Ron Paul’s Worst Enemy …
Posted by: Blue Collar Muse in 2008 election season, Blogging, Blogroll, Individual Responsibility, Internet InterestsI’ve been batting this story around in my head for better than a week. Ever since I got back from CLC in Reno, in fact.
One of my most enjoyable memories of the entire trip was being able to hear 4 separate candidates for President make his pitch to me in person. I even got my picture taken with one of them, Duncan Hunter. My current choice for President, Fred Thompson, was not among those addressing CLC. Neither was Ron Paul.
But you wouldn’t have know that walking around CLC. There was support for Rep. Paul’s campaign everywhere. No candidate had more. And in CLC’s straw poll, the two most recognizable candidates that did speak to us, Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter, finished 2nd (16%) and 3rd (15%) respectively to Paul’s 33%. Similar results are being reported in other polls, on and offline. Unfortunately, those results aren’t translating well to national polls.
So what should the Congressman do? One would think he would work hard to get his message out to more people and win more over to his way of thinking. Certainly, Rep. Paul, himself, is doing exactly that. He’s doing it successfully, even. But therein lies the problem. It’s not Paul’s message, it’s who is responding to it. From here it seems that Ron Paul is in the unenviable position of having his biggest asset, his supporters, also be his biggest liability.
This first occurred to me at CLC. One of Paul’s supporters had placed himself on the second row on the center aisle for most of the conference. He had the requisite garb - shirt, hat, buttons and such. He also has something else - a sign about 18×36 - telling the world that Ron Paul was his guy! None of this is a problem. Until you add Mitt Romney into the mix. Mere seconds after Romney began his speech, this guy picks up his sign and holds it aloft. Having spoken from the same podium the day before, I know it was visible to Governor Romney. To his credit, the Paul guy didn’t wave it around or, worse, stand up with it or anything. He just held it up for what seemed like an eternity but was probably just a couple of minutes.
I remember what Mitt said generally, but I remember what that guy with his sign looked like as if I was watching it live, right now. My thought then and now was, “How unspeakably rude and boorish!” as I wondered what this guy would do if someone dared insult his candidate in the same fashion. That scenario seems likely to end in a Right wing version of “Don’t TAZE me, bro!”
Fast forward to the buzz in the blogosphere when it came out RedState.com had cracked down on Ron Paul supporters at their site. Some were outright banned, some severely muzzled and some put on notice that they were being watched for signs of impending lunacy. Some of the examples of bad behavior from Paul’s supporters in posts, emails and blogs are just what you’d expect to find from that guy with the sign in Nevada. Some are even worse.
Listen, the GOP really does have a big tent. There’s room for all sorts of disagreement on policy and planks and position. At the end of the day, there’ll be a nominee and the vast majority of the voters that supported other primary candidates will get behind him. I’m guessing the vast majority of those who don’t will be the supporters of Rep. Paul. They won’t do it for political purity. It’ll be reasoning from the fringes of reality. From the stuff I’ve read and the stories I’m hearing, the Right now has its counterpart to those on the Left who insist, to this day, that GWB is an illegitimate President because he stole the election from Al Gore in 2000.
The worst part about it is that Rep. Paul has some really good ideas and has some really fine supporters. His views on adherence to Constitutional constraints and his faithfulness to the precepts of that document are legendary and should be considered by every member of the House and Senate. But what is making the news, what is sticking in people’s throats because it’s being shoved down them and what people will remember are the guy with the sign and the guys who couldn’t control themselves even though they had all the time in the world to edit their thoughts along with a ‘Delete’ key. These people are so passionate and so convinced that Rep. Paul is right it seems they view every other candidate and position as an enemy and respond accordingly. Not exactly Dale Carnegie recommended tactics.
I’d take a moment to wonder what they plan to do if they win, how they plan to govern and work to be the President of all America but I don’t need to. One of the guys banned from RedState saved me the trouble. Writing to and about a generally recognized as right of center site, one commenter says,
Your website, and whatever else you’re supposed to be–ideology, a group of fascists, red commies, whatever, ought to be ashamed of your blatant censorship, and your obvious ignorance to the need of the people of this nation, and this nation itself. The dollar’s crashing, the North American Union is alive and well, Bush is bankrupting us, a Hillary presidency would only completely crush under a socialistic-CFR rule, Israel and London control our foreign policies, and our country is now more than ever hated… And you would suppress those supporters of the one and only candidate who would address any of these issues… I hope you all are some of the first up against the wall. Cowards and traitors all of you.
Like I said, it’s easy to miss some of the points he makes because I’m more focused on the gun he’s waving around. If for no other reason than this, I cannot support Rep. Paul. At the risk of subjecting BCM and all of you to the wrath of these sorts of folks, I have to say that the reason I can’t isn’t because of his campaign. It’s because of his campaign workers. They are his worst enemy. The tragic part not that they don’t see it. I think they do. It’s that they think this is the best way to win the hearts and minds of the rest of the electorate.
Wishing the primary was tomorrow and we could put this behind us …
Blue Collar Muse
Popularity: 32% [?]
Entries (RSS)
October 25th, 2007 at 5:45 am
[…] post by Blue Collar Muse This was written by . Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007, at 6:02 am. Filed under […]
October 25th, 2007 at 8:32 am
It is obvious that we can not stop Ron Paul by debating about his positions. We must agressively pretend that his supporters are inferior to the supporters of other candidates and that this reflects on Ron Paul. It’s our only chance. We can’t win on the issues.
For instance, when Giuliani’s supporters boo and laugh during the debates, that’s reasonable because war is good, but when a Ron Paul supporter peacefully holds a sign, that’s “unspeakably rude and boorish!”
If we tell this lie often enough, we may actually come to believe it ourselves, and that is the road to victory.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:02 am
“How unspeakably rude and boorish!”
Are you serious with this?
Are Moderates just completely unaware of how angry the average person is at the moment, especially the average young male?
I’m just sorry there was only one guy and one sign, we’ll have to fix that…
October 25th, 2007 at 11:16 am
I hate name calling, but I’m sorry, I just can’t help myself. The author of this cry-baby blog is a “head in the sand” pussy who seems to think everything is just hunky-dory. Well it’s not. And not supporting Ron Paul because you think some of Paul’s supporters are “unspeakably rude and borish” is about as childish as it comes. We Ron Paul supporters are plain pissed as hell about what’s going on in OUR country and even more pissed that clowns like this blog’s author are so obtuse as to not be as equally pissed. The Ron Paul supporter with the sign should have been the most reasonable guy in the room. All the rest should have been throwing rotten tomatoes at Romney. Enough of this bull. Wake up blogger. We are getting mad as hell and we’re…you know the rest. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Holding up a Ron Paul sign when an ass like Romney, Ghoolishony, Clinton, et al speaks is far more polite than the times call for. It’s high time we all start planting acres of tomatoes. Go Ron Paul!
October 25th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
BCM,
I assume you knew that this post would inspire some of Congressman Paul’s supporters to assist you in making your point. While I don’t agree with your first choice for president, I wholeheartedly agree that Ron Paul’s supporters are doing his campaign a disservice. The vulgarity that some of these supporters use to intimidate fellow citizens isn’t much different from that which can seen at places like The Huffington Post.
I am sure you and I both agree that Giuliani and his supporters jeering Ron Paul at debates is inappropriate as well. It doesn’t surprise me that the offensive behavior is exhibited by supporters of the only two candidates I couldn’t vote for. Giuliani is a pro-choice, amnesty supporting, gun control liberal who is banking on the notion that the modern Republican Party wants “liberal lite” in The White House. Ron Paul is inspiring on so many issues, but I am concerned about his positions on national security not to mention the intimidation tactics displayed by his supporters.
These things are also a few of the reasons I so strongly support Congressman Duncan Hunter!
October 25th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
John -
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I have to disagree with your premise. Or at least what I perceive to be your premise. That Ron Paul is on a roll and that any opposition to any part of his campaign is merely sour grapes or a weak attempt to derail his campaign juggernaut.
Unfortunately, his campaign is not as strong as you would like it to be and my point here is that his supporters, either despite or because of their passion (I’ll be diplomatic and call it that) are part of the problem. Your own comment is evidence in support of my premise. You have me saying things I did not say nor believe. I did not say that my remarks applied to all of Ron’s supporters, you did. Further, when speaking about them, I confined my remarks to their behavior and my opinion of it. I did not make observations on their character (labeling them “inferior”) but on their actions (”rude and boorish”). Again, it was you who put words in my mouth and then proceeded to address what YOU said I said as opposed to what I actually said.
I note that neither you nor any of Dr. Paul’s other supporters commenting so far mentioned my praise for his stand for Constitutional principles. Nor did any of you comment on my words he has some excellent ideas and fine people behind him.
You picked out the main point of my post and, rather than trying to deny it, spin it, defend it or oppose it, you simply discounted it and offered the political equivalent of my 11 year old pointing at my 9 year old when I correct her and saying, “Yeah? Well he does it, too!”
I don’t have any more love for the sort of behavior you describe in Rudy’s folks than I do for those in Rep. Paul’s campaign who reflect so poorly on their candidate. The problem being, of course, no one has yet banned Rudy’s supporters from their sites for being over the top, outrageous and perhaps threatening. Perhaps because their actions are the exception, not the norm.
To use your own argument, this has become an issue. It is silly to try and deny it as the evidence has become overwhelming. But rather than address the issue, you simply write off those who raise it as if that is sufficient to shield Ron and his campaign from the consequences and pretend if you ignore it you can cruise to victory. I am of the opinion that approach is both foolish and shortsighted. But he’s your candidate. You support him in the way you feel is best.
Thanks again for stopping by. Feel free to come by anytime and offer your views.
Blue
October 25th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Miranda -
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I appreciate you taking the time to do so. You asked if I was serious about this? Of course I am. I would not have posted it if I were not.
You then ask if I am ignorant of the anger present in people today as if, A) that has bearing on my comments that expressing that anger in socially unacceptable ways is damaging to Ron’s campaign; and, B) as if that anger ought to excuse the bad behavior in evidence.
Of course people are angry. The Left is angry, too. Does that mean all their points are valid and that no one should dare criticize them?
At issue here is not whether or not some of Dr. Paul’s supporters are angry. At issue here is their lack of restraint when expressing their anger.
Failing to make that distinction is something you are free to do. But don’t be surprised when others get angry about THAT and respond. But if anger is the great justifier, then we really don’t have anything to worry about.
Blue
October 25th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Bill -
Thanks to you, as well, for stopping by and commenting. I appreciate your insight into at least one thing I said. More on that in a moment.
Your admitted lack of restraint is, of course, the very thing I’m talking about and which Sam picked up on as being evidence that my point is correct. As you are making my point quite well, allow me to say, “Thank you.!” and move on to other things.
You did do me one other favor for which I need to thank you. You said
When I read that, I checked my post. Alas, my own words would seem to indicate that my lack of support for Dr. Paul, despite my also admitted praise for some of his views (you’re welcome), is indeed due to nothing more than bad behavior on the part of some of his supporters. That is incorrect and I appreciate you pointing it out so that I might set the record straight.
My lack of support for Dr. Paul is based in my disagreement specifically with his foreign policy. I do not think complete disengagement from the world and world events is either desirable or Constitutional. Given the world in which we find ourselves today, it is also quite dangerous and threatening to our country, its citizens and our way of life. That is why I do not support him.
The lack of self control and bad behavior on the part of some of his supporters as evidenced by your comments above are merely icing on a rather large cake.
Please feel free to stop back by any time and comment. You are welcome here.
Blue
October 25th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Sam -
You are, as is most often the case, exactly right.
As for my choice of Fred, please note I said that is my “current choice”. I was very impressed with Duncan in Reno and the folks traveling with him were my kind of folks.
My mind is not at all made up on who to support. To date, I’ve only ruled out some folks: Paul, Tancredo and Giuliani.
I’m still looking through the rest trying to distill their views and compare them with my own. Duncan is very much in that race. I’d say that he’s in 2nd and Huckabee is charging for 3rd.
There are several furlongs left in this horse race and favorites can finish dead last. We’ll just have to see. With you praying fervently that I’ll see the light, I have no doubt I’ll make the right choice when the time comes.
Blessings to you and yours …
Blue
October 25th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
So you are concerned about candidate supporters being politically correct, which ultimately hurts no one, when at the same time the international bankers who own our govt are literally slaughtering people all around the world, destrouing our currency, and removing our protected freedoms.
What’s coming out of your head is pure horse shit. Vote for a candidate that is interested in ending this kind of horse shit.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Duncan -
I can only echo Sam’s point above that you, too, are making my point. You have a poor grasp of the issue here. Your entire point is that Ron Paul is the best hope for America and absolutely nothing can be allowed to get in the way - not of getting Ron elected - but of making that point! This is a text book example of someone fighting so hard to win the argument that he loses sight of his original objective, to win someone over.
So, you tell me that I’m advocating political correctness when I’ve done nothing of the kind. I am advocating basic respect and decency. You can run a political campaign and still maintain those virtues. You folks choose not to. That’s the point. And you couldn’t be more wrong when you say it hurts no one. It is hurting the very candidate you claim to be working FOR.
Then you tell me that because in this post I raise this issue and not some OTHER issue then I must be either unaware or unconcerned with that other issue. Not only are you off the mark in saying that only YOUR issues have sufficient merit to be discussed, it is interesting that you tell me what I think on those issues based on my NOT having said anything about them. How could you possibly know?
Then you insult me, and by comparison, make yourself out to be smarter than me even though you’ve just demonstrated to us all that you have no grasp of the content of the conversation in the first place.
Your final piece of advice is basically, “So you should support Ron Paul!” Let’s see, you can’t follow my points, you don’t know what I think though you say you do and then you insult me, all in order to get me to vote for your guy.
But, of course, I’m wrong. There’s no truth to the observation that some of Dr. Paul’s supporters are, as I mentioned above, overly passionate in their support for their candidate - perhaps to the point of turning off the very people they hope to attract.
Nope, not at all. Move along folks! Nothing to see here …
Feel free to come back and comment on stuff anytime, Duncan.
Blue
October 25th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
What a lame article!!!…
October 25th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Freedom -
What a lame comment …
Blue
October 25th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
please explain what you mean about Dr. Paul advocating “complete disengagement” from the world and world events.
why do you think the world is “quite dangerous” and who is “threatening” our country, citizens and way of life.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
DLS -
Excellent questions. And the answers are related.
The world is a dangerous place as evidenced (in part) by the worldwide rise of Islamic extremism. Every continent, almost every country, every religion and people group have been targeted by these cowardly murderers.
It is these folks (among others) who threaten our country, citizens and way of life. On 9/11 their interest in the destruction of the US became undeniable as on our very own soil (country), 3000 Americans (citizens) were murdered in an attack designed to cripple the financial affairs of our nation (way of life).
Dr. Paul has concluded that US actions in response to those events should not have taken place for a variety of reasons that I can appreciate. However, he has not, to my knowledge, offered up any suggestion to avert another 9/11 other than disengagement and changing our ways since we brought it on ourselves. There is not, that I can find, serious argument with the view that Dr. Paul is an isolationist. Folks disagree as to whether or not that’s a good choice in today’s world. But not whether or not that’s Dr. Paul’s position.
If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. Thanks for coming by and please feel welcome to come back.
Blue
October 25th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
No one cares about your lame blog. Your to dumb to hold any followers for any period of time. Trolling for readers by attacking the Honorable Paul is a waste of everyones time.
Not all of Dr Paul’s supporters are going to be a awesome and dignified as you?
Did Jesus hang out with Pharisees or sinners? Who were his followers? Were they perfect like you?
October 25th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Well, John …
I’m sorry … I was going to try and engage you and your comment but I just don’t have it in me to do so without being snarky.
I will, however, ask that if my blog is so lame and I’m so dumb then what does it say about you that you are here talking to me?
I’m not judgin’, I’m jus’ askin’ …
Blue
October 26th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Excellent post, excellent thoughts, and excellent responses to the comments posted.
One vote for Blue Collar Muse!
I have only begun to learn about Ron Paul, and I am quite impressed with the little that I know.
I even share some of the concerns some of his supporters have about “globalism” and the attack on our constitution.
But I agree that force of argument and persuasion will get more things done than belligerence.
I also am concerned about the idea of suddenly pulling out of Iraq.
I have my eyes on Mike Huckabee but i am undecided. I would be willing to consider a number of the other candidates over Hillary Clinton.
Keep up the good work!
ThirstyJon
freedomthirst.com
October 26th, 2007 at 5:58 am
Jon -
Thank you for your kind words.
We share some of the same conclusions. There is much to admire about Ron Paul and not only his assessments of the shape our country is in and his solutions.
But if even the behavior we have witnessed here is the way to influence people to come to your side, and this has been pretty tame, then one has to ask why Dr. Paul himself doesn’t use these same methods?
The answer, i suspect, is because he understands that they would do him no good and even more harm. That’s my point.
Please come back and visit again. Feel free to jump into the discussions here as well. I’m off to visit your site. Thanks for coming by.
Blue
October 26th, 2007 at 8:23 am
I too would like to point out that the Ron Paul juggernaut is largely a myth created by fanatical Paulists. I don’t know if you follow LGF, but they had a piece a while back on Paulists stuffing the virtual ballot box — several of them, in fact. Yes, the folks that support Paul do tend to be rude and unhinged.
With that said, though, Paul’s true fault is his foreign policy. In short, he blames the victims of terrorism for the murderous ideology that drives the attackers. Not only is that immoral, but it is dreadfully naive.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:44 am
The biggest concern I see that people have of Ron Paul is how he would deal with Islamic extremism. It is difficult to know if you only watch the debates. But it is pretty simple. Ron Paul would keep our military strong and modernized and ready to fight 100% at any threat to the United States–his motto is, “get Congress to authorize war, fight the war to win it and get it done.” What has the Bush foreign policy given us? Protracted war with little success. They told us to go shopping. They ignored any advice from the military–Shinseki said we needed at least 300,000 troops. He got “retired”. Wolfwitz said the war would pay for itself, intentionally minimizing the scope of the effort we would need to undertake. The military has largely been outsourced to private security firms like Blackwater, who get paid 10 times the amount of the regular soldier and are accountable to no one, inflamming the region to hate us more. The war has been good for Halliburton and Cheney, and the longer the war the better for them. And because we are stuck in a quagmire there, we can’t really respond to threat that comes up now. Our troops are stretched thin and serve multiple 15months tours, and are getting run-down. Now we have this threat with Iran, and our only solution is to bomb them with nuclear weapons. Simply put, our current foreign policy makes us less able to fight Islamic extremism.
No Muslim country in the middle east could strike us with a missile. You fear the suitcase nuke, that Iran would give nuclear material to a terrorist group who would then smuggle it into the US. Well, there is no way to stop that from happening. If a terrorist wanted to get a hold of nuke material, there is sure to be some on the black market. Our saber-rattling and name calling Iran “an axis of evil” only agitates those who hate the US to strike out more.
If there was an imminent danger, you can be sure that Ron Paul would do everything in his power to stop it, full steam ahead, and would never tell the American people “to go shopping.” He would tell us, we must all now sacrifice to win the war. During World War II, corporations generally did not engage in price gouging, and did everything they could to help the war effort. But this Iraq war, it is a bonanza with the no-bid cost plus contracts the companies get, and even when caught red-handed they get a new contract.
The US foreign policy for at least the last sixty years has been one of constant meddling in the affairs of foreign countries. If you think these terrorists are driven solely by religious extremism, then you’ve been drinking a lot of kool aid. Please, just do a little reading on the history of american foreign policies. Whether these policies were right or wrong is arguable, but the fact that we were meddling is not. We overthrown and helped overthrow dozens of leaders, even democratically elected one. This is sure to have consequences don’t you think? We’ve been policing the world for some 50 years, and as many people feel about the police in their town, they don’t particularly like police, because people in power tend to abuse their authority, and some really abuse their authority. So the US has stepped on a lot of toes, has bruised a lot of egos, and fanned the flames of anger in our fight to keep the world from blowing itself up. Just as there are christians ready to bomb Iran and any other mulsim country for the sake of religion, there are muslim ready to bomb us for the sake of religion. But what makes one cross the line??? Something has to really piss you off to make you feel you have nothing left to lose.
Just as there will always be some guy who goes nuts and kills a few people, there will be religious extremists who cross the line. Bombing Iran to the stone age does not solve anything, it does not address the root problem of the disaffection. It only encourages them.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
A good man is measured by others by the respect he shows to those he disagrees with.
The foolish are measured by the degree to which they mock others they do not understand.
Ron Paul is clear, concise and honest and the people who want him elected are truly a more accurate cross section of examples of this country that any other candidate has, good manners or not. Just the trend of change this early in the election cycle shows that people are so fed up with the “good old boys” network of media, politicians and government BS.
Ron Paul represents the best hope of reestablishing this county back to Constitutional government and representation. Unfortunately, there is a very large corporate and Federal Reserve banking infrastructure which will fight tooth and nail against any deconstruction of the status-quo.
I firmly believe we are likely unable to fully mend the Constitutional cancers that have affixed themselves to the holes and amendments we have allowed to be inflicted by our legislators and Executive orders that emulate a drive-up window at McDonalds.
However how painful, a revolution must accompany the next changes in our government to de-scale and reestablish our federal, state and local governments to their proper and legitimate place.
If we are going to be a third world country in the next 15 - 20 years, let’s do it with some dignity and show them our system of government will not be another flash-in-the-pan experiment that can be bought by international entities and markets.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
“the world as a dangerous place” If by my actions, i trespassed upon another persons rights and he became violent, who created the danger. would the us have been attacked if we hadn’t meddled in anothers government. was the attack an attack of last resort because we would not listen to the reasons why a people would hate us so. was the attack the only way they could get the attention of the american people that we were killing their people indiscriminently and they wanted us to pay attention to what was going on with our government. since our borders are wide open, how will terrorists be kept out. will there come a time that the rest of the world places “sanctions” on the us because they are tired of our interference and attacking other countries because our government doesn’t like them “talking back”.
October 27th, 2007 at 3:26 am
Wouldn’t it be nice if at least One of the other candidates - Liberal, Conservative or from either end of either Camp - would simply use their brains and adopt some of Paul’s Constitutional logic?
I’m a Social LIBERAL. Big Time Liberal/Libertarian on Social Issues - Boys want to marry Boys, it’s none of my concern, and recreational drug use, you know, like beer & pot, is perfectly acceptable as long as Employers don’t have to give slacker employees chance after chance after chance to the detriment of their business. I’m a Fiscal Conservative. I think the Government should take care of Infrastructure business like Highways, Education and HealthCare; things where we Private Interests are repeatedly shown to be “efficient” at short-changing their customers - Us.
My point in describing my politics is to show that I almost don’t care who gets elected as long as they FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLES OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
Errr, sorry for shouting. It’s just that no one but Paul’s variety of paranoiacs seem to care about that little nicety.
While I wouldn’t have held up that sign m’self, I didn’t think it sounded all that rude. On the other hand, I think that the point of your post, here, is entirely valid. Paul’s followers remind me Very Much of the kind of folk who made the October Revolution happen. Remind me of religious fanatics of many blends and flavors as well. “Kill ‘Em All and let ‘insert object of worship here’ sort ‘em out!”
The way the standard Dumbs & Rethugs are conducting business, I think that the majority of U.S. Americans are going to continue to ignore their own constitutional rights and buy the slickest Liar’s advertising, yet again. I don’t foresee another revolution, per se, but I do believe that things will be getting as chaotic in the U.S. as they were back in the early part of the last century.
My wish list to resolve this?
Gore/Romney ‘08!
Good luck to us all, eh…
October 27th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Think About It -
Your premise, and Dr. Paul’s, seem to be that America’s international involvements have bred widespread discontent, anger and perhaps even hatred towards the US. The argument is, as I understand it, if we had just left the rest of the world alone and stopped overthrowing leaders then all the world would love us and we would be exempt from attack. Thus, since we were attacked, it is our own fault - we brought it on ourselves.
I am not saying that America is perfect in all of its choices or its application of its principles. However, your premise is so flawed, so shortsighted and so naive as to be the reason why most of those opposing Rep. Paul’s foreign policy do so.
You say,
I agree with you. Could you list a few of the consequences of
our meddling in the affairs of and/or overthrow of the following leaders and countries, some of them democratically elected?
Hitler, Hirohito, the former Soviet Union, France, South Korea, Japan, Germany, Iraq, Saddam Hussein?
What about people and places where we either failed to meddle or stopped meddling? Vietnam and Stalin come to mind.
Our meddling has produced more democracy and more SELF determination for the people and countries of the world than any other factor in the history of humanity. We “meddle” as you put it, not for national gain and often at great national cost, because America was born out of a conviction that “…ALL men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
We are content to let countries determine their course, even with disastrous results, because we respect their rights to be independent. However, once their course puts them in conflict with us or one of our allies, our laissez faire falls away and we bring the entire force of our convictions to bear on those who would seek to do us harm.
I agree that Rep. Paul would fight should someone actually invade the US and attack our country. If the Chinese conducted an amphibious assault on Martha’s Vineyard or the Mexicans executed an airborne assault on The Tenderloin District, even Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi would likely show up and John Kerry would report for duty all over again. What Rep. Paul’s detractors don’t understand is how the good Dr. doesn’t see 9/11, the USS Cole, Khobar Towers and on and on and on as being that sort of attack.
To go even further and purport, as you do, that these attacks are justified due to our actions and not from religious convictions on the part of the attackers is breathtakingly ignorant. It does not take into account that 9/11 was not the first attack on US interests, merely the most attention getting. Nor does it take into account Islamic violence against virtually every other country and people on the face of the planet, including other Muslims, virtually none of which have “meddled” abroad.
That foundation for a foreign policy is irresponsible and dangerous. It is the reason I don’t support Dr. Paul. Contrary to your statement that,
Ron Paul’s refusal to engage in serious debate on the threat Islamic militants present to our interests, at home and abroad - and his stated reasons for doing so, disqualify him for the Presidency despite his many other desirable qualities.
But I thank you for your defense of your choice. It was specific and respectful and as such, moves the dialogue forward to the benefit of all Americans. Please feel free to come back and comment on any subject, any time.
Blue
October 27th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Russet Shadows -
Well said!
Thanks for stopping by!
Blue
October 27th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
DLS -
Your contention that the US invited the attacks of 9/11 owing to our actions abroad is without merit. As I said to Think About It above, to
Further, to be concerned that other countries might not like it that we choose to defend ourselves is silly. I don’t refuse self defense because a third party might not like it. If the third party cannot see the attack and wants to stand with my attacker, fine. He should not be surprised to find me unhappy with him for that, however. If he gets to make his choices and live with the consequences then so do I.
Further, far from producing bondage and misery around the world, an objective analysis of the results of US foreign policy over the last 75 years shows, as I stated above
Blue