Daily Kos blogger claims Ron Paul is nuts

[motivez]

I'll add this to the Ron Paul pile, when Ron Paul supporters ask why I dismiss Ron Paul. It's because Ron Paul has a history of being Ron Paul, and here's some of the words of Ron Paul:

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. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

Ron Paul, like the vast majority of the rest of America -- Republican congressmen and senators excluded, that is -- wants out of Iraq. Great. How enlightened. Stand in line. But he also thinks the "War on Christmas" is real, and that the separation of church and state is a myth. He believes the founding fathers wanted to discriminate on behalf of certain religions, and that morality cannot be accomplished absent Christianity.
Oh, and that the "collective Left" hates religion and that our national heritage is under attack by "secularists".

Yeah, um... no.

And wait, there's more: because of Paul's hardline isolationist and anti-government philosophies, he is doing very well in winning the support of white supremacists and other, shall we say, race-obsessed individuals -- a glowing accomplishment, considering the Republican presidential race has horked up such notable far-right luminaries as Tancredo, Brownback and Hunter, usually favorites of the Minuteman crowd themselves.
Support from unsavory individuals is, of course, not necessarily germane to a candidacy. But the reasons for that support, if the reasons are firmly grounded in policy admiration, do tend to bring new hues into the discussions of those policies. For example, here's some of the glowing commentary on David Duke's website (no link will be given: google it if you want it):

Paul has built a loyal following of people attracted to the politician’s libertarian stance on constitutional rights and opposition to the war in Iraq. [...] During Paul’s rally, he proposed getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, Selective Service, income tax and the Federal Reserve, and withdrawing from the United Nations.


[...] The two biggest issues facing America at this time are the Iraq War and the illegal alien problem. Ron Paul has called for an end to “birth-right citizenship” also known as “anchor babies.” Ron Paul has also called for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Of all the candidates, Paul is the only one who is “two for two” on these key issues.

It is a laundry list of the "serious" policy discussions of the craziest far-far right militia movements. Abolishing the Federal Reserve? Abandoning the U.N.? Eliminating the income tax? Anchor babies?
For a bit more depth, let's go to a commenter on the "white nationalist" website Stormfront (again, no link):

[Ron Paul] is the least toxic candidate by leaps and bounds. On issues particularly important to White Nationalists or the Pro-White in general, of all of the mainstream candidates:
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of "Hate Crime" Laws.
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of Amnesty and "open border" movements.
-- Ron Paul wants to end birth-right citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of welfare programs that among other things, would redistribute the income of White families into the hands of lazy non-Whites.
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of Globalism and all attempts to create a North American Union.
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of military support and foreign aid to countries like Israel.
-- Ron Paul is the least likely to support government crackdowns on Pro-White organizations, and the most likely to veto such measures.

That's why, as a "libertarian", has the support of so many people decent folks wouldn't be caught dead with. Because he is, in the wink-wink nod-nod rhetoric of the far-far right, that kind of libertarian. The isolationist, tribal, to hell with the rest of you kind of libertarian. The kind that is diametrically opposed to equality, to progress, to social responsibility, to national responsibility, and to the very notion of the shared common good.

And this is the figure that can garner support from many otherwise supposedly moderate libertarians? For what reason? Is Ron Paul simply the Sanjaya of the Republican campaign season, or are people so invested in a single Republican politician that recognizes the Iraq War as boondoggle that they are resigned to tolerate the advocacy of anything -- the proposed destruction of social progress in all other areas -- in order to reward the politician for that single stance?

Paul is a colorful figure, fine. But it is high time for the national discourse to overtake him. When batshit crazy people have passed up an entire basket of admirably batshit crazy politicians in order to lend their batshit crazy support to him, I think what you can take from that is that Ron Paul is the chosen King of the Batshit Crazy. Objecting to the Iraq War does not him worthy of celebration, it merely makes him consistent.

By discussing him as anything more than a vaguely malevolent crank, respectful Democrats and moderates accomplish nothing but moving the Republican-side Overton window so that even Tancredo, Hunter and the rest of anti-immigrant, anti-government, anti-social denizens of the Republican far right almost seem saner by the comparison. And that favor isn't something any Democrat, progressive, moderate or even bona fide true social libertarian should invest themselves in.

Daily Kos: Because Ron Paul Is Nuts, That's Why

Pretty scathing, even if you disagree with his conclusions.

I think it was lew who, in another thread, said that if Paul made it past the primaries he'd essentially whomp any Democratic candidate, but I think it's some of his views that are just so out of the mainstream of political thought in this country that he'd run into problems.

For those of you who support him and perhaps have access to people who work on his campaign, is there some plan to deal with some of those things?

Imagine if legalization of drugs came up in a debate, or some of the other stuff.. that would certainly alienate much of the conservative base he'd need to win an election (let alone the primaries) because they love government intrusion into people's lives when they have the ability to force their morality / lifestyle choices on them..

Right or wrong, I think he's too principled to really moderate himself or his views to win votes.. so is there some sort of plan to keep away from issues like that if he actually does make it beyond the primaries (which is not looking very likely atm)?

[Darko]

Wow he calls RP and isolationalist, anti responsibility, etc. claims he supports hate groups when he just supports free speech. Writer basically says RP is the opposite of what he really is.

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

Daily Kos: Because Ron Paul Is Nuts, That's Why

Pretty scathing, even if you disagree with his conclusions.

I think it was lew who, in another thread, said that if Paul made it past the primaries he'd essentially whomp any Democratic candidate, but I think it's some of his views that are just so out of the mainstream of political thought in this country that he'd run into problems.

For those of you who support him and perhaps have access to people who work on his campaign, is there some plan to deal with some of those things?

Imagine if legalization of drugs came up in a debate, or some of the other stuff.. that would certainly alienate much of the conservative base he'd need to win an election (let alone the primaries) because they love government intrusion into people's lives when they have the ability to force their morality / lifestyle choices on them..

Right or wrong, I think he's too principled to really moderate himself or his views to win votes.. so is there some sort of plan to keep away from issues like that if he actually does make it beyond the primaries (which is not looking very likely atm)?

If articles like this that only attack Paul are published, then sure, Paul wouldn't win.

But as soon as Paul gets a mic and gets to actually explain his position, he would win.

This is not scientific by any means, and I've mentioned this several times, but I have yet to encounter a SINGLE person, whom once I told about Paul, did not like him and is not seriously considering voting for him.

The people I've spoken with are very diverse, from Religious Right Christians to libertarians to Bush Republicans to anarchists to liberals to anti-war activists to environmentalists to atheists.

Not a single person was not impressed when I told them about Paul. Sure, they may not agree with all of his positions, but they liked him far better than anyone else in the race.

[lew]

I also like how they don't even really attack Paul, the just attack the white supremacists that like him.


I guess if you can't really dig up dirt on the man himself, just go after a small segment of the people that support him.

[lew]

It's also hilarious that he says that "true" libertarians shouldn't support Paul. What a fucking idiot.

[lew]

"Ron Paul, like the vast majority of the rest of America -- Republican congressmen and senators excluded, that is -- wants out of Iraq. Great. How enlightened. Stand in line."


He acts like Paul jumped on the Get out of Iraq bandwagon.

Too bad Paul tried to stop the war in the 90s when the hero of the Left, Bill Clinton, killed a million Iraqis through sanctions.


Yet another article that proves that the vast majority of bloggers on dailykos are fucking morons.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

Yet another article that proves that the vast majority of bloggers on dailykos are fucking morons.

Nice Generalization.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Nice Generalization.

There's a few that aren't, sure.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by lew

There's a few that aren't, sure.

What he said about the founding fathers was right on. No matter how they scream and yell the founding fathers were very religious people although they did not want a state church they wanted it part of american life and I believe they wanted this country to be a christian country, and with the majority of the people in US christian the culture here is christian and I think that is a good thing.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

What he said about the founding fathers was right on. No matter how they scream and yell the founding fathers were very religious people although they did not want a state church they wanted it part of american life and I believe they wanted this country to be a christian country, and with the majority of the people in US christian the culture here is christian and I think that is a good thing.

Look up deism.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Look up deism.

No matter what some of them called themselves they wanted god in our countries life, and our culture now as it was then is Christian.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

No matter what some of them called themselves they wanted god in our countries life, and our culture now as it was then is Christian.

christian != all monotheism

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

christian != all monotheism

Yea Christianity is belief in one god. They wanted god in this countries life and the majority of the people were Christian just as they are now so the culture was christian and still is.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Yea Christianity is belief in one god. They wanted god in this countries life and the majority of the people were Christian just as they are now so the culture was christian and still is.

That could have been any monotheistic religion, they could have easily said "The Christian God" or "Jesus Christ" they don't

[lew]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Look up deism.

Founding Fathers were Christian Deists. Neither Christianity nor Deism are exclusive terms.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by lew

Founding Fathers were Christian Deists. Neither Christianity nor Deism are exclusive terms.

Thomas Jefferson rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ (like deists do)...so you're saying you can go that far and still be a Christian?

I guess we're all Christians than...Muslims, Buddhists, everyone

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Thomas Jefferson rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ (like deists do)...so you're saying you can go that far and still be a Christian?

I guess we're all Christians than...Muslims, Buddhists, everyone

Muslims and Buddhists are not Christians. At least, most of them are not.


However, there were several Christian sects that denied the divinity of Jesus before the First Council of Nicaea.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by lew

Muslims and Buddhists are not Christians. At least, most of them are not.

So the 9/11 attacks were carried about by Christians?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So the 9/11 attacks were carried about by Christians?

http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/...tml#post130238