  • Steve

    says:

    When you point to his views on evolution, I think you are missing the point. He said that he doesn’t believe that either side is right. Yes, he implied that he believes in creation, but the response you show doesn’t prove that he is anti-evolution. He is merely stating that he believes in creation, but that we aren’t at the point where we can understand it (from a creation or evolution point of view).

    I think it was a very smart respone – and that’s coming from someone who STRONGLY endorses evolution. But who also thinks that it did start somewhere! 😉

  • Joe allen

    says:

    The New York based, highest circulation libertarian periodical in America has joined the racist smear dog-pile on Ron Paul, or maybe they started it. It seems pretty damn suspicious Kirchick went out of his way to absolve The “libertines” at Reason and the “urbane libertarians” at Cato from any connection to Dr. No in his original TNR hitpiece.

    CATO is a beltway think tank. Both Cato and Reason have said from the beginning that Dr. Paul “can’t win,” so now they have a huge incentive to try to make their predictions come true. Funny also how the newsletters were unearthed from the Univesity of Kansas library, the university where Charles Koch, CATO funder, is a major patron.

    They also guarantee themselves facetime on every cable news program in the country where they can spin their cowardly abandonment of the most pro-freedom candidate in decades as independence. They are so pure, that for them any libertarian candidate pragmatic enough to get elected is not idealistic enough to be worthy of office. The are shocked, SHOCKED to discover that the dumb things printed in old Ron Paul newsletters–things they have been aware of for months if not years– were actually not ALL of the dumb things.
    What’s different about the new revelations? The context! Candidate Paul is gaining traction, so now his decades-old, well aired editorial lapse of judgement is evidence that he is dangerous, not quaint. But wait, if he can’t win, why is he so dangerous?

    Letting a bunch of xenophobic rot appear in his old newsletters actually does reveal something about Ron Paul. It reveals that he faults on the side of trusting people too much, rather than not enough. As a publisher, he foolishly trusted his editor to actually edit. Letting this go on for years is evidence that he is too tolerant of people and ideas he does not agree with. He has insufficient support for the thought police that keep this country on the track it is on. He naively believes that exposing people to unpopular ideas is beneficial, not harmful and that people can detect faulty reasoning for themselves.

    It’s a good thing he can’t win.

  • Charles

    says:

    So Ron Paul’s fault is that “he trusted people too much” — yeah, that’s a real goood thing in a President.

    Reagan trusted Olile North — and we got Iran Contra.

    Bush trusts Cheney too much.

    Oh, yeah, we really need sombody like this.

  • paulite

    says:

    What’s interesting is not the story itself, but to watch the media, working as one, pushing a 15-year-old story that’s been readily available to them for years, as “breaking news.”

    When our information sources are ultimately controlled by five mega-corporations, they can whip up a story out of thin air and tell us exactly how we feel about any given candidate. Just think if this piece was about the fact that Giuliani is considered a fraud and a coward by NY firemen? You people would automatically be up in arms about that, wouldn’t you? What if the corporations decided to whip up a story about Hillary’s extremely shady past with Bill (complete with body count)? Gee, then you people would be outraged about that. How about Marge Shoedinger? She actually filed charges against GW Bush and accused him of rape and brutality, and then she “committed suicide”. Let the corporations break that story …

    You see, when our information sources are bought and sold, a few people can calmly decide what you’ll spend your time and energy on. They can withhold terrible truths, and they can turn trivialities into grand melodramas–as you see here.

    So they’ve handed you 15-year-old photo copies, and now you lab rats can get outraged on cue, and respond according to the program, and only think about what you’re instructed to think about.

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    We have another money Bomb scheduled for M.L. King birthday

    Because nothing shows a commitment to civil rights more than monetary exploitation of Dr. King’s legacy!

  • FormerNeoCon

    says:

    On January 12th, 2008 at 9:24 pm, margaret harnish md said:
    ANYONE who argues that women do not have the right to contraception…

    Who is arguing against a woman’s right to “contraception” (the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices)? Once a child is conceived, “contraception” no longer applies.

    I applaud the defense of “life, liberty and property.”

  • Flo

    says:

    You guys are really pushing this. Google Hillary Racsim, Obama Racism, Huckabee Racism, Guliani Racism, and on and on and on………..Every candidate is attacked like this. Most people have given up reading the non-sense because most of us see through it, the rest would just prefer to wallow in mud. Go ahead google any candidate you want and I guarentee someone attacked them as a racist. No truth to it. People are cruel for their own selfish gain. I would almost bet the person holding the newsleters wrote them and waited to try to use them for blackmail. Some people have conscience, character, or integrity.

  • American Citizen

    says:

    Keep trying Mr. Chusid, it is having the negative effect.

    The REVOLUTION is going to last 50 years. We are NOT going away. You get it?
    I didn’t have your name in the list yet, but it is on it now.

  • Anthony

    says:

    Thanks for telling me my opinion, I wasn’t sure what to think. Now it’s so clear. I will be sure to come back here the next time I wonder what I should be thinking and turn on Fox News so they can tell me too.

  • Lars

    says:

    You are entitled to your views and you can spread them online. Even if they are not true. This is the kind of freedom Ron Paul is fighting to protect.

    The Government is working on limiting the free speech on the Internet. I found your article at http://www.WhatTheySayAboutRonPaul.com. Let’s elect a man who has a record of protecting these rights that we take for granted.

    The economy and housing markets are crashing because of ridicules economic policies and people are being killed in Iraq year after year – for what?

    We need less Government intervention and Ron Paul has a proven record of this position.

  • Steve

    says:

    Probably the best thing about a piece such as this one is having the ability to sit back and enjoy the view, as yet another collective of timid little Paulophiles wail out in terror—as they look up and see the napalm raining down upon their snippy, minuscule parade.

    Ron Paul is a liar, a cheat, and a thief—he votes against earmarks for his own district, yet apparently is too stupid to realize that the only way an earmark for his district can make it into a funding bill is if the home representative—that would be Ron Paul, since we’re talking about Ron Paul’s home district—places it in the legislation. Willfully withholding the truth from one’s constituents is a lie. Employing such a subterfuge to gain political support is to cheat one’s constituency of their right to that truth. And to take the truth from the constituency—a truth rightfully deserved, as it is the constituency that pays for it to be delivered to them via their duly-elected representative—is theft.

    Ron Paul is also demonstrably two-faced; claiming on the one hand to be against both “fiat money” and white supremacist organizations—while accepting fiat money from—yes, you guessed it—white supremacist organizations. As long as he openly refuses to turn down funding from such overtly-racist organizations, he places himself in allegiance with them by “known financial association.”

    And finally, it is becoming all too clear that the “grassroots effort” for Ron Paul is, indeed, a figment of the imagination. Had it been real, the pro-Paul replies to threads such as this would be in the thousands, rather than the dozens—as would the events attendance by actual bodies. “Money Bomb” fundraising efforts can take in cash pledges from anywhere and anyone, allowing total anonymity as to what individual or group is donating, or how clean that money is. But it cannot amass physical bodies at events, or in polling surveys, or in voting booths. To promote the success of receiving 8% of the vote, for example, is to throw a blanket over the fact that 92% voted against the candidate-in-question. With an approval rating that low, all I can say is “it must really suck to have an approval rating lower than Dick Cheney’s….”

  • SpeakingObjectively

    says:

    Before you think this is a Ronulan or Paultard flame, it’s not. I just think he’s getting screwed, and frankly having some asses write things with your name plastered across the top INVITES a whipping, but the other side of it is, he’s getting screwed twice because of the following reasons I hope you’ll read about….oh and yes, I do cite reputable links.

    Personally I lean towards Thompson on some days, other days McCain, except he wants to camp out in Iraq for 50 years – he’s on video saying it – and other days Paul. Wish I could make one candidate out of all three…but anyway….

    Before the days of electronic identity theft, or posing as someone else on a website (I lost count at about 18 or so “Hillary” or “Hillary Clinton” myspace profiles with her photo), people did things like dumpster diving, for correspondence, letter head, or credit cards. People also had to want to pose as someone else in some cases to reap the reward of whatever it is that person had in mind with that information or that “identity”. to conceal themselves behind.

    Does that include stupid people who write idiotic, racist, things on some else’s newsletter template with the words Ron Paul’s name printed across the top. Sounds easy, especially if you didn’t have the dumpster dive for the letter head.

    Also, how many have his name in the byline (not the letterhead) as you review each newsletter?

    He says he didn’t write them. And as I read these newsletters, it doesn’t “sound” like his writing or speaking style. Did you notice that?

    Speaking of sound, you can hear him speaking on the floor of the house…wait about a minute or two, and you’ll see why he admires Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks. He has conviction for holding them in high regard. He has a motive for liking them.

    http://recap.fednet.net/archive/Buildasx.asp?sProxy=80_hflr052207_141.wmv,80_hflr052207_142.wmv,80_hflr052207_143.wmv,80_hflr052207_144.wmv,80_hflr052207_145.wmv,80_hflr052207_146.wmv&sTime=00:04:42.0&eTime=00:04:18&duration=00:24:27.0&UserName=jenni&sLocation=&sExpire=1

    So I’m a skeptic for the two reasons, and for the following…

    Just for the hell of it, I took time to read some things. Here are dozens of Congressman’s Pauls House testimonies that are written down and recorded, which I think qualifies as a real byline don’t you think?

    http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml

    Also, for the hell of it, click on the “sponsored” buttons. These dozens of H.R. bills might be the reason he seems “odd”? to the political environment in the
    beltway? Seems to be standing up for something doesn’t he?

    Now, what did he vote against that might seem like a problem and prove
    he’s a racist?

    Well, voting against a bill that wanted to award a gold medal to Rosa Parks, of course:

    Against Rosa Parks Gold Medal
    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr042099.htm

    But then he voted against these other medals too (his reason? Congress shouldn’t spend taxpayers money…I don’t agree with him…but that his reason in his own words)

    Against Ronald Reagan Gold Medal
    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040300.htm

    Against Tony Blair Gold Medal
    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr062503.htm
    The full text is eye opening…do a Control-F for Mr. Paul
    http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=0718227435+32+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

    Against the Dalai Lama Gold Medal (do a Control-F for Mr. Paul)
    http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=0716719158+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

    He was against the Pope’s Gold Medal too. There’s more like these if you have a few hours to kill.

    And before you think his reasons for not awarding gold medals was somehow missed, here’s the Washington Post putting that Paul mind set in perspective

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966.html

    Finally:

    Here’s some articled that I found useful to help me understand what is going on with this:

    Kirchick’s (cut and pasted) email exchange with Log Cabin Republicans:

    http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html

    A balanced, well researched, (not perfect) blog article about the situation:

    http://www.redpills.org/?p=728

  • Ryan

    says:

    The Racism is bogus http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/01/ron_paul_newsletters_become_ca.html It’s already been mentioned that he was advised in 1996 to accept them as his own because it would confuse the people, but they were not his.

    And even if Ron Paul has a few inconsistencies, he is far and beyond any of the other candidates. If you were to compare dirt and inconsistencies from all the candidates because that’s what were really doing, picking the lesser of two evils. Ron Paul would look like an Angel, and in my opinion is the only candidate that can get us out of trouble. I mean America is essentially bankrupt. We are 53 trillion dollars in debt if you look at everything and what does that tell you? Broke!

  • Ryan

    says:

    Steve, and who are you for? Because I would gaurantee that I could find more dirt on any other of the candidates that would make Ron Paul look like a god even if the Racism crap was true, which it’s not and has been proven so…

    So before you go making comments that really don’t make any damn sense. I think maybe you need to learn more about all the candidates.

  • Charles

    says:

    The national debt is 9 trillion, not 53 trillion. Ron Paul’s excuse that “he was advised to take responsibility because otherwise it would confuse his constituents” illustrates that he’s an idiot. Anybody who would take advice like that is NOT someone I want for President. Or dog-catcher.

  • Retrocon

    says:

    To all of the “Tom Cleavers” and “Steve”s out there…please try bending over and saying “pop” really loudly as you stand up. Did it work? Wake up, and get a clue. If you love America, you’d better do it soon.

  • ringmaster

    says:

    last night i commented on an article by jack c from cnn on the question of who would by the best candidate to handle the economic situation. it took a paragraph to explain. tonite i read this, and it will not take a paragraph. while your readers piss and moan about the BS (gossip) you have encouraged without a shred of evidence, its your deception, that keeps them at bay, not realizing that the things that truly matter in this country are going to hell in a handbasket. how you keep a position at the carpetbagger is mindboggling.

    yeah and i’m all for Dr Paul, even if he might have a age spot here or there.
    stop the non-sense and get your acts together folks

  • mike jonson

    says:

    You act like e scared CFR member and most likely are! ron paul did not even write the remarks your pointing at . Stick to the issue at hand,ALL the canidates CFR member with secret agendas toward One World Goverment exceipt Ron Paul and Kucinich! WAKE-UP!

  • Retrocon

    says:

    Charles, please feel free to heed the advice I mentioned above. The figure I’ve seen is roughly 46 trillion, and it isn’t just the “national debt.” Do some research.

    Estimated Fiscal Exposures ($trillions)
    2000 2005
    EXPLICIT LIABILITIES $ 6.9 $ 9.9
    Publicly held debt
    Military & civilian pensions & retiree health
    Other
    COMMITMENTS & CONTINGENCIES 0.5 0.9
    E.g., PBGC, undelivered orders
    IMPLICIT EXPOSURES 1 3.0 35.6
    Future Social Security benefits
    Future Medicare Part A benefits
    Future Medicare Part B benefits
    Future Medicare Part D benefits
    TOTAL $20.4 $46.4
    _______________________________________________________________________
    Source: U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements (CFS).
    Note: Estimates for Social Security and Medicare are at the present value as of January 1 of each year as reported in the CFS and all other data are as of September 30.
    Government Accountability Office (GAO)

  • Steve

    says:

    According to the Houston Chronicle, Paul’s excuse (in May 1996) was that his comments came in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” Now, more than 11-and-a-half years later, the same individual replies to the same question with a completely different excuse, and tries to hide behind his “campaign aides.” The link series leading back to the Chronicle quotes are actually part of the NPR story linked by Ryan @#33.

    Using “campaign aides” as human shields for his actions in 1996; using his “online fan club” as human shields in 2008. The man looks more like Saddam Hussein every day now, doesn’t he?

    At least he’s consistent—but then again, so is the model of irresponsible, sub-simian stupidity that “Ron Paul’s Political Party” has installed in the WH right now….

  • ringmaster

    says:

    ah charles, before you comment get your facts. the comptroller general of the US david walker said in a interview 53 TRILLION in future obligations as of today. and lets suppose hes even off a little. would 9 TRILLION make you feel better?

  • CaptJP

    says:

    It sounds to me as though the worship of Ron Paul is as serious a mental illness as Islam, Judism and Christianity.

  • Rhys

    says:

    lol Ron Chusid, I couldn’t even get through your article. You pundit types gotta quit thinking, you’re real bad at it.

    Everyone recognizes this attack on Ron Paul for what it is, lies. He didn’t write it, he apologized for not knowing it was written, and he’s not a racist.

    The only people who are bitching are the same ones who were bitching anyway.

    And that guy devil’s advocate, I’ve read that exact comment on like 4 websites now. Why are you going around trying to act like a former Ron Paul supporter who now realized you were wrong? You seem like Eric Donaroo or whoever that guy is that Dr. Paul fired and now he goes around the net smearing him. I think it’s you. Same copy/paste stuff.

  • Joe Schnabel

    says:

    Whats worse- letting states decide whats worse (mother not having baby or bringing unwanted baby into world), or continuing a war that has killed 150,000 civilians, injured 50,000 americans, continue 100 years with McCain, and cost thousands per taxpayer, fanning islam hatred of US as Obamma points out.

    We need to get out of iraq and stop top officials from debating about abortion for another 30 years. Let troops build mexican fense, and help develope alternative energy.
    If the other rich candidates worked real jobs (not 20 days a year for $150K), they wouldn’t want the goverment wasting our money either. Go Ron Paul.
    I’m donating on Kings Birthday!

  • Al_B

    says:

    Ron,

    I do not condone the the personal attacks I am reading on this site. Some do seem fanatical to me.

    However, I do disagree with your article and find it interesting that the two links I followed from your writing actually contradicted your own point. I can’t speak to the racist accusation since I haven’t researched it yet. However, you state that Dr. Paul is “hostile towards First Amendment rights” and gave links to “keeping ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance” and “co-sponsored the school prayer amendment”. When I followed those links and read what was written I must admit, it was a head scratcher. I am trying to understand your viewpoint but I am unable to. His position is crystal clear to me, or should I say my interpretation. He is truly supporting the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…..” There is nothing in the First Amendment that states government shall enforce freedom “from” religion. Dr. Paul is advocating that the federal government be neither for nor against, but simply stay out of it.

    I do not know if the rest of your links are the same, but I have to say that what I did read makes me wonder if you are simply confused or have your own agenda against Ron Paul. No personal attacks or name calling here. However I will raise questions when I read suspect logic as fact.

    Al_B

  • Brandon

    says:

    These smear campaigns are so funny. Why don’t you go write about Giulliani doing business with terrorists in the middle east or dodging the draft for Vietnman, or Mc Cain saying we will be in Iraq for 100 years or Mitt Romney dodging the draft with his religion…. Yes, apparently these things don’t matter lol! Let’s talk about stupid news articles even though he is for ending the Drug War which would be the best thing anyone has done for the blacks since MLK. And let’s say he doesn’t respect the individual by protecting State Rights as the Constitution attended when over-turning Roe v. Wade and allowing the States to choose what their policies are. In a free society as envisioned by our founders, that was the way. State governments, not federal. This is just another lame attempt to undermine Paul, pay no attention to this, Ron Paul ’08

  • independent thinker

    says:

    I have to disagree with one part of # 12 Devils Advocate’s post: “America cannot tolerate, must not tolerate a President that would stop the war on drugs.”

    Here are some reasons why I believe the drug war is a failed policy:

    1- As long as people want drugs, then someone WILL supply them.
    2- Criminalizing drugs creates a black market for them and grossly inflates their value.
    3- People will KILL to earn profits from those grossly inflated profits.
    4- Criminalizing drugs puts people in prison who should be treated for addiction.
    5- Criminalizing drugs means we cannot control the quality of the product. At least if they are legal, then we can regulate what is in them. During prohibition MANY people went blind or lost their lives from bathtub booze. That doesn’t happen now that alcohol is legal and regulated.
    6- Billions of dollars are WASTED in a futile effort to keep drugs out.Conversely billions of dollars could be RAISED by taxing drugs.
    7- The overcrowding of our prisons can in large part be attributed to non-violent drug possession crimes. So rather than building more and more prisons to house victimless criminals we should be treating these folks like the afflicted people they are.

    I could write more, but this is enough. What we have now is modern Prohibition. The truth is criminalizing drugs creates FAR MORE problems than the drugs do.

  • Jason

    says:

    Libertarians believe in individualism, respecting all walks of life, as We were all created equal, and have God given rights, or you can call them human rights if your a non-believer. Respecting even when you disagree or dislike a person. Very admirable for Paul to accept the responsiblilty for not paying attention to what was being written under his name, and I think it was impossible for those words to come from him. Why doesnt he attack others like they attack him? He probably has the respect for the others individuality attributes. Although he does point out ridulous statements such as Romney’s answer about “Talking to the lawyers before going to war,” and Paul stated that you don’t talk to lawyers – you talk to congress and get congressional approval. Or McCains warmongering and wanted to keep troops in the mid-east for 100 years. The SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, the CONSTITUTION, would be broken if these statements had follow through.

    Here is from my citizens rule book,
    “In 1776 we came out of bondage with faith, understanding and courage. Even against great odds, and with much bloodshed, we battled our way to acheive liberty. Liberty is that delicate area between the FORCE of government and FREEWILL of man. Liberty brings Freedom of choice to work, to trade, to go and live where one wishes; it leads to abundance. Abundance, if made an end in itself, will result in complacency wich leads to apathy. Apathy, is the ‘let George do it,’ philosophy. This always brings dependancy. For a period of time dependants are often not aware that they are dependant. They delude themselves by thinking that they are still free — ‘We never had it so good,’ — ‘We can still vote, CANT WE’? Eventually abundance diminshes and DEPENDANCY becomes known by its true nature: BONDANGE!!!! ”

    First time voting, and voting for Paul. My apathy was cured, and I study everyday, due to my passion with freedom and watching everyday another freedom gets thrown out the window.

    “THe sleeper has awoken” – Frank Herberts — DUNE

    “Born we are the same, beneath this dying land, indiffernce be thy name” — Warrel Dane/ Nevermore —

    Think it ain’t illegal yet!!! Or is it? G.W. Just signed unconstitutional bill against freedom of speech.

    Here is spam bot caught 🙂
    http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1957558327&size=o

  • Jeff

    says:

    I love how the media quotes each other articles on subjects and offers those views up as support for their articles. Hey here’s my interpretation on so-and-so’s misinterpretation on so-and so’s interpretation on Kirchick’s inflammatory opinions who shot his credibility in the foot on Tucker Carlson’s show for every fool journalist to see. But still he is given a free pass by other journalists. I haven’t seen one article that has investigated Kirchick’s acquaintances or his political bias. You guys police your own like politicians do.

    Why research and develop an opinion of your own when you can just put other peoples articles together to create you own Mr. Potatohead article and pass it off as original?

    Four or more reporters on any given subject can effectively condemn anyone these days. Who needs a justice system?

    If the media did this to everyone nobody would ever be president and even if Ron Paul came out and said he hated midgets, blacks, kittens and cuddly domesticated rodents he would still be the the lesser of the evils we have to choose from. There is damn little anyone can believe anymore when it comes out of the mouth, or a keyboard, of a journalist or a politician. I don’t even trust pro Paul journalists anymore. All of you are opportunistic biased liars trying to pass yourselves off as just the opposite. Fortunately for you widespread critical thinking in the country is dead.

  • floridapatriot

    says:

    You wrote “constitutional liberties”… The constitution does not grant us our rights… we are born with rights… all men and women. The constitution was constructed to limit Gov. They didn’t want gov to have too much power like king george. Our Liberties our givin to us by our maker, ie the are inherent and therefore transend and boundries or laws. Men created the constitution to control government.

  • Koh Choon Lin

    says:

    Ron Paul is hostile to the First Amendment?? That is the complete opposite of what of what he stands for.

  • Billy

    says:

    This article perfectly illustrates why I left the Libertarian Party after ten years of working my ass off. This article also perfectly illustrates why, in over 35 years, the Libertarian Party has not won a single seat in the House, not to mention the Senate. Actually, the only elections they occasionally win are ones where you are legally not allowed to state your party. After 35 years the majority of Americans don’t even know what libertarian means. If you don’t believe me, try it out at your local bar, post office, college campus, anywhere. Say the word libertarian and most people will ask, ‘What does that mean?’ The Libertarian Party -and movement- is a complete and pathetic failure.

    -Nit picking, snooty Chicken Little’s who really don’t have the stomach for politics at all. Textbook libertarians are simply not real world people and for as high and mighty and self righteous as they are, why have they been so pathetically unable to convey even the basics of their philosophy over such a looooooong time? A) Because their “philosophy” is inherently flawed and disregards anything that conflicts with their pie-in-the-sky, life-in-the-clouds BS. Consider this:
    80% of this country wants border security. This (after all) is a democracy, AND a SOVEREIGN Nation. But forget that there is no more open land for homesteading, and forget the (proven economic) fact that a shortage of labor leads to increased wages and better working conditions thereby alleviating the need for bureaucratic agencies for oversight. -Being that when labor is in demand, it is naturally treated better. -“Oh, boo hoo! In a ‘libertarian society’ there are no borders, dude.”
    Despite the BS ‘facts’ that the LP lists on their PLATFORM which is on their website, they’re wrong and common sense (in addition to REAL facts and stats) tells us that. -And despite the fact that the Constitution of this Republic applies only (and unarguably) to the citizens of THIS country, the squeamish little textbook libertarian will invariably pull some argument out of his ass to defend the “racist” implication of an immigration platform. -Of course all the while neglecting to comprehend the horrible interventionist foreign policy that the citizens of this country are paying for is justified by that very same sentiment. -That “we” have something better and therefor have elected a President not just for our country, but of the “free world”
    Textbook libertarians are out of touch, overly philosophical bookworms who usually have no real life experience and no clue about real life matters. -They’re to squeamish and over sensitive for right wingers and to small government for socialist leaning lefties, so they remain an incredibly insignificant minority huddled in the corners of their coffee houses.

    Thankfully, Paul has forever changed all that. Now the definition of Libertarian is:
    A fiscally conservative, civil libertarian who believes in non interventionist foreign policy and strict constitutional adherence. -This is what has been taken, popularized and is now owned by our movement, thanks to Ron. I’m sure your types will wine and cry about specifics (your kind always does) but it doesn’t matter. Your greatly outnumbered and you’ve got nothing to do with it now.
    -Call us beer hall libertarians if you want, we’ll call you librarians. Fair enough?

    By the way if you’re wondering what I think about the writings after reading them thoroughly in context…nothing out of the ordinary for the time. Quite pedestrian, right of center type stuff. I can’t see why it would hurt someone running for the Republican nomination. It’s probably going to help him, too bad he didn’t write it. You’d know that if you weren’t so squeamish.

  • Steve G

    says:

    DNA, of comment #14. If you are such an expert, then who is Sauroman? To me, you are just a fool of a Took, especially if you are refering to the Lord of the Rings. If so, you are mixing two different characters, Saruman (the white wizard) and Sauron (the true Lord of the Ring). What a ditz! Maybe you should go home and re-read the book and stay out of an interesting conversation. This has nothing to do with Lyndon LaRouche (he was a Democrat).

  • Mark

    says:

    Meh.. even if whatever alleged that and that have some truth, voting for Ron Paul is the ONLY way to “stick it to the man”, and I’m down for that.

  • William P

    says:

    What about McCain’s racism? John McCain was racist in the SC debate, read it here:
    John McCain’s racism in SC debates

    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’ from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), 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.
    Last link (before Google Books bends to gov’t Will and drops the title):
    America Deceived (book)

  • Web Smith

    says:

    Since this hatchet job from a nobody got so much attention, there must be more behind it than meets the eye. If you’ve listened to James Kirchick talk, especially the part about Ron speaking in code to racists, (geeze) you know that he doesn’t have a clue and just thinks it’s fun to create a stir. He was obviously chosen to bring this up because, in case the blowback was to big to handle, he is expendable. Of course, he is naive enough to think that he was chosen to be the hero.

    As a Libertarian in private life, Ron Paul would believe in free speech as an absolute and not restrict the right of anyone to say anything as long as it does not restrict others’ rights. This does not mean that he would agree with or advocate what was said. The newsletters in question were issued when he was out of public office. Thinking that the newsletter was a harmless little blurb issued by supporters of his policies while in government who wanted to continue his cause, it would not be unusual for him to not pay attention. He was pursuing a private life. As some people lost interest, left, and others moved in, he was obviously taken advantage of by extremists seeking to give their writings credibility by using his name.

    No one has ever heard Ron make a racist remark. He could not be a Libertarian and racist at the same time. True Libertarians believe in the exercise of individual rights and freedom for all individuals as long as the exercise of that freedom and rights does not infringe on the freedom and rights of others. As in all political and religious thought, it is possible for extremists to manipulate ideals for their own purposes. Nothing in Ron Paul’s actions or actual statements ever suggests that he did this.

    Of much more concern is the lynch mob that is running free all over the country these days as it is manipulated at anyone’s will from one victim to the next. The same ignorant, angry mob lynched the Duke lacrosse players. It did not matter what the Duke players said.

    The same ignorant, angry mob lynched the Kelly Tilghman. It did not matter what the Kelly or her supposed victim, Tiger Woods, said. Kelly had to pay.

    Now, the same ignorant, angry mob is after Ron Paul. It does not matter what he actually says, has said, or has done.

    This is pretty clear. You need to read it.

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  • Rick

    says:

    You will will never have anyone closer to a libertarian with as much support as ron paul has.
    Maybe his views only match yours 50% but the others match yours by 0%. Are you nuts! All libertarians should come together and support ron paul in this election and they should announce it publicly.

  • Ryan

    says:

    Wow, I’m amazed at how many people don’t understand how much trouble the US is in. Most of you really don’t understand how corrupt most of the other candidates are. McCain, Romney, Hilary, even Obama.They all have more dirt on them then Nixon. When they talk, I have to check my wallet to see if it still there.

  • Crissa

    says:

    If we could only talk about liberty without these people talking about the liberty for them to abuse others – women, immigrants, blacks, etc. It always comes down to the same thing.

    How can you believe in individualism at the same time as not believing in making sure every individual has the same chances?

    How can you believe in women as equals when requiring them to lose their liberty in the name of a man, and a child, which may or may not be?

    Ugh, it’s disgusting.

    At some point, we should discuss why exactly some drugs are illegal, and why some are not. But those are asides to the basic facts that Ron Paul’s votes in the last two congresses can show you exactly why he’s not for individual liberty. Check for yourself.

  • Ryan

    says:

    Some good comments websmith…

    It’s all just smear campaign, the same thing they do every presidential campaign. Right now there saying Hilary Clinton is racist over a couple of comments she made.

  • Mike

    says:

    It’s pretty fucking simple, either Ron Paul is elected or America will collapse financially.

    The reality is that America will collapse unless it undergoes massive cuts:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8

    None of the status quo candidates acknowledge this challenge, let alone have a plan to deal with it. Ron Paul is the only politician that consistently talks about this and has laid out a plan to deal with it.

    Regarding socialism:

    What proponents of socialism totally ignore while focusing on equality, is morality. By what moral right does one person have to use coercion: the threat of prison sentences/fines, to force a rich individual to give his/her resources to a poor person. Coercion against an innocent individual –and yes, even the richest greediest son of a bitch is still innocent as long as he has not violated the rights of any one else– is never justified, no matter what.

    If we make the argument that a little evil against an innocent person is justified for the greater good, then we are no better than the ancients who sacrificed children to the Gods in exchange for a bountiful harvest.

    The foundation for a free and prosperous society is equal protection under the law, for every individual.

  • John

    says:

    Do people really think like this? You try and pull these skeletons out of the closet…..NOPE..NONE….Keep trying though……

    Oh Yeah…by the way….If you are not voting for Ron Paul, please tell us who you are going to vote for? This ought to be interesting.

  • Andy England

    says:

    I think the author ought to think outside the box. Look at reality and if the U.S electorate go for business as usual then have the honesty to change the Statue of Liberty next time it needs a makeover. The statue was designed by Bartholdi – a european. Europe knew a lot about repression, taxation and war at that time. Why give ‘her’ a torch? – Hope, a better future. Liberty. I see Ron Paul carrying a torch. What would be an appropriate replacement be for the torch I wonder, to reflect modern americanism?

  • a Rocket Scientist

    says:

    Web Smith said: “Since this hatchet job from a nobody got so much attention, there must be more behind it than meets the eye.”

    Yes, Mr. Smith, I was just wanting to talk to other Ron Paul supporters for a reality check on this issue. Carpetbaggerreport is as good a place as any. Nice to meet you Mr. Smith, and all the other Ron Supporters who showed up to talk to this hate filled, bigot filled, vile blog space of ignorance. You know, we are just preaching to the choir when we do this. Looking at the hate speech filled comment section of the Rush fans here at Carpetbaggerreport, yes Carpet Baggers were opportunistic thieves, I too wonder why?

    Kind of reminds me of a couple of old sayings.

    First, it’s a horse race, I’m voting for someone who has a chance of winning, “The lesser of two evils”. This isn’t the case right now, we do still have a choice and don’t have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

    Second, “No News is Good News”, if this is the case, Ron Paul is most certainly the best candidate running for president. First, in the majority of Republican straw polls. First, in every Republican Debate, among people who watched the debate. First and Second, in single day Primary fundraising, First, in last quarter fundraising before the primary. And, most importantly, First in “No News” last year.

    I guess we can conclude that a vote for Ron Paul, isn’t a vote for the “Lesser of two Evils”, isn’t a waisted vote, isn’t News and IS the best man for the job as President.

    So, let me ask the opportunistic thieves (carpetbaggers), who is the “Lesser of two Evils” that you support? Which one do you want to see in the general election, loss to the “Lesser of two Evils” the Democrats are picking. As it seems, the News will always pick the “Lesser of two Evils”

    Ron Paul supporters, Thanks for all the good comments

  • a Rocket Scientist

    says:

    PS. We need to stop preaching to the choir and work on the News about the Primaries, the articles that don’t mention Ron Paul.

  • Steve

    says:

    Attention all you Ron Paul “fairy-tale” thugs. February 5th is now at T-minus-23 days—and counting. I am truly anxious to see what you “allegedly-intelligent lemmings” are going to do on February 6, when it becomes MATHEMATICALLY OBVIOUS TO THE AVERAGE TEN-YEAR-OLD that your “Manchurian candidate” can no longer win his “political party’s” nomination.

    Hare’s an idea—maybe you have have yourselves a nice little riot at the GOP convention. and reinforce the entire world’s position on your “candidate.”

    Or perhaps you could take the proceeds from all your “money bombs” and buy yourselves an island nation. I hear the Maldives are selling pretty cheap these days.

    Did you people really think that your candidate could align with the “bush-wah-see” GOP (a collective of whiny, truth-twisting neocon cutthroats if there ever was one), badmouth them every which way imaginable, and then get them to vote for you?

    Trust me, dnA, when I say this: These”wrong paul” noisemakers aren’t scary. Not in the least. They’re just really bad stand-up comedians with a novel approach of buying political power who are too irritably dense to see that no matter how much they scream, the electoral “cash register” keeps ringing “No Sale.”

    And yet, I must simply ask again: “What will Ron Paul do when it becomes obvious that he can no longer win the nomination?”

    Will he (1) do the typical Reskunklican thing, and get behind the eventual nominee? Nothing would further prove true neoconservative hypocrisy.

    Or will he (2) simply fade into a temporary obscurity, illuminating his campaign as an example of “flash-in-the-pan Quixotism?”

    Or maybe he’ll (3) form a third party, dragging his “libertarian base” down the same rabbit hole as his “other” (and substantially more nefarious) supporters, thus further fragmenting the GOP? I’d really like to see the GOP haunted by their own version of a Nader-esque “Pandora’s Box.”

    C’mon down, all you Paul fans! Here at “THE PRICE IS [what you have to pay for being a part of the horrifically evil] RIGHT, you automatically get to choose what prize you want to play for! Will it be Door Number One, Door Number Two, or Door Number Three?

    Time’s running out, contestants! The clock is running—you’ve only got 23 days…

    AND COUNTING….

  • a Rocket Scientist

    says:

    lol,

    Steve writes, “Ron Paul “fairy-tale” thugs”, “allegedly-intelligent lemmings”, “Manchurian candidate”, “bush-wah-see” GOP (a collective of whiny, truth-twisting neocon cutthroats if there ever was one), “buying political power”, “irritably dense”, “Reskunklican thing”, “flash-in-the-pan Quixotism?”,Nader-esque “Pandora’s Box.”…

    Now I’m confused as I don’t read this blog normally, is this a Rush fan club, or some sort of anti-Rush fan club? Steve seems be some sort of Democrat Rush equivalent fan? Who is the Democratic Party’s equivalent to Rush? What is carpet bagger?

    Lets see, getting into the middle of someone else’s fight or un-civil war on carpet bagger, you’ll get it from both sides. Kind of reminds me of Iraq. Maybe I’ll have to do what Ron Paul suggests and just get out of the vial blogg-o-sphere.

    To answer your question Steve, Ron Paul’s supporters come from all over the political spectrum, much more so than any other Republican candidate. I’d have to say Obama might come close on the Democrat side, but I’m guilty of only having read the News about Obama, so my impression of him is skewed. On both the Democrat and Republican sides, the majority of people will be disappointed this year about their candidate. I would expect that less that 30% will be happy about who their Party has chosen. So for the majority of people in both parties, they will do what they normally do, not a choice between 1,2 or 3 or 4 or 5, but is all of the above.

    My hope is that the Republican Party will continue doing what it’s doing and will just fade away, then maybe there will be room for a Second Party in our One Party system we currently enjoy. This looks like it could occur, the Republican Media trying to pick their most evil candidate, the Democrat Media trying to pick their most evil candidate, should be a great time in the general election picking the lesser of two evils, Hillary or ???????

    Wakeup Conservative Republicans, or have you totally forgotten what a Conservative looks like in the past seven years?

    lol, this is a great blog for a good laugh. Thanks carpet bagger.

    Me, I’m voting for a truly Constitutional President, one who obeys his oath of office, one who follows the Constitution, has read the Constitution, and doesn’t have to ask his lawyer about his Constitutional duties.

    Guess who I’m voting for 🙂

  • andrew

    says:

    …you write” I’ve been criticizing Paul for several months”….and you seem to enjoy it. You accuse him of number of things but you don’t justify what you are basing it on. You can’t just disagree and criticize someone and not base it on solid evidence.

    So typical, ….
    You say: I don’t like him.
    i ask Why?
    You: Because….BLABLABLA and give no reason for it

  • Charles

    says:

    Re: the national debt. When someone extrapolates current trends 30 years into the future and takes the resulting debt (in 30 years) as present debt is a) dishonest or b) insane or c) both.

    This is nothing but fear-mongering by taking an already-bad situation and exaggerating it.

  • jen flowers

    says:

    Ron C –

    Thank you for the post. I haven’t heard opinions like these since my uncle, a sheriff in a southern county, died. Blaming the woman for creating the foetus, like it doesn’t take two. I haven’t laughed so hard in a long time. Maybe someone should put together a book of Ron Paul supporters comments as a joke book.

  • dnA

    says:

    Steve G,

    Thank you for proving that you are a bigger nerd than me. And LaRouche is all over the political spectrum. The real similarity between he and Ron Paul is that you’re all A. gullible B. Crazy.

  • Steven

    says:

    Dear Fellow Paul supporters — don’t waste your time on these Beltway Libertarians. What have they done to spread liberty or educate people beyond their little echo chamber? Nothing. They lust for power and the respect of the establishment and will be forever compromised.

    They are “haters” (ie. jealous and small-minded) with respect to Paul’s success and they especially detest you, the hoi polloi.

  • Sean

    says:

    I lost interest towards the end of this article since the author tries to assert his intellectual superiority as the authority on “libertarianism” and the Constitution… and then he shows how little he actually knows on the topic. I’ll briefly touch on one point this author screws up royally: “Separation of Church and state” and the assertion that,

    “Ron Paul supports a Constitution which is quite different from that envisioned by the framers. Besides failing to understand the intent to form a secular state, Paul’s views on federalism stem from a lack of understanding of the plan to have over-lapping sources of authority with blurred jurisdiction between federal and state power. Paul ignores the reasons why the framers supported a stronger federal government following the failings of the original Articles of Confederation.”

    ****** The First Amendment is a superfluous restraint on federal power. It does not grant federal courts the power to intervene in the internal affairs of the states. Read Barron v. Baltimore (1833) (one of the few decisions John Marshall actually got right) if you want to understand why a federal Bill of Rights was added. Or you can read the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (authored by Thomas Jefferson) if you’d like to understand the intertwined relationship between the First and Tenth Amendments. Also note the key distinction between the language of the Bill of Rights and Article I Section 9 vs. Article I Section 10. (i.e., General language vs. “No State shall…”). It wasn’t until the 20th century that the Supreme Court invented (out of thin air) the “incorporation doctrine,” under the false guise of the 14th Amendment, to arbitrarily apply selective portions of the federal Bill of Rights against the states. Hugo Black and other justices then butchered Jefferson’s line about a “wall of separation” between church and state, ripping the statement out of the context in which it was made in an 1802 letter by Jefferson to a church in Danbury, CT, and for all intents and purposes, rewriting American history in the process.

    Thus, based on the simple logic laid out above, any idiot with a brain can see that the “framers” did not intend “to form a secular state.” Nowhere was the federal government granted/delegated the power to establish a national church in Article I Section 8 or anywhere else in the Constitution, but the First Amendment was added as a failsafe on this point. However, the fed was not given the power to intervene in religious matters within the states (e.g., “Congress shall make no law.. prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion]”). This was a superfluous restraint on the power of the federal government as a whole… it was not a grant of power to federal courts. WHEN COURTS SAY THAT NATIVITY SCENES MUST BE REMOVED FROM [NON-FEDERAL] PUBLIC PLACES ON FIRST AMENDMENT GROUNDS, THE COURTS ARE DOING THE VERY THING THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT. Ron Paul’s statements on this matter have been totally consistent with the Constitution (as opposed to bullshit court doctrines which have no basis in the Constitution on paper). I suggest this author brush up on some history before writing another smear piece.

  • OkieFromMuskogee

    says:

    Ron, thank you for this excellent post. As you can see, you have experienced the “Paul Effect,” a deluge of comments from Paul’s “true believers” (in Hoffer’s sense of the term).

    I have been half-joking that Paul makes more sense than any of the other Republican candidates. It seems that it’s only true if you don’t get past his views on foreign policy.

  • darjen

    says:

    Sure I disagree with Paul on some issues, like abortion and evolution. But they are minor for me compared to the things he gets right. Despite any criticism to the contrary, he is still the best candidate for liberty and freedom right now.

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    I love this – for sheer arrogance, tipping over to insanity, this takes the cake:

    (one of the few decisions John Marshall actually got right)

    Now, Chief Justice John Marshall was there at the founding. He was present for all of the contemporaneous debate among various philosophies, he was friends with several of those who did the drafting.

    The Paulites were not. They — virtually all without the slightest legal training, I might add — look at the Constitution 200+ years after the fact without a fraction of the context Marshall had, without access to the actual drafters that Marshall had, and without actually hearing the cases or the evidence that Marshall had and dare to proclaim they know the right decision better than Marshall did?

    Seriously?

    And you wonder why people think you are a laughable bunch of whackos?

  • Steve

    says:

    If I’m interpreting the only reply to my inquiry correctly, it sounds like RP might be shifting toward an independent run—because a GOP lackey (RP) badmouthing the GOP is not the way to get the GOP machine behind a GOP candidate.

    And it doesn’t take “rocket science” to formulate such a theory. Just common sense and the freedom to exercise one’s right to think beyond the yoke of political extremism.

    That is what RP is, now isn’t it—a political extremist? A fringe candidate? Because there’s just no way on the planet that his “fan club” can call a fifth-or-sixth-place showing in a primary “mainstream.” In a win-place-show horse-race, such is performance is called “glue factory.” Or “dog food.” Or “land fill.”

    This show ain’t over by a long shot—but it sure does look like RP is going to roll into the convention with zero delegates in hand. All that fiat money—all the harangues from his wankless little minions, flying monkeys one and all—and absolutely ZERO to show for it.

    And y’all thought the Keystone Kops were dead. Nope—they just got out of slapstick comedy films, and went into politics….

  • BeautifulBobby

    says:

    This lifelong Republican has said it before and I will say it again. “Ron Paul is a Republican!” …Further more you have idiot think Ron Paul would be unborn baby genocide supporter. He’s an obstetrician so how could he support exterminating a human life for financial gain? I like what he has to say about the economy and monetary policy. But he so conservative in his voting record and positions that you have to stand back and be amazed at his discipline. Do you have any idea of what it takes to fight for the Constitution on the cesspool that Washington D.C. has become? That man has stuck to guns (core values) for over thirty years. I consider myself to be a conservative. But I am nowhere near the conservative role model that is the walking, talking Dr. Ron Paul.

    Now with that said lets keep all of this on perspective. There is no video or recording anywhere of Ron Paul saying anything even close to those excerpts that were reported on in James Kirchick’s article. But there is video and recordings of almost every other candidate lying. I don’t know about Kucinich, Gravel, Biden or Cox. But them rest of them are repeat offenders. Even Obama has lied. Rudy and Hillary heave set the gold standard or deceit and betrayal. Huckabee thinks that there are only nine commandments in the Bible. And Romney calls the act of lying “changing his mind” as if he has the power to bend reality, time and space simultaneously. And there is our pal Mr. McCain who says things like “protect Americans” and “strong national defense” out of one side of his mouth and “100 more years in Iraq, wide open borders, Amnesty and a biometric national ID card” out of the other side. It sure looks like he wants to turn the USA in to a place like we have seen in those old WWII movies….”CHECKPOINT Achtung! HALT! …I need to see your papers……….go to the left and wait by those other people.”

  • Campbell

    says:

    Thanks for this interesting and intelligent post. It condenses a lot of my own misgivings about the Paul candidacy. And yet, I still count myself a Paul supporter. I don’t believe that he is a perfect president, but given the state of the union at the present time, we’re talking about just SURVIVING the next 10 years or so, and not collapsing into dust. In that respect, Paul is the only choice.

    As sad as it seems, we already have a religious nut in the President’s office, and any other candidate that is elected will bow to the will of the “religious right”. They are simply too powerful a voting group for anyone – even the furthest left of liberals – to ignore anymore. So I agree with your issue with Paul’s feelings on church and state, but I can’t see it as being any different from any other candidate.

    As far as states’ rights go, Paul would never have the chance to create a union where states’ rights trumped everything, simply because that takes much longer than a four year presidency to accomplish. What he might manage is to move the balance of overlapping powers back towards the states, diminishing the overbearing federal government from which we presently suffer. This is the direction of change that is needed, so I find Paul a good choice in this respect.

    What really makes me support Paul though, is his economic policy. I think there can be little debate that the most immediate, looming threat we face in America is a coming depression that makes 1929 look like happy days. The housing market is already in a worse state than it was during the Great Depression, and with the dollar plunge and energy costs rising the rest of the market looks like it will follow. And yet no other candidate will even discuss the dollar crisis, or the global switch to other currencies for trade. No other candidate seems to understand the problem of printing and borrowing money for expenditures. No one else understands even the basic fact that increasing regulatory and tax burdens makes the situation worse. With this kind of field, Paul is the only candidate who can possibly rescue the country from financial ruin.

    Similarly, his foreign policy is a key point. Every other major party candidate offers more foreign interventionism, more Middle-East-hornet’s-nest-stirring, and more blood and treasure in Iraq. No other candidate will even discuss the possibility of bringing our troops home from the other 130+ countries where they are deployed. Why do we still have thousands in Germany? Why are we still doing Korean border patrol? Paul is the only candidate who will address these issues, and change our foreign policy to one that does not endanger innocent American lives.

    So yes, I am very aware of Paul’s religious views, and they worry me. Yes, I am aware of his flawed interpretation of the balance of power between state and federal government. Yes, I am aware that newsletters in his name, while catering to the lunatic fringe of ultra-conservatism, made racial generalizations. But I am also aware that Ron Paul is the only candidate offering a way to deal with the economic crisis, a way to fundamentally change our foreign policy to stop provoking terrorism, and a way to bring SOME kind of respect for the constitution back to the executive branch. Paul may be worryingly religious, but he is the only candidate who promises to make the kind of changes that can save the errant locomotive that is America from looming disaster.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    OkieFromMuskoge,

    I have been half-joking that Paul makes more sense than any of the other Republican candidates. It seems that it’s only true if you don’t get past his views on foreign policy.

    There are two reasons that Paul often sounds like he makes more sense than the other Republican candidates. One is simply that the others are so bad.

    Secondly, keep in mind that Paul takes a default position almost always opposing any action of the federal government and any war. With this default position you are going to be right quite often, and the areas where you are right seem quite significant after almost eight years of a federal government run by George Bush.

    The problem comes when you go any deeper. He’s right on Iraq because of opposing virtually all wars, but he also opposed World War II and the Civil War. I’m far more impressed by a candidate who realized specifically why Iraq was wrong while having to actually think about it, as opposed to taking a knee jerk position against all wars. Paul’s opposition to federal power gives the appearance that he is strong on civil liberties, but this is negated by his views on states’ rights and lack of respect for separation of church and state.

    Paul sounds like he makes sense during a quick debate quip, but his views don’t hold up to any longer scrutiny. While he certainly cannot be blamed for the idiocy of his supporters, simply looking at the comments here gives a good indication of the mind set of them all.

    Looking at the comments from Paul supporters above, it would be difficult to find ones which contain the slightest bit of logic, or which aren’t immediately contradicted by material in the post (which I bet most never actually read).

    For everyone, keep in mind that for the most part these Paul supporters are not libertarians. While this will be something they will have to live with for not having spoken out earlier, most libertarians are rapidly dissociating themselves from Ron Paul and his supporters, as is seen in some of the links in the post.

    From the start the Paul campaign has been built by a strange assortment of libertarians, paleoconservatives, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and some liberal opponents of the war. As more has been revealed about him and people have taken a closer look, his support has been stripped down to its core, and it isn’t pretty. The major legacy of the Paul campaign is not defending freedom or opposing the war, but trying to remove the line which has kept racism and anti-Semitism beyond the bounds of our political discourse. Paul no longer has anything to offer to those who care about freedom.

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    From the start the Paul campaign has been built by a strange assortment of libertarians, paleoconservatives, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and some liberal opponents of the war.

    You left out the stray John Birchers and LaRouchites with nowhere else left to go.
    And people who did their Freshman College Lit reading of Atlas Shrugged while on psychotropic drugs that had the unfortunate result of (a) the material being unduly amplified; (b) it sticking permanently in the brain; and (c) causing said student to drop out before any further learning could counteract the over-simplicity of Rand.

  • Brock

    says:

    RonChusid, please.
    I am:
    Tired of people generalizing me into a group of white-supremists and neo-nazis.
    Tired of people telling me that I don’t really support Ron Paul, that I just think I do.
    Tired of Anti-Paulbots complaining about the Paulbots.
    Tired of the people who say Ron’s not pro-civil liberty because he isn’t pro government.
    Tired of people who claim that the First Amendment says “seperation of church and state.”
    Tired of people who complain that America shouldn’t elect a president based on his/her religious beliefs and then say they cannot vote for someone who doesn’t believe in evolution.

    A Ron Paul Supporter.

  • a Rocket Scientist

    says:

    RonChusid said, “The problem comes when you go any deeper. He’s right on Iraq because of opposing virtually all wars, but he also opposed World War II and the Civil War. I’m far more impressed by a candidate who realized specifically why Iraq was wrong while having to actually think about it…”

    Well then you should be really impressed with Ron Paul, voting to go into Afghanistan after the perpetrator, and not Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11, and everything to do with a resolution in the 1990s to change the Iraq government. 9/11 was an poor excuse. You just described Ron Paul.

    You, if you had bothered to listen to what Dr. Paul has said on the subject, should be even more impressed with his World War II and Civil War stance. WWII a direct result of WWI, was unnecessary if the right statesman and diplomats had been in office during and after WWI. The civil war too, preventable if a different approach to ending slavery had been taken other than maintain some sort of “status quo”. Slave States and Free States was not a good solution and was a failure of our leaders for a few decades prior to the Civil War starting. If Dr Paul had been if office during the raid on Pearl Harbor, I’m sure, after Congress actually “Declared War”, which they did, he would follow Congress’ declaration.

    But the simple fact in human history is that War is a simple, easy, … thing to do. It doesn’t take a diplomat and intelligence to get us into a War. It takes a diplomat and intelligence to find solution without a War. The peacemakers, who if they have done their job really well, will always go down in history as a foot note. Because peace is pretty dull and unexciting, while war has plenty to write about. Honor the peace makers who always seek to find a solution, and view history from this perspective of what solutions would have prevented which Wars.

    You look at where we are today, War is and has been the diplomatic solution of choice for quite some time now. And even more so in the last decade.

    RonChusid said, “Paul sounds like he makes sense during a quick debate quip, but his views don’t hold up to any longer scrutiny.”

    Then all I can conclude is that you haven’t taken the time to give Ron Paul any scrutiny (or thought) beyond the quick debate quips.

    What am I doing, your own response to your own post are just…

    Steven said, “Dear Fellow Paul supporters — don’t waste your time on these Beltway Libertarians. What have they done to spread liberty or educate people beyond their little echo chamber? Nothing. They lust for power and the respect of the establishment and will be forever compromised.”

    Linda I said, “There are too many errors in your article to enumerate them…Please do your homework, sir?”

  • SC

    says:

    What a lot of the RP supporters don’t seem to realize: The way to gain converts isn’t to be abusive. So many of them respond with abuse to even reasonable, honest criticism. Of course, they don’t have a monopoly on that behavior, but when one’s candidate is running at less than 10% in his party’s polls, one can’t exactly afford to drive off potential support.

    Yet that’s what I’ve seen even on websites supporting RP – go visit the bulletin boards there and you’ll see people honestly confused or repulsed by the newletters revelation. Some of RP’s supporters are smart enough to try to provide justification or at least reassurance, but if the questioning person doesn’t immediately thereafter fall in line, the attacks and accusations begin (calling them a “spy from another candidate’s camp sowing dissent”, or a “summer soldier” and telling them to get lost and “we don’t need you” – uh-huh…yeah, polling 8% and yet they don’t need supporters…it’s puzzling that some of his supporters are so willing, nay eager, to devour their own young at the slightest hint of dissent, but it’s happening. And this is the treatment that people who *want* to believe in Paul are getting for expressing honest doubt and confusion over how a man could allow multiple racist rants to be published in newsletters with his name on the cover over the course of nearly two decades. Apparently the rights of individual liberty don’t extend to the liberty to question Ron Paul, for at least some of the more fanatic RP supporters.

    And the conspiracy theories! Geez, if I had a nickel for every time in the past week I’ve seen a Paulite howl about how the bloggers and journalists are being paid off, or are government shills…

    And one final logical problem – ok, I’ve seen some argue that the important thing should be to focus on the message, not the man and some have said they don’t care what his personal opinions or character flaws are. Well, first of all,that smacks of “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”. Second of all, I wonder how many would be saying that same thing if (hypothetically folks, this isnt an accusation) Paul were a pedophile with a penchant for little boys, for example? And let’s’ not forget that when the ballots are counted,what we elect is a MAN (or woman), not a message, with all the warts and failings that that entails.

  • Brock

    says:

    SC, I know what you mean. It depresses me to see people do this to Ron and then it makes the normal ones look bad. Ron Paul should be questioned, not smeared. Remember Johnson’s anti-Barry Goldwater ad that had the atomic bomb exploding in the reflection of the little girl’s eye? It aired only once, but the attack stuck, whether it was true or not.

    However, the security of democracy relies on the public’s suspicion of government (ie, “conspiracies”). Why should I trust the government to count the votes properly? Why should I trust the media who has the mind of America in its hand? Some go too far (like the “troofer” movement) but others are actually believable. The past has shown us how far people will go to sustain their power. Murder, espionage, war, torture, deceit. The basics.

  • Brad

    says:

    I fear for my country.

    Too many fools with little power of understanding the greater scope of things.

    I am amazed by how weighty circumstantial evidence has become.

    Impressive faith based reasoning well employed.

    The weak minded are easily led by the bridle of emotion. Continue to focus on your unassailable conclusion, for their is no logic that could sway you.

    However, while you perpetuate your Judgment based upon a weak IF; America continues to the edge of its very existence.

    Labels of party affiliation cloud your perception by preconceived notion. You would do better to put Country Before Party.

    There is great doom approaching on many fronts. Only Ron Paul is speaking rational to issue. He understands Root Cause And Corrective Action Analysis. He is wise and uses reason to arrive at conclusion. Many look at his conclusion and decry “lunacy” without attempting to understand what his reasoning was. The lazy and the foolish will doom us all.

    Economic Catastrophe is in motion and has been for some time. Only Ron Paul has been aware and loudly proclaiming for most of his career about what has arrived. Band aids and Bubble gum can no longer hide what has been forged. We will all suffer in proving him correct.

    I find it unfortunate that many would focus on not being part of the solution. Children tend to break their toys.

    With knowledge comes sorrow.

    I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!

  • Brock

    says:

    Sorry for the double post.
    But take no offense from dnA. He is like a black sheep of the blogosphere: there’s one in every blog. He really isn’t in the our “zone” so to speak. I call it the “O’Reillysphere.” No sense in arguing with him.

    Can’t argue with a fool because if you step down to his level he’ll just beat you with experience.

    Let’s keep it civil.

  • WarDog

    says:

    So you people love war?. I bet you would’nt talk like this to a Real Vet. Infact if you think that we want to fight this war all alone I invite you to join me here in the sand of plenty. you can make your first kill and see what it feel’s like. You can go to the med tent and get your leg put back together What’s left of it. And your buddy is dead but hey no biggie we have people voting for war. I say those who vote for a prez that supports war should be the first to stand up like a man and fight over here with us. So please join the arm forces tomorrow we need you over here.

  • neal trowbridge

    says:

    I started to read your comments with an open mind.
    After about the fourth criticism without supporting quotes
    of Mr Pauls I realized that this was just an “opinion”/slander piece.
    I’m not sure if there are *any* quotes in your article
    to back up any of the statements .
    If there are, I’m always I hope of an open mind to consider,
    until then, it’s just unsupported yacking..

    neal

  • Paultard

    says:

    Regardless what this author writes.. including being negative about his crazy supporters. I believe Ron Paul would be the best person we would have for President. At least he would cut some damn spending and protect our civil liberties. Nobody is talking about that anymore.

    This war is only going to expand. Our rights have been taken. Our economy is being wiped out.

    So go ahead author.. believe what you want. Ron Paul is a racist.. he’s a nutball, Jim Crow loving, Stormfront embracing, 9/11 truther. You are far from correct, but Im sure you have an axe to grind.

    If youre wondering how I got here.. I googled Ron Paul and searched under the news button when I got home from work.

    Do you want to know what I think is pathetic? A bunch of pundits that are self proclaimed experts with a vast knowledge of everything political. Who cares. You guys wont have much of a job when the economy tanks.

  • George

    says:

    Apparent from the schism between Ron Paul supporters, and other libertarian-minded “groups” (Reason et al), is that movement of the American political democracy / republic toward libertarian policies (the trumping position of individual rights) is almost impossible.

    It seems obvious to me that any one Libertarian is only capable of endorsing their one and only individual position in politics, and most of them would only consider voting for themselves. The majority of Libertarians are incabable of endorsing any candidate where there exists the slightest disagreement with their individual set of ideals or policies, even if there is agreement on 95% of them.

    In the meantime, the collectivists and tribal-minded populus will continue to erode the right of the individual as the core underpinning of American political philosophy, with each and every election.

    Tragic.

    Given a finite number of candidates with the possibility to move America away from it’s own demise, I’ll still give my vote to Ron Paul long long before I would consider giving it to those who would stamp on my civil liberties and the fruits of my free action (my property), whether those candidates are cloaked as “correct thinking” Republican or Democrat.

  • Cindy

    says:

    You are as wrong as the Media, unconfirmed of course, but this wouldn’t surprise me at all

    Unconfirmed sources report that the Fox News Network has officially withdrawn Texas Congressman and web favorite Ron Paul from the 2008 Presidential race. The news of Ron Paul’s withdrawal came during an interview with Fox News chairman Roger Ailes last night. While answering why Fox refused to let Ron Paul participate in a Fox sponsored debate in New Hampshire, Ailes said “…we’ve had enough of Ron Paul’s gimmicks so we’re withdrawing him from consideration.”
    The Internet has since exploded with rage at Fox for unilaterally withdrawing a candidate from the race. Ron Paul supporters and free speech activists alike have mounted a massive effort to bring attention to this event. It appears as if efforts to punish Fox are already taking effect.

    The Fox News website is down and demonstrations are taking place at Fox affiliate stations nation wide. A Fox News boycott has been announced and regular Fox advertisers are being pressured to pull their ads from the network.

    The Ron Paul campaign has stated that Ron Paul has not withdrawn from the race. Ron Paul has also pulled all of his advertising money from Fox stations and has vowed to stay in the race until the end.

    A Fox News spokesman refused to comment on the Ron Paul scandal, but said Fox would continue to cover the election in the same fair and balanced manner that Fox viewers are accustomed to.