After releasing my Top 5 GOP frontrunners list for March, many Ron Paul supporters were very unhappy not seeing him in the top five. They left tons of comments complaining that I didn’t include him and saying he is the only true hope for 2012. As most of my regular readers know, I do not like Ron Paul, and I support Sarah Palin for President. So, to not seem biased, I wanted to tell you why I don’t like Ron Paul. However, not to leave you in the cold, in terms of 2012, if he were the Republican Nominee, I would support him.
First off, many Republicans are strongly pro-American defense, and Ron Paul is not just anti-war, but he has adopted some of the more obnoxious and inflammatory rhetoric from the Left about the war that is extremely grating. Hell, according to Paul, Iraq is a war for oil and empire, engineered by neocons, and in Paul’s book, we are the reason America was attacked on 9/11. That is not Conservative at all, and quite frankly disgusting. I do not want the President of the United States with that mindset. Additionally, Paul’s inconsiderate, “we must leave immediately, regardless of the consequences,” position on Iraq comes across as poorly thought out. Even though Paul is opposed to the war, the disengaging of the United States from the war immediately and without consequences is very thoughtless. It’s something you might hear from a Liberal college student at an anti-war rally. Even President Obama and Secretary Clinton, all whom have spent months trying to convince America that they’re the most anti-war of all, have said we may be in Iraq for years to come, though Obama has set a date for withdraw.
Secondly, Paul wants to get rid of the CIA. Are you kidding me? The CIA is vital to our national security. Ron Paul believes that the CIA “runs everything.” He has also suggested in the past that the CIA has conducted a “coup” in America.
There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. … And of course the CIA is every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. … And yet think of the harm they have done since they were established after World War II. They are a government unto themselves. They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators … We need to take out the CIA.
Well Mr. Paul, have you introduced any legislation to stop CIA funding, or demanded any hearings? No. Also, I think the military would laugh at the notion that they take orders from the CIA. They take orders from the President and are accountable to Congress. I know this, because I’m a rational American and not a conspiracy theorist.
To not continue on with my bashing of Ron Paul, I wanted to say one last point. For whatever reason, Ron Paul has more obnoxious supporters backing him than Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee combined. If you write a column or a post knocking: Palin, Romney, or Huckabee, you’ll certainly have some people disagreeing with you. However, If you knock Ron Paul, you’ll often have hordes of social misfits making obnoxious comments, spamming your polls, touting conspiracy theories, insulting conservatives in general, and doing everything possible to make nuisances of themselves. I can already guarantee, the first comment on this post will be totally slamming me and saying something like Ron Paul is for Liberty and he’s the best for 2012. If he is the best, why did he lose in 1988 and 2008?
In final, not to completely degrade Ron Paul, he is committed to a smaller government, slashing spending, liberty, and the Constitution. Which are all points I support. However, those few arguments I brought up lead me into not supporting him in a GOP primary. I know after saying this, I’ll get crap from his supporters, but if he decides to run in 2012, he’ll lose in the primary. Sure he can win every straw poll or online poll, but that’s because his support website’s completely bomb them with Paul supporters. In all truth, he should remain congressman of Texas’s 14th district.
We want real change, sir. Conservatives who are not strong on the subject of liberty are not true conservatives in my book. Sarah Palin indeed supports small government but I don’t think she quite gets the big picture. Liberty means restraint of spending and government power which many conservatives simply no long support.
Typical “frame Ron Paul as a radical isolationist” strategy.
You need to begin to read some books on foreign policy, mainly what our founding fathers wrote, but also some books by Chalmers Johnson. You seem to have no idea on foreign policy. Spreading tyranny across the globe has done us no good.
I would pay money to see a Palin-Paul debate lol.
i would think a sitting congressman with over 30 years experience knows a bit more of the inner workings of the cia than this author
Your a conservative but choose Palin ? That is an oxymoron.
Well stated.
Ron never said that we deserved the 9-11 attack. Does a child that plays with a gun deserve to get shot? No. We meddle in the middle east. We taunted a dog and we got bit. Most people do not know that we aren’t supposed to police the world and we were (and still are not) prepared for the consequences.
Dear Henry,
Allow me to be civil. I also think his supporters give him a bad name (some of them, not nearly all), but you have to understand they are very young and passionate. Please allow me to be civil and substantive.
I am not a “Paulistinian”, per se. I am a paleo Conservative and I love the idea of Ron Paul, meaning you can trust Ron Paul is not bought and paid for, while you cant trust that about almost any other politician. He has no skeletons or strange inconsistencies in his record and I REALLY respect that. But before I babble, let me counter some of your points, that I would like to argue.
First, you said his foreign policy is not Conservative… If foreign policy was a liberal or conservative issue, then Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton and Obama would be ultra Conservatives (especially Wilson and FDR). It has always been Conservative to be anti war until Bush. Are you going to let Bush define historical Conservatism? Bush won on an anti war platform. All wars prior to Persian gulf were started by Democrats and Republicans were voted in to end them (fact!). MR. CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN Robert Taft was more anti war than Paul! Moderrn Conservative thought pioneers Russel B. Kirk and of course Bill Buckley were against Iraq. Especially Russel B. Kirk, who was very anti big Military and big war. Those were the days of intellectual Conservatism and now we have emotional Conservatism with Sarah Palin and Huckabee. Romney is by far the worst. This man has and will say ANYTHING to get elected (is provable. He was pro gay, pro abortion, anti 2nd ammendment, pro big government before he was on national spotlight. Hes a fraud!), yet he is more welcomed than Ron Paul who is consistent. Only in modern declining history has being Small Government taken a back seat to being the “War Party”. Ron Paul is as small government as they come and yet he is shunned due to foreign policy. Yet Joe Lieberman is as tyrannically pro Big Government statist as any Obama and yet he is welcomed with open arms just because he is loves WAR!!! How sad is that?
Lastly, on foreign policy, lets talk about Hannity’s hero, Ronald Reagan. Ron Paul was the only candidate in 2008 PERSONALLY endorsed by Reagan… But whats more interesting is how people like Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh and Palin call Reagan the Ultimate Hawk! HAHA! Nothing is further from truth. Ronald Reagan refused to retaliate against terrorists in middle east because he said we dont and will never understand their politics. Reagan was adamently opposed to torcher and believed terrorists should be tried in civilian courts because quote “they are thugs and should be tried as thugs”.. Reagan also fired advisors who were hawkish neo conservatives. Arch NeoCon (self named neo conservative) Norman Pedhoritz slammed Reagan all the time for not being more hawkish. Reagan’s only real hawkish moves was bombing Libya, which Ron Paul supported during that time!!!!! I have more where all this came from, by the way..
neo-cons don’t support him because he wants to end the game of empire that we are losing by wasting our resources out of fear of an existential enemy. we let terrorism/extremism win when we sacrifice the very freedom we try to protect. why is this so difficult to understand for those in denial who very wrongly consider themselves “conservative”. Paul IS CONSERVATIVE. that’s why he wishes not to continue to waste huge sums on offense but a national DEFENSE. the way things have been done through fear since 9/11 has made America far less safe and created an entire new generation of antagonized individuals overseas. Do these Americans truly believe in freedom or are they just hungry to dominate someone else? If you deny that “blowback” is the main reason for terrorism you are just in denial. let the country slip between your scared little fingers as you slowly hand over our freedom and dignity to the enemies.
One thing that drives me crazy is the notion that a pro-war, preemptive strike, nation building, have hundreds of military bases around the world (i.e. Military Industrial Complex) foreign policy stance is a conservative position. It is so very far from a conservative position …. it’s a liberal position because it means big government. Democrats and Republicans (i.e. Republicrats) are both liberal; liberal in different aspects of government. Ron Paul is a true conservative in every aspect of government, and that’s why I think his supporters are so passionate about his message.
At least those who claim to be conservatives have picked up the Ron Paul language since 2008. (no, not the prerequisite “quixotic”, “isolationist”, “back to the gold standard” distortion language of the corporate press.)
Liberty, constitutionality, limited government, auditing (if not ending) the Fed, sound money, personal responsibility, sovereignty, etc. These ideas were the basis of Ron Paul’s campaign, and the consistent principles he has fought for for decades. Lately been hearing them from the mouths of every GOP candidate who have been drummed half-awake by the futility of the status quo.
But the power and intoxication of big, corrupt government is addictive, and most are not strong or willing enough to change actual policy.
I’m not first, but Ron Paul is for Liberty and he’s the best for 2012.
â– He has never voted to raise taxes.
â– He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
â– He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
â– He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
â– He has never taken a government-paid junket.
â– He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
â– He voted against the Patriot Act.
â– He voted against regulating the Internet.
â– He voted against the Iraq war.
â– He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
â– He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Who else has a voting record like this?
I watched those videos of Ron Paul and I am more motivated than ever to support him. At first I thought this blog was a satire post but it dawned on me that the author is just ridicules.
“I support Sarah Palin for president” LOL! Sarah Palin = George Bush with a vagina. Why do I say that? Because they both share the same philosophy as all neocons do with exceptions of MINOR disagreements. Look at the declining state of our country caused by the continuous stray from our constitution which is what made this once free country great in the first place. I guess you would just blame the liberals for that but its not just the liberals. Government continues to grow under both neocon and liberal policy. Try to turn off Fox News for a second and think about it. This left vs right paradigm is a bunch of BS. We have to get back to our roots it should be libertarian vs statist instead.
FYI Libertarianism = TRUE conservatism and Ron Paul is libertarian so don’t go writing about conservatism until you actually understand it’s meaning.
What a whiner. Between you and Boehner, there are going to be enough Republican tears to wash away any terrorist threat.
You are the idiot who is pushing liberals as the only hope for Republicans. You are the fool who put up a top 5 “conservative” list that included no conservatives, and only big-government leftists. When you say stupid things, folks are going to call you on it ~ especially when the only thing you are riding is an ad-hom high horse.
We need to stop propping up dictators like Ron Paul says. If we didnt support Mubarak for so long, they wouldnt have stolen billions from us. The military now has weaponry that could hurt Israel thanks to us. Israel has 400+ nukes and the PM has said that they would be better off if we stopped foreign aid. He said it hurts their soverignty. The CIA violates our 4th amendment rights in many facets. If you read the 9/11 commission report you will find out that the Saudis are the guys that attacked us on 9/11, not the Iraqis, and they did so because we have bases on their holy land. Also, the people of Libya do not want any help/assistance. http://i51.tinypic.com/9j0yus.jpg
So wait a second, your first paragraph is basically saying:
“Oh I’m not biased, I just left him out because I personally disagree with him.”
That’s the exact definition of what bias is.
Well I’m not going to be a “social misfit making obnoxious comments, spamming your polls, touting conspiracy theories, insulting conservatives in general, and doing everything possible to make nuisances of myself” as you would put it. All I want to know is how exactly is warmongering being “conservative?” How in principle is wanting to go to war with anyone who looks at you wrong being conservative? Because it sure as hell isn’t being conservative with our resources or our wallet that’s for damn sure!
I love this post. THANK YOU, Mr. D’Andrea. Ron Paul is a lefty loon! He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve because he does not understand what it does. His isolationist policies would get more Americans killed on their home soil and abroad. His foreign policy is naive.
He has a lot of supporters who are tech-savvy, but most voters know better even though they will not say it which is why he has no chance in any party’s primary and is no voter’s only hope in 2012. Like Donald Trump said at CPAC: You have to win an election to be the candidate and President and fortunately Ron Paul has no hope of doing either.
Voters know better. Ron Paul is nuts.
Well, lets see.. Donald trump won how many times???? Ron paul won to be in congress 11 times. So the lesson is- don’t listen to people who havent walked the walk… He is 100% not a leftist. That is probably the most stupidest comment on here hahaha
I like Ron Pauls candor and frankness. But his Blame America First attitude is NOT Conservative and either is his Isolationism. Infact many of his positions are extreme and not at all practicle. However, I think that when you do a Power Ranking of potential presidential candidates personal bias should not be a factor. You are absolutely right though in not puting him in the top five. He in no way deserves to be there. He polls very low in all polls. And unlike some of the new up and comers who currently poll low, Ron Paul has already run, and yet he still polls very low. I don’t think he’s even going to run again, but if he does there is NO reason to believe that he will do any better the second time around.
I admire Ron Paul’s honesty as well. However, I don’t think he’s blaming “America” so much as blaming the policy being carried out by the government. I doubt most Americans realized that the US was actively supporting dictators like Mubarak, earning the enmity of the Egyptians. Ron Paul is going to make a much bigger impact on this election than last time (especially as the economy gets worse), though I still doubt he’ll win.
Retire or work in Asia – we can help. http://www.pathtoasia.com/
He is not an isolationist. Also, he doesn’t say we “deserved” to be attacked, that’s absurd. He merely reiterated what our own investigators told us which was that the 9/11 attacks were motivated in part by our presence in Saudi Arabia.
You frame the argument in a manner that suggests your desire to be objective, and then you throw in an accusation that Ron Paul says “we deserved to be attacked on 9/11.” You do your ideas and your argument at great disservice.
I think every Ron Paul supporter should read this article very carefully. The Author hits on a lot of the problems that other republicans have with Ron Paul, his campaign and his supporters. As a Ron Paul supporter myself its in my interest to see this movement grow and prosper and some of the points the author makes must be changed if Ron Paul is to ever win a national election. I’ve found that its not really Ron Paul’s foreign policy that republicans take issue with so much as the way Ron Paul attacks the U.S position on foreign policy. Ron Paul is seen as outside the mainstream not so much because of his beliefs, which now that the tea party has come seem much less strange to voters, he is actually seen as outside the mainstream because his rhetoric is TOO extreme. If he framed his views diffrently he would be respected more in the republican party.
I have no problem with you not LIKING Ron Paul, but to dismiss him as one of the top five Republican front-runners for 2012 would be to deny reality. Ron Paul finished in the top four among Republicans in 2008 (trailing only McCain, Romney and Huckabee), and is much better known this time around. He has a large and obviously enthusiastic base of support, a proven ability to raise funds, and many of the things people maligned him for talking about in 2008 have come to pass.
Ron Paul has the best voting record in Congress on the biggest issue of the day: the size and scope of government. He may not win the nomination, but he will be a force to be reckoned with.
booooooooo
Well if either Paul or Palin are the nominee let me be the first to say, I will vote thrid party even if it means a second term for Obama. Palin comes across badly, and Paul’s politics are dangerous for American freedom. His idea that if we just stayed out of the middle east and didn’t support the Isreali’s they would love us is either stupidity or naivete. He s a isolationist and DOES AND HAS blamed America for the 9-11 attacks.. The fact is Mr. Paul the Islamo fascists hate us because of our judeo christian heritage, because of our freedoms, becase we allow women and gays freedom.They hate us because of religion, democracy and freedom. Gulf War 1 and 2 could never have occured. Mubarrak could never have been born the funding of Saddam would never have happend the Muslim Fascists would still hate us.
Here’s an update on the pro war Republican conflict, that describes my position. Most Republicans ARE pro-war, because they (I) love America and support America, not because I want to be a war with everyone. I believe in a strong National Defense. BTW- I am a life long Republican, not a Democrat as some are suggesting. Many Ron Paul supporters find themselves at odds with the Republican Party over the issue of American involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Ron Paul they believe that wars of occupation and nation building are unconstitutional and they cannot understand why Republicans who claim to share their belief in the Constitution support those wars.They make the same mistake that Ron Paul himself did when he attacked Rudy Giuliani over this issue in the first presidential debate of 2008. They make themselves look anti-Republican and even anti-American because they do not understand the perspective of many traditional Republicans or the basis on which those Republicans find themselves supporting these wars.Then the battle-lines are drawn up and both sides become entrenched in their ideology without trying to understand each others’ perspective. The Ron Paul supporters become convinced that traditional Republicans are a bunch of pro-war “neocons” and more mainstream Republicans get the idea that Ron Paul supporters are radical, anti-American peaceniks, when the truth is that neither perception is even close to accurate.While there are a small number of Stalinistic, pro-war expansionists in the GOP, their viewpoint is alien to the party and is not shared by most Republicans. Most Republicans who support our current wars do not do so because they are in favor of war or of imperialism, but because they are unquestioningly pro-America. They may believe in a strong national defense, but they do not believe in wars of conquest and occupation. They oppose the anti-war position, not because they like war, but because they dislike those who take issue with the actions of America as a nation no matter what the reason.They operate from the perspective that our government is good, not because government is good, but because our government is American and America is good. They therefore assume that the actions of our government, including making war, must be good and right actions because they are the actions of an American government.
So if you are a Ron Paul style constitutionalist, don’t make the mistake of calling other Republicans “neocons” or warmongers just because they defend the nation’s actions even when you believe those actions are wrong. From their perspective that makes you a traitor and an enemy of the Constitution, because all they see is that you are attacking the Republic, not the reasoning behind your actions.
Good post. I agree with you that it is counter-productive to call establishment Republicans warmongers, but in the past candidates McCain and Romney have openly agitated for conflict with Iran. I can tell you as someone that agrees with the non-interventionist “humble” foreign policy articulated by George Bush in the run up to the 2000 election, America is making itself less safe by interfering so publicly in the affairs of foreign nations. Our actions are increasingly motivating domestic terrorists like the attempted Times Square bomber (blamed the drone strikes in Pakistan) and Christmas Tree bomber (blamed US-supported oppression in the Middle East). I think we’ll have a stronger defense if we focus on defending our own borders.
Retire or work in Asia – we can help. http://www.pathtoasia.com/
The traitors are those who completely disregard the Constitution.
Congress must declare war. They haven’t since WW2, and every military conflict (there have been no American wars since the 1940s) since then has been done under international flags, and against the demands of our founding documents.
Now for liberals this is no problem ~ everything they do or suggest is unconstitutional these days, For “conservatives” it is. Conservatives are supposed to be about small government, the rule of law, a strong national defense, and individual responsibility. “Neocons” are about expanding the federal government and international exploration. There is no such thing as a “conservative” neocon,
Republicans as a party are not conservative, and they haven’t even tried to be conservative since the mid 90s. Republicans are responsible for spending us into oblivion the last decade, and entangling us in conflicts around the world with no end in sight. The republicans currently love big-government and out of control spending more than our Constitution..
I appreciate the thoughtfully written article. I think that we should clarify one point – Ron Paul may have exaggerated a little when he said that there’s been a coup and that the CIA “ran everything”, but I think that he is expressing valid concerns metaphorically rather than literally. Obviously the President is still the commander and chief, yet the CIA is taking on responsibilities previously handled by the military. My sense is that these CIA operations have significantly less oversight and controls compared to the formal military. For example, the CIA is in charge of the drone strikes in Pakistan – http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/02/24/cia-drone-airstrike-aces-six-jihadis-north-waziristan .
Retire or work in Asia – we can help. http://www.pathtoasia.com/
UPDATE: I would love for one of you Ron Paul supporters to submit a rebuttal to this post. If you do so, please submit them to henry(at)politicons.net and I might post it on Politicons.
Slam dunkin like Shaquille O’Neal, if he wrote infroamtive articles.
Nqyxdq ovnlergdjgwh
ok027e , [url=http://yhciphfewuwk.com/]yhciphfewuwk[/url], [link=http://gykdjverijat.com/]gykdjverijat[/link], http://qulyafjzuznp.com/