This post will likely guarantee I’ll have a wave of Ron Paul Truthers descend on my site, but whatever. Paul is infamous for saying, among other stupid things, that it’s America’s fault 9-11 happened. He said that during the second Republican debate earlier this year, and in response Rudy Giuliani gave him a good verbal smacking around.
This time around, he’s taking advantage of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto to once again blame America. Watch the video here (via LGF).
Bryan Preston at Hot Air has video of a more extensive interview Fox News did with Paul, in which he plays the “blame America” card there, too.
Once again Ron Paul reminds me of one of the main reasons I never became a Libertarian at the time I was going through my “dark side” conversion to conservatism. Yeah, I know there are some sane, practical Libertarians out there (like my friends at QandO) who understand the threats we face and realize that America cannot be isolationists in a post-9/11 world, but there are a certain segment of diehard Libertarians who believe if we just ignore the problems going on in the rest of the world that we’ll never have to worry about threats to our homeland. This is naive and idiotic in the extreme.
Oddly enough, Townhall columnist Matt Towery wrote yesterday that he believes that if Ronald Reagan were alive today, he’d throw his support behind Ron Paul. Yeah right. And I’m Hillary Clinton.
Paul’s successful efforts at raising money, especially online, has generated a lot of buzz, and caused some conservatives to worry that Paul running as an Independent candidate (because it is highly unlikely he will become the Republican nominee) would steal much needed votes away from whoever the eventual Republican nominee is, a la what Ralph Nadar has done to Democrats in the past.
I think the candidate who would need to worry would be the Democrat nominee, considering that Paul’s most noteable positions these days are ones in which America takes a hands-off approach to her foreign policy needs, preferring instead to isolate herself off from the rest of the world. Over 6 years after 9-11, though many Americans appear to have “moved on” from the horrible terrorist attacks we suffered that day, I don’t think enough of them on the Republican end believe Paul’s assessment of how we should handle foreign policy matters. On the other hand, there is a signifcant movement of Truther Democrats out there who blame America for everything under the sun, who believe we should stick to ourselves, who are jonesing for the opportunity to vote for someone who closely embodies those “ideals.”
Rob Port is on the same page:
[...] but I think a lot of Paul’s support is coming from people who have never, and would never, vote Republican.
Namely, the “blame America first” crowd that is so enamored with Paul’s foreign policy that they don’t even care about his other policies. Like being pro-life and rather radically in favor of limited government.
I actually think that if Paul an independent campaign he’d likely do more to hurt the Dem candidate than the Republican. Depending, of course, on who those candidates are.
I don’t even think it matters who the candidates are. Ron Paul is a nutcase, and these days, the nutcases tend to trend more leftward than rightward.
| Email This Post | Print This |
The left loves to claim that Bush, and Republicans, are really Nazis in disguise. And here we have a candidate (who is not by any stretch of the imagination a Republican) who actually associates with real, honest-to-God Nazis, and what do we hear from the left? Not a peep.
They wouldn’t recognize a real Nazi if he whacked them with his copy of Mein Kampf and herded them into a concentration camp. Paul apparently can recognize a Nazi, but has no compunction against cozying up to them.
Comment by Steve Skubinna @ 12/28/2007 - 11:40 am
ST wrote, “Oddly enough, Townhall columnist Matt Towery wrote yesterday that he believes that if Ronald Reagan were alive today, he’d throw his support behind Ron Paul. Yeah right. And I’m Hillary Clinton”
Fred Thompson was asked about that on Fox News yesterday and Fred came back without hesitation and said Ronald Reagan would’ve been on the side of projecting strength.
I think Alan Colmes was smacked hard by Fred’s brain.
Comment by Baklava @ 12/28/2007 - 12:08 pm
The thing that gets me is that I agree with the basics of Ron Paul beliefs.
I am an isolationist- belief that unless America is directly threatened we should not stick our noses in other folk’s business. I believe we should withdraw our troops from the majority of the world stages. However I readily recognize that we just can not have a knee jerk reactions and pull the troops out of Iraq, as an example. But we do need tore-assess what our military is doing and the aid we give. For exa,ple, we no longer need to be Europe’s surrogate military.
Like Paul, I believe in a small governement. However I don’t think the answer to that is disbanding the FBI.
I am also a fiscal conservative- small governeemt that is NOT involve with the citizenries lifes…but I thing the FDA serves a valid purpose.
IMO Paul is an extremist, not a conservative.
Comment by TedintheShed @ 12/28/2007 - 1:09 pm
Yep. In my conversion back in 1991 from liberalism I went through a libertarian stage solely because I believed that government should be 20% of it’s current size. In 1991 that would’ve been a 200 billion dollar budget. Not possible. I was delusional until I learned more.
Democrats/Liberals lambaste conservatives/Republicans for trying to limit increases in spending and even lie calling them “cuts”. We hear the word cut from these liars constantly. All throughout the 90’s my eyes were opened to Republicans bills being an “increase” yet liberals lying and calling them cuts and ACTING like Republicans don’t “care”.
The best we can hope for as fiscal conservatives is a plan that is based on facts and common sense. Not a plan that is extreme.
A plan to freeze spending levels at current spending levels would not be a cut. If we did that for 10 years we could re-prioritize spending, prepare for the baby boomer crunch, etc and the only one I see on the horizon talking on that level is Fred Thompson.
This is not to say I don’t support Guliani and/or Romney. I support Romney over Guliani.
It is clear BTW that Democrats in Congress if left unchecked by Bush would be hurting our fiscal situation pretty badly. There are organizations who tally up all the spending bills liberals vote for and they vote for twice as much spending as conservatives do year after year for over 20 years. That can be said to be an unfair measure but the consistency of it is pretty amazing.
And as for foreign policy. Our Defense spending has gone from 50% of the budget in the 60’s to 19% of the budget today. Foreign aid is at 1% of the budget. The percentage we spend on being the stabilizing force in the world is less and less. To me the REAL problem is the entitlement mentality and the lack of personal responsibility being injected in decisions.
This goes with every federal policy decision. Reward those who make bad decisions and punish those who make good decisions and soon enough you have a weak country.
Comment by Baklava @ 12/28/2007 - 1:36 pm
I see our foreign policy asnd our defense spending as two sperate entities. I want at least a two million man standing army and I want our military strong enough to fight and defend America from all the other world armies combined. However, unless needed in a theater like Iraq they need to be in America.
Even though foriegn aid is only 1% of the budget, waste is still waste.
Anmd I agree- the entitle mentality is a hunge problem. If not put under comtrol by 2040 citizens will be taxed 70% of their income just to maintain the current entitlement programs.
Comment by TedintheShed @ 12/28/2007 - 2:51 pm
I understand the sentiment TIS, but we actually are obligated under treaties after WW2 to be where we are. We have just as many military men/women in other countries as Iraq and Afghanistan and have had for over 60 years because of those obligations.
There would need to be major changes to treaties, and countries would need to have their own defense budget yes but as it stands countries enjoy the prosperity they enjoy without major defense budget expenditures because of the situation that exists.
Comment by Baklava @ 12/28/2007 - 3:33 pm
Hey- I am all for a withdrawal from the UN and the other antiquated treaties involved.
And I think we have more people in other countries than Iraq and Afganistan, don’t we?
Last I heard, we had 40k in Germany alone.
Comment by TedintheShed @ 12/28/2007 - 3:55 pm
And that is what needs to change Bak. I have to wonder where the Euro would be today, if they actually had to man a full sized military. Or had to R & D a thousand ideas, billions of dollars, like our military does every year. Or would the economy of Japan be all that if they had to do the same. Or either of these had to keep troops overseas to protect there friends and allies. Yeah I bet this would be a whole different scenario. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 12/28/2007 - 5:43 pm
Good to see you again, Bak!
There is no way of knowing this side of Heavan who Ronald Reagan would support. Paul’s economic libertarianism probably would probably appeal to the Gipper. But even if he opposed the Iraq war, it’s hard to see Reagan supporting Paul’s wackier notions of American guilt. It sounds too much like recycled McGovernism.
I support the Iraq War - not because I think that Reagan would, too, but because it seems to be the best idea. Let’s say (hypothetically) that Reagan was still alive, and the he opposed Bush’s military actions in Iraq. I would at least listen to Reagan, since it is hard to argue with a man who did more than any other to win the Cold War.
I would listen to Reagan for the same reason that I would not listen to the majority of Democrats from either era. Reagan has credibility, while Democrats have none. If we had listened to Democrats in the 1970s and 80s, we probably would all be part of the Soviet Empire by now. If we had listened to Democrats about the Iraq War, Saddam would still be in power, and Islamofascist terrorists would likely be killing more American here than we lost in Iraq.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 12/28/2007 - 5:51 pm
I like libertarianism as a set of guiding principles. As such, the Republican Party is a much more accommodating home for such people. Not perfect by a long shot, but if you can’t get people elected then you will have no influence.
Which is where many libertarians hamstring themselves. Jonah Goldberg once observed that their ideological purity drives them into the position of being isolated cranks. A hardcore libertarian is somebody who rejects Bismarck’s dictum that politics is the art of the possible, and who has never heard that the best is the enemy of the good. Their insistence on an all or nothing approach ensures that they demand the former and get the latter.
Ron Paul has attempted an end run around this block by welcoming all of the nuts and malcontents and fringe characters. It’s stupid to think you need to build an alliance with the Truthers, and evil to do so with the Nazis. Real libertarians ought to be whacking Paul upside the head with a flounder. The man’s well past due for a reality check, but when it comes, like most hard core libertarians he’ll refuse to see it for what it is and develop dark conspiracies about the unseen forces arrayed against him.
Dr. Paul, those unseen forces? The sane among us know them as “common sense.”
Comment by Steve Skubinna @ 12/28/2007 - 8:09 pm
I had to laugh at Ron Paul’s answer on Meet the Press to the question “Do you know how much it would cost to shut down the IRS?” He answered “A lot.” Here’s a man full of knowledge.
His popularity is among people who respond to 1 issue. For example, shutting down the IRS; shutting down the FBI and CIA. People who don’t consider the consequenses of such actions might say “I hate the IRS so this must be good. Better send him $10.”
My fear is that he will run as an independent and hand the White House to Billary. Just like Ross Perot did in ‘92, and we’ll have 8 years of Emperess Hillary telling us how to live, Or else!
Comment by James Hennessy @ 12/31/2007 - 5:41 pm
Sister Toldjah:
This is my first visit to sistertoldjah and I must say I’m very impressed with the quality of the posters. Your piece above on RP is one of the most illuminating and well-thought out statements on him that I’ve read.
For part of this year, I’ve been posting (until last week when after the grueling and telling RP interview by liberals Shuster, M. Brzezinski and Col. Jack Jacobs on Morning Joe I just couldn’t take the salutings of Heir Paul anymore) at a site composed of almost 100% Paulites (I was the sole dissenter), so this blog is a welcomed respite! Saying “Sieg, heil!” to everything the man does is scary, let me tell you–and these Americans aren’t only Libertarians! In fact, most are not. Libertarians are in a distinct and tiny minority of American voters. But to get back to the Paulites I’ve been dealing with, many are disaffected GOP conservatives or Indy cons like myself as well as a sprinkling of leftists who love RP’s anti-War message (Sister Toldjah–you were right on the money on this one!). Many of RP’s minions don’t realize the “spell” they’ve allowed themselves to go under and it blinds them to the reality of the man. It’s almost like Jim Jones. Does anyone recall what happened in Jonestown? Hero worship can be a dangerous thing and it certainly is the case with many Paulites, though they aren’t yet at the point of drinking the tainted kool-aid. They’ll follow him to The Constitution Party or to The Libertarian Party–wherever RP chooses to go.
Will RP give the 2008 election to Hillary? That’s a tough call, IMHO. The RP Libertarians aren’t going to vote for Hillary OR Romney/Ghouliani. Some of the disaffected GOP conservatives may go back to pulling the lever for Romney/Ghouliani if only to keep Hillary out, but many won’t. I can’t see many leftists who are backing RP going back to Hillary but there are far fewer or them than there are conservatives. Many of my conservative chat friends are now backing RP. So, as I see it, all of these factions weren’t going to vote Dem or GOP anyway, so at least in RP’s case, there is no tremendous loss for either major party. Of course, if Hillary should win, RP will be (as Perot was and Buchanan was and other third party candidates will be) blamed for it as a number of conservatives have joined his ranks. However, if his supporters had no intention of voting for the Dem or GOP nominees and the GOP nominee should lose, then RP shouldn’t be blamed at all. It’s just “life in the jungle” and so it goes…
By far, the defining interview of RP was the grueling one on MSNBC’s Morning Joe with Col. Jacobs actually being heard calling RP “a kook” within earshot of RP. I am certainly no fan of MSNBC or The Morning Joe Show but I felt that Shuster did his job as a supposed “reporter” to ferret out all he could from RP on his positions, particularly RP’s decidedly negative position on Abe Lincoln and the Civil War. For those of you who did not see that long interview, here’s the link:
http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=356
After watching this amazing interview “live” at 4 in the morning my time, I realized that I could in no way support this man for President. The first indication that I couldn’t support RP was in that second GOP debate where he blamed the U.S. for 9/11. I think he kissed any chance of becoming President “goodbye” with that comment.
Thanks again for a great blog. And Happy New Year!!
Comment by levotb @ 1/1/2008 - 12:09 am
Welcome aboard levotb……..and Happy New Year to you too!
Comment by forest hunter @ 1/1/2008 - 1:00 am
Thanks, forest!
Comment by levotb @ 1/1/2008 - 2:36 am