The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Eminentoes
Print Email
Text Size

Eminentoes

The Hypocrisy of Ron Paul

By on 9.13.11 @ 6:09AM

“Doctor No” is no man of principle.

Just before last week’s Republican debate at the Reagan Library, Ron Paul released an attack ad targeting his fellow Texan and presidential aspirant Rick Perry. It shows a young Congressman Paul posing with the Gipper in a series of photos and features a portentous voiceover claiming that, while Paul “stood with Reagan,” Perry was a perfidious, Gore-pimping liberal. This ad is brazenly deceptive, but it does provide an edifying glimpse into the true character of a slippery Beltway operator posing as a man of principle fighting the good fight against the corrupt “prags” of the GOP establishment. It reveals that Ron Paul is a fraud of the first order. The sordid reality is that his loyalty to Ronald Reagan lasted only so long as it was politically expedient and his vaunted libertarian principles have proven to be remarkably elastic.

As to Reagan, the young Congressman who had once been so anxious to be photographed with him scampered like a Texas jackrabbit when the going got tough. In 1987, when Reagan truly needed his supporters to stand by him, Ron Paul suddenly disappeared from the man’s side. In fact, he resigned from the Republican Party and blamed Reagan for his disillusionment with the GOP. In a letter that echoed the prevailing Democrat talking points of the day he wrote, “The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.” That letter was not merely an act of breathtaking betrayal — it actually compares Reagan to Josef Stalin — its characterization of Reagan’s economic policies is utterly absurd.

Moving on to the Perry smear, Paul left an important fact out of his ad: Rick Perry was a Democrat when he supported Gore 23 years ago. And, if that puts you off, remember that Ronald Reagan himself was once a Democrat. Perry and Reagan eventually realized that the Democrat party was drifting ever leftward, abandoning the principles that had once claimed their loyalty. The party of Scoop Jackson had morphed into the party of George McGovern, so both joined the GOP because it more closely matched their ideals and those of the nation’s founders. As to “Dr. No,” having received fewer than half a million votes as the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate, he came crawling back to the party he had so vehemently denounced and was eventually reelected to Congress under the GOP banner.

This pattern of hypocrisy is by no means limited to party loyalty. Paul has consistently represented himself as a principled libertarian, and never tires of reminding us that he is a physician whose medical experience has taught him to be wary of government intrusion in health care. However, the good doctor’s voting record shows that he has frequently supported such government intervention. Shortly after the Democrats returned to power in the House in 2007, they introduced a bill calling for the government to “negotiate” the price of prescription drugs bought for Medicare Part D. In this context, “negotiate,” is nothing but a euphemism for price-fixing, something that a genuine free-market libertarian would reject out of hand. Nonetheless, Rep. Paul voted in favor of the measure.

This is not the only vote Dr. Paul has cast in favor of government meddling in health care. He has also voted for another price-fixing scheme that every libertarian worthy of the name has denounced — reimportation of pharmaceuticals from foreign countries with rigid price-control regimens. This, as Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute has pointed out, “would import foreign price controls on drugs.” Even worse, the Congressional Budget Office has said that drug reimportation would not significantly reduce prescription drug spending. Nor can Dr. Paul’s vote be justified in terms of free trade. As Nina Owcharenko at the Heritage Foundation explains, “Such policies would not create a ‘freer’ market for pharmaceuticals, but would regulate the market even further.”

Sadly, the hypocrisy of “Dr. No” doesn’t end with deceptive campaign ads about his record and the betrayal of his purported libertarian principles. He is also a downright fraud when it comes to big-government spending. While representing himself for decades as the sworn enemy of overspending, the good doctor has had his snout deep in the earmark trough. In 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported, “The Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research.” And this is the man who had the effrontery to berate Ronald Reagan for deficit spending.

Considering this affinity for earmarks, combined with numerous congressional votes that cannot be reconciled with his professed principles, one would think that most libertarians would by now have said “no” to “Dr. No.” And some have. Libertarian economist Arnold Kling became disenchanted several years ago: “Many well-meaning libertarians signed on to the ‘Ron Paul revolution.’ At first, this only required accepting his pro-life and anti-immigrant stances as libertarian, contrary to the leanings of many libertarians.… But to dismiss all doubts about his judgment and his character would be to succumb to a cult.” And character is, at bottom, the real problem with Ron Paul. That’s what his disingenuous attack ad against Rick Perry tells us. It is the work of a typical Beltway trimmer, devoid of principle or shame.

About the Author

David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (745) |

Arsoll| 9.13.11 @ 6:26AM

All is fair in love,war,and politics. Dr.Paul is a progressive thinking Libertarian and most neocons can't handle that.

Con Chef (NB) | 9.13.11 @ 9:07AM

"Progressive thinking" people brought us Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Obama, Mao, Hitler, Sanger, Stalin & others. Thanks, you can keep your REGRESSIVISM.

Some poster here nailed it when he called you folks Neo-libs. That's excatly what y'all are. A farce.

os| 9.13.11 @ 11:07AM

You forgot to mention George W. Bush.

Alan Brooks| 9.13.11 @ 3:16PM

"You forgot to mention George W. Bush."

And his father.

axbucxdu| 9.15.11 @ 10:12PM

You go, Al. Codevilla's quote on Poppy Bush's opinion of Reagan during a meeting with Gorbachev is inexcusable...but illuminating. He was a bigger skulduggerist than Cheney. On second thought, it's clear how Dick learned his trade.

Wallace| 9.13.11 @ 12:43PM

Con Chef = chicken-hawk neo-con.

Con Chef (NB) | 9.13.11 @ 12:48PM

Wallace:

Neo liberal Chamberlain wannabe. So when have/did YOU serve, douchebag?

Jack in Wi.| 9.14.11 @ 2:00AM

We are going to destroy the neocons and put those that pushed war crimes where they belong, in prison. The neocons have never been right about anything. To think that they are schooling Perry on foreign policy. Perry is just another dimwit with a Texas twag. He has almost self destructed already. I would rather Obama was re-elected then see them near power again. At least with Obama we know who our enemy is. The neocons are truely the enemy within.

Jack in Wi.| 9.14.11 @ 11:42PM

The Republican strategest Jack Burkman says the the Ron Paul people are the most committed group that has come around in many decades, maybe even back to Bobby Kennedy, as an example. They have all the fire in the campaign. He believes Ron Paul has the issues and people to win the nomination and the election. Mr. Burkman is comitted to no candidate.

That is why the goon squad above is trying every lie and trick in the book to stop Ron's candidicy. It won't work. Romney and Perry are the 2 dumbest and most incompetent candidates the so called elites have put up, ever. They are imploding before October.

axbucxdu| 9.15.11 @ 10:19PM

Poppy Bush's quote about Reagan to Gorbachev, of all people, says it all. The so-called "party", it's detestable even to say it as it sounds downright marxian, needs a thorough purging of these closet Wilsonians.

Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:08PM

Sorry, Jack, but Paul is gonna lose. He's gonna be like a scrawny Pakeha kid playing in a scrum line against Maori powerlifters.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 9:15AM

Then why does he spend so much time calling himself 'libertarian' and then voting statist?

Are Mr. Catron's facts wrong? I doubt it. Therefore, I have to doubt Congressman Ron Paul's veracity.

If Ron Paul's supporters respond to this simple question with insults or name calling, they PROVE my point.

We're waiting, please.

DTOM

Donovan | 9.13.11 @ 9:25AM

Dude, what part of Dr. Paul's message do you disagree with? And who will you empty your pockets for? There is none other for me right now. So, I will stand and fight for his cause as long as my wife and children are watching because I owe it to them.
Who will you stand and fight for? Seriously?!?

Michael Tomlinson| 9.13.11 @ 9:37AM

Like Obama’s acolytes the RINO neo-liberal Ron Paul cultists just can’t stand the light of truth being shown on their liberalterian version of the “messiah.” Like Obama Paul is a big spender who mouths words about limited spending and government, but his actual record puts the lie to his pontifications.

RINO Paul’s apologists like to claim he’s a “fiscal conservative” and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is correct as far as it goes, but it is very deceptive. What neo-liberal Paul does is make sure that earmarks he wants are put into a spending bill that will pass, and then he votes against the bill. It’s the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis. It is this blatantly crass political sleight of hand hypocrisy that disgusts the majority of conservatives and Tea Party voters.

RINO/neo-liberal “Wild Shrimp Cowboy” Paul like Forrest Gump’s Bubba has an unsettling affection for shrimp. Shrimp he is willing to spend your money on. In 2007 he got millions of American’s tax dollars for his favorite crustacean -- $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics, $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research. Richard Viguerie noted in 2007, Paul "is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function." Ron Paul’s fanatical insatiability for your tax dollars ($400 million in 2007) is disturbing in light of his words about fiscal restraint. Ron Paul is a prime example of why America’s fiscal house is in disorder.

In 2009 fraud Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling $80,775,750 ranking him the 33rd highest out of 435 representatives ($73 million was specifically for him). For 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork despite the House Republican Conference’s voluntary ban on filing earmarks. Paul was one of only 4 House Republicans in 2011 to break ranks with the Republican Conference’s earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year.

Donovan | 9.13.11 @ 9:51AM

You talk'n to me? ... You talk'n to me?!? If so, you didn't answer one of my simple straight forward questions. All you did is blast a bunch garbage into cyberspace. Ron Paul has said the opposite of what you wrote. He in favor of earmarks!! (It's his son, Rand that opposes them because they confuse idiots like you I suppose). You see bright eyes, although Ron has never voted for the spending, but should that money ever leave the House, where would it go? At that point it's better to get as much if it as you can for the good honest people of your district than to let it float over to the departments who cause much mischief.
Now answer my bloody questions you intellectual banana.

Johnathan| 9.13.11 @ 10:01AM

He can't and won't.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 8:26PM

ummm...the point of the article is that Paul will say one thing and vote another. AND YOU HAVEN'T DISPROVED THE AUTHOR'S ASSERTION.

Donovan | 9.13.11 @ 10:05AM

see?!?!?!?????

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03.....-earmarks/

James| 9.13.11 @ 10:24AM

I don't think the problem here is your lack of understanding of the Congressional process.

The Congressional budget is set BEFORE earmarks have gone through. That amount is fixed. If the money is not "earmarked" then the money goes to the executive branch. Yes, any "un-earmarked" dollars go directly to the Obama administration. You then get the chance to vote for or against the proposed budget. As you said above, Paul voted against all of them. If more Congressman had Paul's spine, they'd vote against them too.

This demonization of earmarking is the first sign that the poster has failed to engage in critical thinking. Congressional budgeting is constitutional. Your method, letting go of all the earmarks, hands a blank check DIRECTLY to Obama.

Quit shilling for Obama's campaign. Paul STARTED the Tea Party. Don't try and claim what the Tea Party stands for. You Johnny Come Lately's are hilarious.

Trent| 9.13.11 @ 11:11AM

+1 for cogent explanation of earmarking.

Con Chef (NB) | 9.13.11 @ 11:24AM

"Paul STARTED the Tea Party."

Funny, I thought that was Rick Santelli. You revisionist folks are a hoot!

Michael | 9.13.11 @ 1:49PM

Paul did start the Tea Party. This is where google is your friend!

Ron Paul Tea Party 2007
http://youtu.be/oG_OwTthS-E

Rick Santelli Tea Party 2009
http://youtu.be/zp-Jw-5Kx8k

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 3:23PM

NO.

Ron Paul's demented followers started a small organization using the Tea Party name in 2007.

The TEA PARTY as a real political force began after Rick Santelli's pronouncement on CNBC in 2009.

You Paul-bots are desperate to assign grandiose meaning to your enterprise, and to hi-jack something BIG and claim it as your own.

It ain't gonna' work.

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 8:02AM

What are you even talking about? What debates were you watching in 2007? Who alone stood up and told the truth about central banking, blowback and everything else Big Government that my generation had been spoon fed by our baby boomer parents. I'll tell you who. No one.

You're an idiot | 9.15.11 @ 4:39PM

Who cares who started the movement? Give credit to Santelli or Paul, but you just said yourself that Ron Paul started it. I agree with Santelli on a lot of points also.

What is your misguided point? Are you mad that Bachmann won't make the nomination?

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 3:33PM

The Tea Party wasn't founded by either of them, it was founded by liberty-minded individuals, some of whom held a huge fundraiser for Ron Paul in 2007 on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. A few months later, neocons began marching in front of that parade, declaring themselves leaders of an essentially leaderless movement.

Rick Santelli may have coined the term Tea Party for the people who've replaced their brains with TV's, but he didn't start the movement.

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:56PM

Yeah, Paul actually initiated the Boston Tea Party [and invented the internet also], right?????

RCV| 9.14.11 @ 4:48PM

He's certainly old enough!

Occam's Tool| 9.13.11 @ 10:01PM

I do believe that Dr Paul was booed at the debate. Con Chef, a man is known by his enemies. Your enemies have 302 neurons and self fertilize (Fell free to call them C. Elegans---it beautifully fits them when you look it up, and I would like it to spread.). You're doing pretty well in my book, compadre.

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 8:08AM

Bood by who? The same morons like you that bood him in 2007 when he stood up to Guliani. I shed no tears for your boos.
Boo who? You two.

Earle Belle| 9.15.11 @ 2:55PM

http://www.revolutionpac.com/2.....-is-right/
Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s “Bin Laden Unit”, defends Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions that our overseas military empire does the US more harm than good. This is in stark contrast to Monday’s CNN’s “Tea Party Express” Republican primary presidential debate, where following an attack by former neocon senator Rick Santorum, Tea-o-con members of the studio audience ignorantly boo’ed Ron Paul for explaining the real reasons of Middle-eastern hatred toward the United States.
Boo’ing Ron Paul’s truthful explanation shows the so-called “Tea Party” mainstreamers have a long way to go in differentiating domestic big government from big government abroad, and that unless we face the motivations of our enemies, our overseas militaristic interventionism will continue to make the US a growing target of terrorism. The CIA itself even admits this, calling it “blowback”. Yet neocon talking heads like Santorum continue to mindlessly froth that bombing everything in the Middle East, aside from Israel, will make us safer. Relevant discussion starts at 2:40 in the video above.

Some Republicans have suggested that Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy—opposition to the Iraq War and the ongoing war in Afghanistan, believing that the CIA term “blowback” actually has merit, not wanting to police the world—makes the Congressman more suited for the Democratic Party.

Let us take this logic even further.

Here is just a quick list of figures on the Right, both past and present, and in no particular order, who have shared Paul’s foreign policy views in some respect as described above:

National Review Founder William F. Buckley; The Conservative Mind author Russell Kirk; Author, pundit and Senior Advisor to Ronald Reagan Patrick J. Buchanan; Journalist Robert Novak; Economist Milton Friedman; Economist Ludwig von Mises; Columnist George Will; Republican Congressman and 1996 GOP Vice Presidential Nominee Jack Kemp; Americans for Tax Reform Founder Grover Norquist; Direct-Mail Pioneer Richard Vigurie; Human Events co-founder Felix Morley; Human Events co-founder Frank Chodorov; Regnery Publishing founder Henry Regnery; Eagle Forum Founder Phyllis Schlafly; Social conservative activist and commentator Paul Weyrich; Ideas Have Consequences author and National Review contributor Richard Weaver; Sociologist and National Review contributor Robert Nisbet; The Road to Serfdom author F.A. Hayek; Senator Robert Taft; Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough; FOX News Judge Andrew Napolitano; Daily Caller Founder Tucker Carlson; Novelist Tom Clancy; Retired General Norman Schwarzkopf; National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush Brent Scowcroft; Former House Majority Leader and FreedomWorks founder Dick Armey; Veteran and author Andrew Bacevich; The American Conservative Editor Daniel McCarthy; National Rifle Association President David Keene; Senator Rand Paul; Senator Mike Lee; Senator Tom Coburn; Republican Congressman Henry Hyde; Republican Congressman Justin Amash; Republican Congressman Walter Jones; Republican Congressman John Duncan; Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz; Republican Congressman Tom McClintock; Republican Congressman Jeff Flake; Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher; Former Republican Congressman Barry Goldwater, Jr.; Former Conservative Caucus Chairman Howard Phillips; Political satirist and novelist Christopher Buckley; National Review contributor John Derbyshire; The American Spectator’s Associate Editor W. James Antle III; Author Tim Carney; Columnist James Pinkerton; Cato Institute Founder Edward Crane…

To follow their logic, according to Paul’s critics—President Obama’s foreign policy makes him more worthy of membership in the Republican Party than any of the figures listed here.

Then again, how many of Paul’s critics are following logic?

And finally some hilarious "food for thought":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

Dick Nome| 9.13.11 @ 10:25PM

Rube Paul has nothing to do with Tea Party movement. He hasn't shown his butt at any rally I've been to. However, you can always tell who the Paulbots are at any assembly. They're the ones passing out the literature, which nobody takes, advocating legalization of marijuana and hard drugs. Rube Paul would be heartily booed at any Tea PArty rally.

ContraS8tist| 9.14.11 @ 1:03PM

We refer to people like you as tea party hijackers. I was there last election cycle and the Ron Paul revolution did indeed start the tea party. The establishment saw how passionate and involved we were and co opted the movement. Now it is nothing like it once was... booed at a tea party rally, really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmEOv_rT8LQ

Vive' Liberte'| 9.13.11 @ 2:09PM

Well done, James.

Eric| 9.13.11 @ 10:59AM

Where is your research and/or links to back up your claims?

Here is Paul's complete voting record.
http://www.govtrack.us/congres.....son=400311

Here is Paul in 1976 speaking about "honest money."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk3FwJTjVi4

Anyone can look at his record, study the bills he voted on and come to their own conclusions about why he voted the way he did. This seems to be slightly more empirical than throwing around ad hominem name-calling. Next time you post something Mr. Tomlinson, please do all of us critical thinking people a favor and post some research.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 4:53PM

Asked & Answered Ad Nauseam Litlle Ricky Perry Algore HillaryCare Cheerleader.

Dr.Ron Paul takes a consistent Principled Constitutional stand & never voted for Earmarks or any Appropriations Bill, while protesting that The Congress has allowed The Executive Branch to decide,where appropriations go from Taxpayers Money.

So many idiots here| 11.1.11 @ 3:50PM

You are all listening to a status quo author. Why don't you take the words from Ron Paul instead of this asshat? All you have to do is spend the same amount of time listening to Ron Paul as you do listening to the third party "experts" who feed you lies and misinformation. Ron Paul is not a neocon. HA HA HA HA! That is the cluelessness going on here. So sad.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 11:30AM

Donovan;

I disagree very strongly with Cong.Paul's attitude on Iranian nuclear weapons. You bet they're a third world in a lot of things, but they have been actively fighting and killing us through proxies for decades. No amount of saying, "We won't attack you" will still their hatred for us. We are their great Satan and they have every intention of doing us great harm.

Doc Paul wants to take a very Hillary position of trying to appease, assuage, and ignore them. When they get their nukes, they will launch, land, ship, mail, camel ride some here over our non-existent Southern border to kill as many
Americans as they can.

It's not about their politics - it's about their religion which is really a feudal political system of beliefs. Find out about the 13th Imam and all that stuff. You may not believe it, Ron Paul may not believe it, but they say they believe it, and I believe them. Ever read "Mein Kampf" Chairman Mao's "Little Red Book?" Grab yourself an English Koran and read it carefully.

Then you'll realize why head in the sand is how you get your butt shot off!

Don't tread on me!!

Michael | 9.13.11 @ 2:06PM

The Arab & Persian countries did not call us the Great Satan before 1948. Great Britain & France were the Imperialist Occupiers. Is the common denominator Islam? Or is it Occupation?

The notion that Islam is going to take over the world is ridiculous. That they are going to storm our shores and force all of us to live under Sharia law is equally ridiculous.

According to your way of thinking, the only way to stop the massive Islamic takeover is to eliminate all Muslims. That can really be the only assured way of achieving your peace of mind. Do you think that occupying muslim nations & randomly killing innocent people is actually helping your supposed cause & quelling the motivation for revenge for killing their family members?

Not only is your logic flawed, but you've also missed the one of the largest reasons for not meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. The Economic reason. There is no money to fight against your bogeymen. We are currently experiencing the POP of the largest bubble in world history and when the entire economic system collapses, and it will. What are you going to do then about your fear of bogeymen in far away lands?

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 3:03PM

"According to your way of thinking, the only way to stop the massive Islamic takeover is to eliminate all Muslims."

With all due respect, Micheal, this frank misrepresentation of your opponent's position is a cheap high-school debating tactic that signals a profound weakness in your ability to formulate a cogent defense of your own position (when one cannot credibly attack a position, create a false and utterly unsupportable position to attack).

Not once has anyone advocated the elimination of all Muslims as a viable means of avoiding an Islamic takeover, yet you build your case around this absurd claim and proceed to characterize your opponent's logic as flawed.

As to your characterization of Iran as some imaginary boogeyman in some far-away land, this is precisely the type of niaive fairy tale thinking that proved so fatal on September 11, 2001. If 19 schmucks from the middle east can hijack 4 airliners, kill 3,000 innocent Americans, and bring the entire US economic system to its knees, what in God's name makes you believe that a STATE armed with intercontinental nuclear missiles and the explicit national goal of eliminating Israel and it's supporters wouldn't endeavor to inflict even greater damage?

You may be perfectly content to live in your delightfully cheery make-believe world where everyone will leave us alone if we simply pretend they aren't a threat. I suspect, however, there are some folks in lower Manhattan who would testify to the grave error in this logic.

Grow up, sport. Life ain't a fairy tale.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 3:49PM

No one would come out and actually say they're in favor of genocide. But if you look, you'll notice who helps put the pieces in place for it to occur, and who works toward building peace, trust, and prosperity.

You seem to suppose that the entire Iranian nation of millions of individuals will stop at nothing, not even the preservation of their own lives and culture, to inflict just a bit of damage upon us. Have you not noticed that our own nation is stocked with nukes and run by warmongers? It is only right to fear that the same violence we visit upon others might be visited upon us, but only a fool would declare the solution to be more violence.

Violence as a response to aggression initiated by another is the only moral justification for its use. Pre-emptive attacks only inspire justifiable retaliatory attacks.

Have you ever seen the movie 'Munich', about the terrorist attack on the Israeli Olympics team in the 1970's? That is a better way of handling foreign terrorists than what we're doing, and the Constitution actually provides for that type of criminal prosecution. But, alas, if we were to actually do that, our problems would get solved, and govt profits from managing problems, not solving them.

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 4:40PM

UncleSim,

Point 1: I, for one, do not happen to be an advocate of formulating foreign policy on the basis of Hollywood movies. Indeed, your use of a movie (rather than the actual historical event) betrays a fundamental lack of... well, let's be charitable and call it credibility. Moreover, I cannot help but note the biting irony in the fact that you support your impassioned plea against violence by citing as an example of the "better way" to handle terrorists the Israeli response to the Munich attacks. You are aware, are you not, that the Mossad hunted down and systematically eliminated the perpetrators (and kudos to them, by the way)?

Point 2: As to your assertion that the only moral justification for violence is as a response to agression initiated by another (i.e. pre-emption is immoral), do you really mean to suggest that if we could have intervened with violence to stop the attacks on September 11, 2001, our actions would not have been morally justifiable? Tell you what, walk into any firehouse or police precinct in Manhattan and try to sell that one.

Incidently, do they have nuclear weapons in your make-believe world? You see, when nuclear annihilation is on the table, it does one rather little good to delay retaliation until after the attack.

Point 3: Regarding your vieled reference to tacit support of genocide, perhaps you aren't aware (no surprise, that) that the United States has intervened on multiple occassions within just the last 2 decades to prevent genocide of....wait for it....MUSLIMS. Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Sudan. So please, sell that shit elsewhere, we have quite all we need here.

Finally, I hear there's an opening for a full professor of Historical Revision and Fairy Tale Thinking at Berkley. Perhaps you should give them a call.

Simpleton.

SueJW| 9.13.11 @ 6:23PM

Trinacria,
Very well stated... But there is really no point in even trying logical argument. They REFUSE to face reality. Many have tried...

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 8:23AM

Trinacria,
To your point 2.) you have not disproven his premise of justifiable violence. If we apprehended and punished those who had their horrible plot of terror against us after proving it to a court of law we would be justified for responding to aggression. Who taught you to successfully argue. Just because people roll their eyes at you and walk away from you at Thanksgiving dinner, you shouldn't claim victory unless you aim was to disgust.

To your points 1.) & 3.) , ... Oh forget it , I'm done with you.

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 10:27AM

Weak, sport; very weak indeed. Do try again sometime though, but please, let's try to make it a bit more sporting, shall we?

Now, don't you have some slurps to serve?

OIF07Vet| 9.13.11 @ 4:34PM

The U.S is fighting and bombing six Muslim nations (Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Afghanistan) and talking about invading 2 additional Muslim countries (Iran & Syria) it certainly isn’t a stretch to believe that you want to eliminate Islamic nations.

Alan Brooks| 9.13.11 @ 5:10PM

"it certainly isn’t a stretch to believe that you want to eliminate Islamic nations."

Come to think of it, you might be correct. But it is a minority Anne Coulter ''invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" position. And an extremist one.

Alan Brooks| 9.13.11 @ 5:11PM

... to say the least.
It is grotesque- from paranoia.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 8:32PM

the thinking behind this is so weak as to embarrass all veterans.

Jack in Wi.| 9.14.11 @ 2:06AM

The vast majority of zionists I have debated over the years advocate some form of ethnic cleansing, genocide, nuclear genocide, or just plan brutality, murder and theft. I don't think most neocons and other rabid Zionists know how to put 2 true words together.

Mike D.| 9.14.11 @ 7:31AM

Coming from a Jew hating Anti-Semitic neo nazi thats quite a statement about debating. I took your @ss apart with your own words and your talking about true words. Keep it up, and uh, Seig Hiel.

Martin Treptow| 9.15.11 @ 7:42PM

You do know that the only people who use the term "Zionists" are White Supremacists and Islamofascists, right?

Just checking

Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:37PM

You know, jack---first you started with 200 nukes for the Israelis, and now you are up to 600. Wow!

I think 200 is more accurate. there is someone who blogs here regularly who probably knows the exact answer. It isn't me, and it isn't you. Defer to Stuart.

I'm happy to answer questions on why Ron Paul is an idiot on marijuana, however. That's mine.

Occam's Tool| 9.13.11 @ 10:05PM

Michael---check your demographics. Europe is dead, pendejo. One does not need to invade to conquer---did we ever put a fighting force in full cry on the Japanese Home Islands?

Paul is an idiot. Your conversations grow tiresome, as do all Paulbots. Scum and traitors, all of them.

Incidentally, we were not a major world power before WWII. Britian was the major empire until then. But we did have experience smashing Muslims in a land war, and we will probably need to repeat the process, eventually. Review the Moro War 1902-1913. Ignorance of history is a mark of the paulbot.

Jack in Wi.| 9.14.11 @ 2:13AM

Another advocate of mass murder. The Moros were Phillipino people who wanted their own way of life and government. We killed 250,000 Phillipinos after we took the Phillipines away from Spain. most were Christians. The Moros just held out longer and fought harder. 4000 Americans also died. It is a perfect example of why we should have never gone to Iraq. We had no business in the Far East and we have no business in the Middle East.

Boar Hunter| 9.14.11 @ 12:39AM

You are an educated idiot. lol

Donovan | 9.13.11 @ 3:08PM

Dan,
I totally disagree with you Your issue is with Mr. Paul's foreign policy. I think Dr. Paul is spot on. I was 18 years old when I enlisted in the Corps to fight for my country.
Now I'm a man and fear nothing but God and the bad guys over there don't scare me the way they scare you.
I have an opinion and you have an opinion. The difference is that mine doesn't send your children to kill, die, and create chaos and evil in the world.
Your opinion treads on me dude.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 3:54PM

I am a veteran with 2 trips to the sandbox, myself. I also agree with Dr. Paul's foreign policy.

In my 6 years in the USAF, I (indirectly) defended Saudis, Kuwaitis, and our 'corporate' oil supply, but never had the opportunity to defend our freedoms.

Matthew Quigley| 9.13.11 @ 6:33PM

Bro, I need to respectively disagree with you.

I served in the USAF a wee bit more than six years (Desert Storm, plus one each in OEF and OIF), and while I have no love whatsoever for the Fraudis, Spewaitis and other Arabs, Paul's foreign policy is based on fallacies.

The first is the "occupation" fallacy. A previous poster pointed out that prior to 1948 we weren't called the "Great Satan." Naturally. We were a prominent nation prior to WWII, but certainly NOT a serious power (our Army in 1940 was smaller than France's, and look what happened to them. Our Air Force was pitiful. The Luftwaffe would have made mince meat out of our fighter force. The US Navy was also not much to be reckoned with. In short, we lacked capacity to project power overseas in a meanigful way pre-1945), thus how could we have been a "Great Satan"? Some say it was our recognition of Israel that netted us that appellation. Also not correct. The US wasn't selling arms to Israel (and before someone asks where they got the Sherman tanks and B-17's they were using in the late '40's and early '50's, they got the tanks from surplus yards all over Europe and the Forts on the open surplus market), and the US State Department was cool to Israel...to place it mildly. The Israelis were largely using French weapons until the late 1960's (the Arab air forces were destroyed by Mirages, Mysteres and Vautours primarily during the Six-Day War), and began acquiring US equipment by the early 1970's after most European countries placed an arms embargo on Israel.

THAT was when we really began to register on the Arab radar. Military Airlift Command was flying resupply missions to Israel during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, and we were even stripping "E" model F-4's from US Air Force wings to keep the IDFAF from being wiped out. The Arabs retaliated by embargoing oil shipments to the US. Note that there was NOT significant anti-American sentiment in Iran at that time. In fact, the anti-American sentiment in Iran came along NOT because of the ouster of Mossadegh in 1953, but because of Khomeini's interpretations of islamic writings (the koran, sunnah and hadiths, to be specific). I was in high school when the Iranian muslim revolution happened...and I very vividly remember Jimmy Carter speaking well of Khomeini and Andrew Young calling Khomeini "some kind of saint." The US was, I believe, one of the first countries to recognize the mullahcracy as the government of Iran. In fact, I suspect that was why Carter was so shocked that our embassy was invaded by Mahmood Yabbadabbadoo and his pals in November of 1979...he had been one of their best friends and, I suspect, took it as a personal betrayal.

We both saw the barbarity of islam up close and personal. You and I both saw the BMO's (we also called the women in their abeyahs "ninja women" when I was there in '91), saw the morality police and noticed how hostile the Arabs often were to Americans (and yes, there were Iraqis who were very kind and very decent to Americans...but my experience is that was the exception, and the Saudis were the smarmiest excuses for people I've ever dealt with). Be honest: Would you trust these people with nuclear weapons? Would you want people who want to take the whole world back to the Dark Ages to have that kind of power? Would you want people who are capable of the kind of hate they hold to have the weaponry to blow any number of cities and their populations to atoms in one fell swoop?

One poster previously said he didn't think the muslims wanted to invade and conquer us. He also stated he thought they lacked the capability to do so. Okay, an Iwo Jima-style amphibious assault is a bit past their capabilities, but the historic muslim method of taking a stronger country down has been immigration and then compelling a change to the host country's culture. It's not unlike when a parasite invades another life form and then destroys it from the inside. We see that in Europe...the sharia zones in Britain, the streets in France blocked for mosque services, the Turks getting violent in Germany, the rate of rapes in Norway and Sweden...the hostility and oppression of Catholic services in Hamtramck, MI, and the harassment of Christians in general in Dearborn, MI. My Air Force brother, the invasion has not only started, the beachhead has been established.

When I first put on a blue uniform, Communism was the threat. I always had a doubt that there would be an attack from the Soviet Union because they were neither stupid nor suicidal. They knew we'd have BUFF's and Minutemen on them in a heartbeat...and what's the sense in attempting to rule the world if your attempt to do so results in the end of the world? Mutually Assured Destruction works as a deterrent against those who are rational...and expansionist or not (and they were), the Soviets WERE rational.

Islam might be rational in its own mind, but there are Shia who want to torch the world and start a general war in order to bring in their "hidden twelfth imam." There are Sunni who want to wipe out all kuffar (ever been called that? Maybe you were, but not likely to your face) and Shia. And you can take this to the bank, these geniuses really do believe the rocks and trees will tell them in so many words that a Jew is hiding behind them, that Jews are descended from monkeys and pigs, and that Christ was NOT crucified, thus making Christianity a false religion and its followers worthy of death or enslavement.

No, we did NOT defend American liberty in Desert Storm. We DID free a small country which had been sacked by a larger country (worthless as the Kuwaitis are, I still think they had the unalienable right to be worthless in their own country and not be under control of Iraq). At the time, it seemed like the right thing to to. Taking down the Taliban was also the right thing to do, because that filth had harbored the scum who attacked us on 9/11. Is the mission finished? Arguably it is, but that's not my point. Should we have gone into Iraq? Also debateable, but Saddam Hussein was a despicable killer who was abusing his own people, was a threat to the region, and had used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians. He wasn't Hitler by a long stretch, but he sure wasn't James Madison, either. Iraq isn't perfect (anyplace which explicitly declares in its constitution that its laws are based on islam is FAR from perfect), but at least they can select their OWN government there. That's a bit of an improvement...now if we can get them to quit persecuting Christians, they might be close to becoming civilized.

You say you never defended our freedoms. I disagree. There are countries and entities that want to take us down and eliminate our freedoms. Every day I didn't have to blast the USSR, I was defending our freedoms...and every day I kept al-Q from advancing their agenda of sharia and hate, I was defending our freedom.

So were you. Don't doubt it.

Thank you for your service. You need just to have a broader view than the one that Paul has. Look more deeply into the issues and you'll see that while we shouln't go around looking for a fight (and we never have), we also should never show the kind of weakness that Paul would show.

Go Air Force, Pard.

Matthew Quigley| 9.13.11 @ 6:45PM

Sorry...I meant "respectfully," not "respectively."

Jack in Wi.| 9.14.11 @ 2:17AM

More wargongering BS. I don't respect anyone who was in the Iraq wars and still defends them. Most guys that I have met think it was at best a bad mistake and at worst criminal. Perhaps that is why Ron Paul gets more funds from the military then the whole rest of the candidates combined, including Obama.

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 8:30AM

Whichever, your point Quigley is that they messed with us because of our interfering foreign policy and not because of beautiful hair, pretty eyes and free markets.
I agree with you because you with me and Ron Paul.
RON PAUL 2012!!! WHO HOOO!!!
CONSTITUTION!!! WHO HOOO!!!!

Janie| 9.14.11 @ 11:01AM

Well said. Please read or view this: http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....-eu-video/

John| 9.16.11 @ 5:57AM

I joined the service in 90' and am currently in Afghanistan. Ron Paul also served his country. The U.S foreign policy was to mind our own business, and to focus on our own hemisphere for influence. One of our founders coined the phrase "friend to all, ally to none"... I think Jefferson or Washington. Adams wrote the Monroe doctrine which identified hemispherical differences. It wasn't until around the turn of the centure in the Spanish/American war that we began the occupation of Asian countries, and that was a by-product of the Spanish American War, the Philippines then occupied by the Spanish. It was mostly greed, and while it was a small deviation of our foreign policy up to that time, it was telling, as it can be considered the beginning of our current foreign policy.

World War I opened our eyes to a new world of politics, and essentially was the beginning of the arms race. War was big business, alot of profit to be made, and an excuse for our government to borrow more money from the newly legalized central bank (Federal Reserve Act).

Ron Paul is a HUGE supporter of National Defense, Ron Paul's donations from active military personnel is higher than that of any other candidate, and was in the 2008 primaries as well. Ron Paul, and I think anyone with common sense will, recognizes that National Defense is protecting your borders, and having immigration law, and enforcing that law (read his articles on this). National Defense is not occupying over 140 foreign countries, not dictating policies to other countries either. Some 65% of our national budget is spent on war and foreign aid. You cannot have military occupation without becoming the object of resentment and hate. That is the Ron Paul message, and it makes sense.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 4:11PM

Donovan,

You are not afraid of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists? Have you seen the footage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You say you are a man. A man takes care of his responsibilities. Only children and idiots pretend there is no danger when there is clear and present danger. Did the World Trade Center fall because of faulty construction or because incredibly evil people sliced open the jugular veins of flight attendants innocently doing their jobs so that these murdering terrorists could hijack aircraft and plunge them into buildings full of innocent people? Did that happen? Did you notice?

If you are a man, then you must be an idiotic one to be so oblivious to the evil all around you.
You say you are unafraid? Did you really face combat? Did rounds pop into walls and floors around you? Did roadways just explode underneath the vehicle in front of you? Behind you? Did you lose friends and comrades in firefights? Did you see them injured, maimed?

If you did, I am saddened; but tell me how will your wife and children hold up to this treatment, to terrorist attacks. Go look at the bastards cutting off Daniel Pearl's head!

Personal bravery is far easier than being brave about your loved ones suffering.

This enemy did not invent himself in 1983, 1979, in 1973, in 1967, in 1948 because we did something to him. He has been afoot since the beginning of time. And if you think that playing nice will appease him, you have completely missed the lesson that history has taught us time after time! You must be horribly ignorant. But I repeat my self.

You appear to have no doubt that playing nice with Ahmedinejad will result in his playing nice with us. In the 1930's many fools thought Hitler would never do anything. Best laugh of all, Stalin and Hitler trusted each other enough to make a deal not to attack each other - then they both got upset when the other broke it!

You are so ignorant you are dangerous to yourself. Be careful out there, and good luck to you. Ron Paul is going nowhere.

My opinion may tread on you, your spectacular ignorance is a clear and present danger to our country.

Learn a little world history - it'll improve you.

DTOM

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 4:56PM

Dan Hirsch, aka David Catron, aka Doctor Right, aka Trinacria,

Through your deceitful rhetorical obfuscation, falsified history, lies, hypocrisy, willful ignorance of facts, and evil character attacks, you have easily lost anything resembling an argument or debate. Now stop trolling my forum.

Regards,

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 6:42PM

CRW,

I invite you to cite a single example of falsified history in either of my posts above. If you wish to use this forum for a spirited debate, I'm all too happy to oblige, but I simply must insist on having a cogent position to rebut. Here's how it works: you find a position I've articulated and then offer evidence to support your claim that it's inaccurate. I, in turn, consider your response and then either clarify my original position (with supporting evidence) or, in the unlikely event that you've made a credible and compelling case, concede the point.

By the way, may I offer a friendly observation? When leveling accusations, it generally redounds to one's benefit to have a working knowledge of the terms one uses to characterize the misdeeds of the individual in question. By way of example, you chose to use the term hypocrisy to characterize those of us with whom you disagree. You may be interested to learn that this term refers to the state of pretending to have beliefs, standards, or qualities that one doesn't actually have. Since it is impossible for you to ascertain whether or not the statements I've made are inconsistent with my actual beliefs and/or practices, it is a rather unfortunate misuse of the term which, I'm sorry to say, ill serves your position. Let's try to do better, shall we?

Now, returning to my request - please, if you would be so kind, cite one example of historical misrepresentation in my posts.

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 8:02PM

Your forum? And here I thought it was a open forum created by Mr.Tyrrell

Occam's Tool| 9.13.11 @ 10:07PM

Donovan---Actually, yours will get my kids killed, dude, and a lot of your fellow marines. Reason why you were a Grunt, not an officer. You can't think strategically to save your ass.

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 8:41AM

No you are absolutely wrong I'm right. I'm smart you are dumb. I'm happy you are sad.
Ex Marines will do just fine when/if we ever get the opportunity to actually fight to defend our country. The reason I was not an officer was because I was 18. You need to have a college degree to be an officer and unless you are Doogy Houser you are not 18 with a college degree and I wasn't going to wait to get it. At 18 I listened to my President who told me were going to war against evil doers.
Now I got me a degree. Got several.
Now go on you! Get!! Go on!!... Get!!
Ok, Ron Paul!!
Revolution!!!
RON PAUL ! !
REVOLUTION! n

offiReason why

So many idiots here| 11.1.11 @ 3:52PM

RON PAUL!

Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:34PM

No. The Bombs saved lives.

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 6:43PM

Brilliantly stated, Mr. Hirsch. I concur whole heartedly.

Lysander Spooner| 9.14.11 @ 12:35AM

Your first paragraph is correct. The U.S. is the only country to ever drop the bomb, therefore they should not be allowed to have nukes.

Jack in Wi.| 9.14.11 @ 2:22AM

I am afraid that 600 nuclear weapons are in the hands of the worst terrorists in the world, the Mossad. They are perfectly capable of using a false flag nuclear attack to suck us into an attack on Iran. I suggest you google Israeli false flag attacks. I also suggest you google Israeli terrorism and Jewish terrorism. You will get many many hits.

Mike D.| 9.14.11 @ 7:39AM

Its those damn Jews again isn't it. Always the Jews with you. We know just what you'd like to do with the Jews, don't we jack. You illustrated it perfectly in previous posts. Our resident anti-semite Jew hater always gets the topic back on the Jews and Isreal. Love anti-Semites, just get rid of those Jews and the whole world will be a flower garden.

Jack in Wi.| 9.14.11 @ 11:56PM

I think Israael is your problem not mine. Go and join the th IDF and Mossad if you love Israel so much. Everything I said about Israeli False Flag actions and Israeli and Jewish - Terrorism is true. Just go google them. To me, Israel has never been worth one drop of American blood or one American penny. It is nothing but a racist state founded by Communists, atheists and terrorists. It has been blackmailing the world for almost 40 years with the Samson Option. The leadership in Israel is still a gang of racists and terrorists.

The only solution in Israel Palistine is what happened in South Africa. Sane people from both communities must get together and work for a fully integrated Israel Palistine with equal rights for all. There are people on both sides working for this. As Israel sinks further into the mire lets hope they succeed.

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 3:10AM

Notice, you hadn't addressed my premise until the very end and when you did your argument was to say my opinion is bad, yours is good.

You are a coward no doubt about it. Moreover, you are an evil coward because you use your fear and deceit to steal, bribe, and commit hanus crimes against humanity.
You are my enemy. You may claim we are on the same side, but when you lobby for war from your elected puppet and send my kids and neighbors to the the other side of the Earth to kill & die and hear those pops and screams to fill your bloody pockets, how can I not call you the enemy.
I'm out of this crazy town. Let me find you on my block chanting your anti-Paul rhetoric.
1st they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they attack you
Then you win

Peace out
Peace Out.

D. Estrada| 9.16.11 @ 7:35PM

Your argument is going nowhere. You sound like Rick Santorum on crack. We trained and funded Osama bin Laden, teaching him everything he knew. We also backed Saddam who was a CIA asset before we killed him. If that doesn't prove we have a failed foreign policy I don't know what does. "Have you seen the footage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?" How does that help your argument??? The United States dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are you saying that the United States is the one doing the terrorizing? If so, then you seem to be helping Donavan's argument. Next time you want to "school" someone in foreign policy, remember less is more. Otherwise you risk looking moronic with your long-winded driveling.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 8:33PM

yes...we get it...you're all about yourself!

Earle Belle| 9.15.11 @ 2:58PM

http://www.revolutionpac.com/2.....-is-right/
Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s “Bin Laden Unit”, defends Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions that our overseas military empire does the US more harm than good. This is in stark contrast to Monday’s CNN’s “Tea Party Express” Republican primary presidential debate, where following an attack by former neocon senator Rick Santorum, Tea-o-con members of the studio audience ignorantly boo’ed Ron Paul for explaining the real reasons of Middle-eastern hatred toward the United States.
Boo’ing Ron Paul’s truthful explanation shows the so-called “Tea Party” mainstreamers have a long way to go in differentiating domestic big government from big government abroad, and that unless we face the motivations of our enemies, our overseas militaristic interventionism will continue to make the US a growing target of terrorism. The CIA itself even admits this, calling it “blowback”. Yet neocon talking heads like Santorum continue to mindlessly froth that bombing everything in the Middle East, aside from Israel, will make us safer. Relevant discussion starts at 2:40 in the video above.

Some Republicans have suggested that Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy—opposition to the Iraq War and the ongoing war in Afghanistan, believing that the CIA term “blowback” actually has merit, not wanting to police the world—makes the Congressman more suited for the Democratic Party.

Let us take this logic even further.

Here is just a quick list of figures on the Right, both past and present, and in no particular order, who have shared Paul’s foreign policy views in some respect as described above:

National Review Founder William F. Buckley; The Conservative Mind author Russell Kirk; Author, pundit and Senior Advisor to Ronald Reagan Patrick J. Buchanan; Journalist Robert Novak; Economist Milton Friedman; Economist Ludwig von Mises; Columnist George Will; Republican Congressman and 1996 GOP Vice Presidential Nominee Jack Kemp; Americans for Tax Reform Founder Grover Norquist; Direct-Mail Pioneer Richard Vigurie; Human Events co-founder Felix Morley; Human Events co-founder Frank Chodorov; Regnery Publishing founder Henry Regnery; Eagle Forum Founder Phyllis Schlafly; Social conservative activist and commentator Paul Weyrich; Ideas Have Consequences author and National Review contributor Richard Weaver; Sociologist and National Review contributor Robert Nisbet; The Road to Serfdom author F.A. Hayek; Senator Robert Taft; Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough; FOX News Judge Andrew Napolitano; Daily Caller Founder Tucker Carlson; Novelist Tom Clancy; Retired General Norman Schwarzkopf; National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush Brent Scowcroft; Former House Majority Leader and FreedomWorks founder Dick Armey; Veteran and author Andrew Bacevich; The American Conservative Editor Daniel McCarthy; National Rifle Association President David Keene; Senator Rand Paul; Senator Mike Lee; Senator Tom Coburn; Republican Congressman Henry Hyde; Republican Congressman Justin Amash; Republican Congressman Walter Jones; Republican Congressman John Duncan; Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz; Republican Congressman Tom McClintock; Republican Congressman Jeff Flake; Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher; Former Republican Congressman Barry Goldwater, Jr.; Former Conservative Caucus Chairman Howard Phillips; Political satirist and novelist Christopher Buckley; National Review contributor John Derbyshire; The American Spectator’s Associate Editor W. James Antle III; Author Tim Carney; Columnist James Pinkerton; Cato Institute Founder Edward Crane…

To follow their logic, according to Paul’s critics—President Obama’s foreign policy makes him more worthy of membership in the Republican Party than any of the figures listed here.

Then again, how many of Paul’s critics are following logic?

And finally some hilarious "food for thought":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

GavInTucson| 9.13.11 @ 3:33PM

Donovan, who cares about Paul's message if he himself votes in opposition of it.

The message is fine. I think the point of the article is that Ron Paul is a phony, saying one thing and doing another.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 3:58PM

Saying one thing and doing another, eh?

How about this... he said he'd "represent" his district to the federal govt, and in order to do that well, he has to guarantee their place in the trough as well, by funding his district through earmarks.

But then, he votes against filling the trough.

In essence, the only way his constituents get anything, is if everyone else votes for them to get it. So technically, you should blame your own representative, not Paul, for funding those earmarks.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 8:36PM

Bingo!

Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:10PM

I think his foreign policy will lead to Sharia law being imposed on Europe and therefore resulting in a major decline in the US economy because they are major trading partners with us. I think his foreign policy will lead to psychotics getting nukes.

There is much that I agree with paul on deomestically. I think returning to the Gold Standard is a great idea, for example. But his foreign policy is for brain damaged Circus geeks only.

Mike| 9.13.11 @ 12:28PM

Actually, yes, the facts are pretty dramatically massaged in the above piece. Take the prescription drug re-importation-the position described above befuddles the imagination. The bill was intended to allow the importation of drugs to the US from other countries.

These other countries have price controls that set the cost of drugs. Because of this, US law forbids US individuals from buying drugs from these countries.

Read that again-US law forbids buying a product from another country. Why, because it would hurt pharmaceutical companies. And that is called a free market? Its not.

Venezuela has price controls on oil, but is one of the largest importers of US oil, should that be banned in the name of a free market?

How about all Chinese products? After all, they operate with lower regulatory, and labor costs-is this not importing pollution and slavery?

The case that PERMITTING, allowing, removing the government ban on, freeing companies to engage in, pharmaceutical re-importation is antithetic to a free market turns the entire notion on its head.

Remember, pharmaceutical companies CAN simply stop selling to countries with price controls that are too low, then perhaps the US consumer can be relieved of the burden of subsidizing socialism in these other counties. I'm in business myself, and unless I can make a profit, I don't sell. Simple, no need for congressional involvement.

I don't see any other free market solutions on the table, and the current situation is not only un-free but it represents a tax on US consumers.

I have serious issues with Paul-he is no libertarian on immigration, for instance, but there really is little substantive criticism in the above article.

There Dan, not only did I answer the question without an insult, I provided the philosophical underpinning for my reasoning.

canuckistani| 9.13.11 @ 2:25PM

The interpretation of "price controls" in other countries is a bit of a fallacy. Branded drugs are submitted for review by the state health authorities for consideration as reimbursable by state medicare. Private insurance typically derives from this list of approved meds as well.
The state insurance boards will negotiate with drug cos on price in order to get it on the reimbursment list. Just like HMOs do. Classic buying power leveraging.

Unapproved meds, still approved as safe and effective by the state's "FDA" are and will be sold as cash-only at whatever the branded drug company chooses to price them at. Exactly the same as the US experience.

The difference, however, is in generic drugs. States like Canada and Germany mandate the price at which these can be sold for reimbursement. Totally fair and square as the generic market is populated by dozens of manufacturers clawing for market share - and lining up to dump their versions on the market.

The fact HHS does not negotiate branded drug pricing here is a travesty, and a disservice to patients and tax payers everywhere.

Before you start playing the "paying for innovation" card, the vast majority of expenditures by drug companies in the last five years here has been on boner pills and antidepressants.

Perhaps a boner-bipolar pill is next?

Alan Brooks| 9.13.11 @ 3:50PM

Antidepressants have so many side effects, they aren't worth it, Canukistani. In fact, Paxil- one of the most efficacious- probably works best as a treatment for sex offenders.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.11 @ 12:12AM

Not true. Sucide rates have dropped on antidepressants.

Alan Brooks| 9.13.11 @ 3:50PM

Antidepressants have so many side effects, they aren't worth it, Canukistani. In fact, Paxil- one of the most efficacious- probably works best as a treatment for sex offenders.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 4:05PM

That 'buying power leveraging' is limited only by the amount such a govt has to spend, which is only limited by their ability to tax their citizens. In other words, less incentive to negotiate lower costs than a private company that must earn its profits from the voluntary actions of its customers.

How can we be sure that we're not wasting wealth that could be better invested in other life-fulfilling endeavors, if the only limitation is a politician's willingness to tax us?

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 5:06PM

Uncle Sim et al.,

Using uncontroversial facts and indomitable logic, you have easily destroyed the frauds perpetrated by the self-defeating deceivers of AmSpec. Well done.

Regards,

Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:13PM

In addition, the other countries don't have the protections against contamination that the US has. Review, for example, thalidomide. Don't agree with Paul on that.

I see psychotics every day at work caused by or worsened by, Marijuana. Don't agree with his stance on that. THC levels much higher today than in the 1990s. Paul's background on this from an educational and clinical perspective is much worse than mine.

Angela| 9.13.11 @ 12:35PM

You are quick to point out:

"If Ron Paul's supporters respond to this simple question with insults or name calling, they PROVE my point."
I am afraid to also point out that maybe your opinion of David Catron's facts are also bias. Did he provide references? Did you see anything that couldn't be slanted or contrived? I am sorry but I didn't. There is a saying "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear." This is an example of that.

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 3:09PM

My dear Angela, surely you can't be that stupid. Each of the facts cited by Mr. Catron can be verified by reference to public records, including voting records, newspaper accounts, press releases, campaign records, and video clips.

Really, sweetheart, do try to keep up.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 4:11PM

And if you actually researched those facts, you might see that Mr Catron hasn't been especially successful as removing his biases from his analysis. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but imho, earmarking funds for his district then voting against the whole thing is brilliant, not duplicitous.

Catron also appears to think Reagan was more libertarian at the END of his presidency, and/or that his actions were more libertarian than his rhetoric. Ron Paul made the opposite point... that he agreed with Reagan's public stances, and that even after Reagan had abandoned those stances, Paul was still committed to them.

Forgive me, but upon review, it is Mr Catron's honesty that I find suspect, not Dr Paul's.

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 4:44PM

OK, captain, you ride the plane right into the ground...

Let me know how it works out for you.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 5:10PM

Trinacria just got worked. Again.

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 7:27PM

My dear friend,
Acknowledging that your abject lack of insight and profound inability to articulate a cogent position are but an unfortunate circumstance of birth, I am compelled in the spirit of compassion to point out how utterly silly and impotent you look standing behind the antagonist and shouting, "Yeah, you tell 'em, Spike!"

I understand the constitution protects your right to free speech, and I regard that right as sacred. You might be interested to learn, however, that implicit in this right is it's converse; namely, the right to choose not to speak, particularly when doing so betrays a marginal intellect (think of it as part first amendment, part fifth amendment). With respect, may I suggest that you might profitably consider the merits of exercising this lesser known right.

Now, run along and join the other kids on the playground...

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 10:24PM

Nope.

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 11:18PM

You've acquitted yourself with characteristic brilliance and eloquence. Well done, Socrates!

C.R. Wilson| 9.14.11 @ 7:00PM

Thanks. Glad you concur.

Jordan Bourne| 9.14.11 @ 12:33PM

I'm proud of Ron Paul for leaving Reagans side. He did it because he was standing by his principles. You can smear anyone in the world if you twist their words and intent. Ron Paul is a man of principles and I'm proud to support him in 2012! At the end of Reagans term, he openly admitted that his greatest regret was the deficit he created. This deficit was exactly what Ron Paul was standing against. You can't blame a conservative for being to conservative. You will always be my president Dr. Paul.

Vangel| 9.17.11 @ 9:29PM

Ron Paul is not voting for statism. He voted against the illegal wars, against foreign aid, against the lifting of the debt ceiling, against Obamacare, and against all intrusions of the federal government in areas where the Constitution does not give Congress or the President the power to do so.

Michael Tomlinson| 9.13.11 @ 9:35AM

RINO Ron Paul is a neo-liberal.

Con Chef (NB) | 9.13.11 @ 10:28AM

Can I use that phrase? That's just awesome. And SOOO true!

Eric| 9.13.11 @ 11:08AM

I think I get it. You are scared. Scared people often say irrational, non-sensical things.

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:53PM

Yeah you're right, we're all 'scared'; as Nicholson said........[Paul] I'M BACK!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 11:57AM

True, but I prefer to think of him in Clintorous terms of being simply an absolute RINO/CINO!!!!

Donovan | 9.13.11 @ 3:50PM

Your a dirty old man that should get his potty mouth washed out. When did your mommy give up on you?

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 9:57PM

Right after Barry's fathered you!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 9:59PM

Sorry, I actually meant Barry Sr.[not Jr.]!!!!

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 8:48AM

How do you know my dad's name Mr. Oldefarte?

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:49PM

I read about him in DREAM OF MY FATHER!!!!

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 4:14PM

I doubt the neo-liberals would accept his positions on immigration or abortion, just as the neo-conservatives don't like his positions on legislating morality (drug war) or foreign policy.

RINO is sort of a meaningless term these days... what IS a REAL Republican, anymore?

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 4:56PM

Little Micky RINo is a Ricky Perry Algore HillaryCare Cheerleader.

You're Scared Of The Tea Party.

Jack in Wi.| 9.13.11 @ 10:32AM

This whole column shows how desperate you neocons are. The whole country rejects your foreign policy. You favorites, Perry and Romney are plastic men who are incapable of defending what they believe in. All you have left is name calling and lies. Ron Paul has the issues people care about. 60% want out of these wars. Most want our empire peacefully dismanteled. Large majorities want an end to all foreign aid, most of which ends up in the pockets of Middle Eastern kleptocrats and criminals. Ron Paul has the intellectual and moral vigor to defend his ideas in any forum. He has a huge and growing following, especially among the young. Your boys have proved they are dolts who will just be more of the same.

It is time to drive you neocons back to where you came from and belong the Democrats and Trotsykite Communists. Your day is done. The country is broke and the troops are broken. Ron Paul,has been right on every issue of substance for decades. That includes the Federal Rervere, monetary policy, the Constitution and it's abuse by you people and your ilk. He is tied with Obama in National polls and is in third place in the Republican primaries. All you have as fingers in the dyke are a pair of guys like Romney and Perry. Good look with that. They are both self destructing before our very eyes.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 12:01PM

"....He has a huge and growing following, especially among the young..."; yeah, THE YOUNG are the '''''''STUPIDS'''''' that voted to elect Obama in 2008, fool. The only things the '''''young''''' are interested in is sex, drugs, rock&roll;, and apparently becoming PAULISTAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

aware| 9.13.11 @ 2:20PM

So we throw out the libertarians AND the young? Anybody else?

canuckistani| 9.13.11 @ 2:37PM

It was the scared masses of flyover country that voted for Junior, twice. Exclude them too?

When will the country realize the world has moved on and going backwards is not possible? It is pure folly to expect we could unwind ourselves and avoid the very real circumstances that drove us here in the first place. Paul ain't clever enough, and sure as sugar noone on here is clever enough for that one.

Gutting core programs will have consequences, and the class warfare that will ensue will destroy our ability to remain focused on the real issues of competitivenes and innovation.

It was the buying power of the middleclass that made our economy great. The top and bottom tiers are parasites and should be handled that way in order to buttress the 80% middle.

With consumers here, the top tier will and must deal with our expectations.

Watching last nights's crowd affirm the uninsured should just die was scary and amusing. It was RR that signed the law making it illegal to abandon the sick. He was right. Paul and his minions are dead wrong and wrong for the country.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 3:27PM

Idiotic, as usual.

Your attempt to equate Conservatism/capitalism with a lack of progress is breathtakingly stupid.

The lack of progress is found in socialism, not capitalism.

And NO ONE, Ron Paul included, said the uninsured should "just die". What he said (and on this, I agree with him) is that people should take RESPONSIBILITY for their actions. If a 30-year old healthy male, as described in the question, chooses NOT to purchase insurance, that's his business - but so are the consequences.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 4:20PM

The lack of progress can also be found in conservatism, when its adherents attempt to preserve the memory of past successes at the expense of creating future ones.

Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:14PM

Dr R,

Right as usual!

Donovan | 9.13.11 @ 3:32PM

Who is RR? What are you even saying?! Who do you support? Santorum? Perry? Romney?
Boy, the adult in me knows I should walk away from this site of crazies that lured us in, but the kid in me wants to continue to brawl and find out who the heck you weirdo's are.

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:48PM

Yeah, and the 'adult' and the 'kid' BOTH work at Mickey D's making $2/hour!!!!!!!

Donovan | 9.13.11 @ 3:44PM

Who is RR? What are you even saying?! Who do you support? Santorum? Perry? Romney?
Boy, the adult in me knows I should walk away from this site of crazies that lured us in, but the kid in me wants to continue to brawl and find out who the heck you weirdo's are.

Mimi| 9.13.11 @ 4:55PM

You want to know WHO we are???....I will tell you.
We are PATRIOTS who want our FREEDOM back.
We favor courage, integrity, marked truthfulness in our leaders!
We want to be left alone , and not be controlled. Make enough money to care for our families.
We mostly are hard workers, who love God and honor righteous thinking, aspire to live lawful and truthful lives, help our neighbor, and others in need,
We honor LIFE, the God-given unique-ness in every human life.
We love our country mostly because of the individual rights and FREEDOM and LIBERTY we were given by the Constitution...that we instinctly HONOR...We see our nation as exceptional and rare...
We now see all the good we have always enjoyed now in MORTAL danger! We see the Nation we Love with all our being being destroyed from WITHIN by either ignorance or purposeful
planning!
We are even more...... and could go on and on!!

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 8:52AM

So, you support Ron Paul for our president in 2012.
Pleased to meet cha!!
Now where was I, oh yes, I remember...
Ron Paul!!!
Revolution !!!!
RON PAUL !!!
REVOLUTION!!!!

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 4:17PM

Lol, yes! The only way we can preserve our future for posterity is to eliminate the youth of the world!

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 10:00PM

No that's about does it [oh you forgot to include the Democrats], since thereafter the sane people will be left!!!

irish19| 9.13.11 @ 12:05PM

Latest RCP average (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html) has your guy firmly in fourth place, three points behind Palin. And Palin isn't even officially running. So enough about the great outpouring of support he has. He's never gotten out of single digits for any length of time. And he won't.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 5:00PM

Gallup poll: Ron Paul trails President Obama by 2 percent


Texas Rep. Ron Paul trails President Obama by just 2 percentage points, according to the latest Gallup Poll released Monday.

The poll, which finds former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Texas Republican governor Rick Perry as the leading candidates to challenge Mr. Obama, shows Mr. Paul trailing Mr. Obama by just two percentage points, 47 to 45 percent.

Jack in Wi.| 9.13.11 @ 10:43AM

Ron Paul is the most conservative and liberty loving man to run for President in 100 years. You neocons are the big government warmongers following in the footsteps of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson. The Bush's and you boys were never anywhere near conservative. You love big government and the nanny state. The first neocon hero was the old Communist and mass murderer Leon Trotsky. He and Wilson wanted worldwide Revolutions. Trotsky wanted a brutal communist one. Wilson wanted a so called Democratic one. They both have sown the seeds of the disasters we face today. Wilson also gave us the Federal Income tax, the Federal reseve, wartime surpression of disenters and numerous vilations of our Constitution and civil rights. He lied us into WW1. You boys are their spiritual heirs.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 12:24PM

Dumbarsses, you obviously don't know your ARSSES from HOLES IN THE GROUND about politics, and especially the distinction between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The comment that "....big government warmongers following in the footsteps of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson..." is asininely STUPID, since these Presididents were ALL DEMOCRATS. DA's, do you know what a Democrat [and the Democratic Party] is? Do you understand that the GD Democratic Party is the personae of 'big government' due to their desire to provide governmental benefits to their indigent constituents in return for the Acorn related votes [for Democrats naturally]? Oh, the BS about earmarks being beneficial to Paul's constituents, crap doesn't that fit this definition also, or are you Paulistas too GD stupid to figure that point out? The whole idea should be to REDUCE/DECREASE GOVERNEMENT SPENDING [and not to selfishly get as many earmark chips for your constituents as possible]. GD, you people are ignorant bastards. Most of us agree with some of Paul's ideas, but this old man is looney-tunes crazy with his extensions of same. Sure we should extract our military etc from foreign lands, mainly for cost containment purposes; but to suggest that Kohmeni etc and these radical Muslims terrorists in the ME have a RIGHT to build nuclear weapons/missles is downright insane and propagandizing STUPIDLY. Do you bastards have any sympathy/understanding that 3000+ American innocents were slaughtered on 9/11/01 while simply working in the twin towers and trying to financially support their families etc [and because of religiously radicalized purposes]? No doubt you morons believe that Hitler had a RIGHT to also slaughter millions beginning in 1933, huh? What a bunch of
DA-STUPIDS. I desperately feel sorry for your combined families that you express kindness towards; it s GD shame that you can't extend that to others as well who don't agree with your Paulistas viewpoints. You're all sick, perverted idiots [and sadly comparable to the radical Muslims who profess religious devotion to their leader Mohammed and exclude/hate anyone else failing to do likewise]. May the Almighty have mercy on your ignorant souls!!!!!!!!!!!

Warrior | 9.13.11 @ 12:37PM

Distinctions between the Republican and Democrat parties? Was that meant as a joke? Name one Republican president in the last 60 or 70 years that has reduced the size of government. Your party identification politics is exactly what is wrong with our country. Believing in either party in my opinion shows a low level understanding of politics, which is about 95% of American. Other than his stances on social issues, name one conservative operating prinicipal or policy that George W. Bush or his father stood for. What does Boehner and McConnell stand for except re-election? Maybe McCain and Romney better suit your taste in Republicans.

Keep being a closed minded lemming. You are a living example of what is wrong with this country.

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 1:51PM

Name one Libertarian in the last 100 years that has been elected to the Presidency?

You Libertarians kill me. You think your the only conservatives out there and if someone isn't a Libertarian they are close minded. Ron Paul supports are the epitome of close minded. Want proof? Ask them to name one thing they disagree with Ron Paul on. Most can't, they have to much invested. Put a Ron Paul die-hard in front of a mirror and you will see a die-hard Obama supporter looking back.

There is one MAJOR thing you keep overlooking in your arguments that Ron Paul will win. The Independent vote. Without it your sunk, and most Independent voters are not Libertarians.

aware| 9.13.11 @ 2:22PM

You are right! That means you can't blame the libertarians for the mess we are in. Just neo cons and progressives. We keep picking one of those and wonder why it just keeps getting worse.

canuckistani| 9.13.11 @ 2:50PM

No one seems to be able explain how progressives got us HERE. I thought is was the housing bubble and the viral growth of derivatives that crashed the capital market and sent investment into the toilet? Are the heads of Sachs and Morgan progressives?

Was it progressives that underwrote the S&L debacle? Was it a progressive Fed Chairman that spoke of "irrational exuberance" and totally miscalculated EVERY prediction he made, including endorsing Junior's tax cuts?

Was it a progressive that buttressed Junior's march to war by claiming a "slam dunk" for the WMD pretext and a $1T sewering of our military?

Be careful when lumping your bogeymen into one pot.

I resent the progressive mantra that collectivism trumps selfish free expression, but I refuse to indict them for the current calamity we find ourselves.

A true conservative pays their bills and takes ownership. Show me one candidate that holds this stated position and he has my vote.

A true conservative also can contain emotion and assess options critically and move boldly when ready, not before.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 4:26PM

No, your examples cite the fascist side of our American totalitarianism, not the socialist/progressive side.

In my lifetime, the R's have become the doers of the D's evil deeds, and the D's the doers of the R's evil deeds. They are helping each other avoid blame for their participation in the creation of the most destructive entity that has ever existed on Earth.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 5:09PM

Canuckistani: Let me splin it your your ignorant A**, okay? The CRA of 1977 [legislated by Democrats] forcing banks to loan to indigents and to institute 'creative financing' loans to these indigents; the governmental use of Fannie/Freddie/HUD to facilitate same and bundling of these indigent loans into salable bonds; the governmental welfare programs of Democrats going back to Kennedy-Johnson and snowballing until today's WELFARECARE/NON-STIMULUS etc is an example of the PROGRESSIVISM that is on the brink of destroying this country' s inability to pay for their governmental institution of a WELFARE SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 5:01PM

No fool, understand the essential difference. The economy was not in a death spiral under any GD Republican, because they are essentially pro-business, pro-capitalism. Democrats are SOCIALIST and now are radical domestic terrorists who have captured this country. WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 5:01PM

No fool, understand the essential difference. The economy was not in a death spiral under any GD Republican, because they are essentially pro-business, pro-capitalism. Democrats are SOCIALIST and now are radical domestic terrorists who have captured this country. WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Warrior | 9.13.11 @ 2:47PM

Thanks for avoiding any of the questions. You can continue to be a Republican, I will remain republican and conservative.

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 4:12PM

No you will remain Libertarian. My point is Conservatisim comes in more than just Libertarians. It's part of that Big Tent Regan talked about. Your delusional if you think a Libertarian can win without pulling at least half of the independents. Libertarians make up 13% of the voting age population. See the problem? You will also have to pull the rest of the Republicans, and the independents.

I like a lot of the Libertarian ideas but it is my opinion that Ron Paul's foreign policy goes to far and takes us back to Pre-Pear harbor. That didn't work out so well for us.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 4:27PM

Totalitarians like big tents.

Warrior | 9.13.11 @ 4:32PM

I am not advocating a Libertarian agenda. If a dialgoue of candidates strengths and weaknesses is what occurs, let's discuss. If it is just a bashing for the sake of waving the GOP banner, I'm not interested.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 4:58PM

No, it's about the GD SURVIVAL OF THIS COUNTRY, and if you morons continue to support idiots and/or Democrats [which there is no difference of], then that's the GD result you'll get. No sane individual blindly supports any GD politician, R or D. It simply that the Rs are the only sane choice for survival. This country is dead and will go to its grave if this current group of liberal domestic terrorists are re-elected. GET IT???????????????????????????????

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 4:35PM

Pearl Harbor very well may have been a False Flag event designed to take us to war intentionally. But then again, politicians would never lie to us.

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 8:05PM

Another conspiracy theorist. Man, the Paulbots are are full of them aren't they?

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 8:05PM

Another conspiracy theorist. Man, the Paulbots are are full of them aren't they?

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 5:07PM

WRONG, Ricky Perry Algore HillaryCare Cheerleader Drunken Squatter.

"If you dig a little deeper into some recent polls, you'll find that Ron is in FIRST PLACE among Independent voters...

PPP National Poll...

http://www.publicpolicypolling.....tional_...

Ron Paul 21%
Mitt Romney 17%
Michelle Bachmann 14%
Herman Cain 10%
Rick Perry 9%
Newt Gingrich 7%
Tim Pawlenty 6%
Jon Hunstman 4%
Sarah Palin 4%
Undecided / Other 9%

ARG Iowa Poll...

http://americanresearchgroup.c.....ry/rep/ia/

Ron Paul 24%
Mitt Romney 23%
Sarah Palin 15%
Jon Huntsman 7%
Rudy Guiliani 4%
Michelle Bachmann 2%
Gary Johnson 2%
Herman Cain 1%
Tim Pawlenty 1% "

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 8:08PM

Clint, Clint, Clint.
Your 1st poll link wouldn't even open for me. Your second link leads to a poll from July, before Perry was even a canidate.

Here is a newer one for you.

Iowa Caucus: Iowa GOP: Perry 29%, Bachmann 18%, Romney 17%, Paul 14%
Rasmussen.
Monday Sept 5th.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 2:33PM

The War on Poverty and the Great Society of Kennedy-Johnson; the double digit inflation of Carter; the purposeful ignorance of repeated Muslim terrorists attacks upon Americans of Clinton; the tripling of the former Bush Admistration's budget defecit, the legislating of OBAMA-WELFARECARE and an $800 billion NON-STIMULUS TO LABOR UNIONS, etc are just a few "....Distinctions between the Republican and Democrat parties?..." FOOL! No difference, then either you [1] don't vote or [2] voted STUPIDLY for Obama in 2008 etc....which is it? Were you the typical Paulista DA who elected these domestic terrorists aka Democrats previously and are too ashamed to admit same? Unlike idiot like you who are so far up Paul's rear that your head pops out of his 70 year old navel; I nor most Republicans do not WORSHIP any politician, never have and never will; but we do have what referred to [even though people like you are ignorant of same] as COMMON SENSE in that ONE of the TWO viable political parties has to be voted for. Either you're a Democrat or a Republican, and there ain't no inbetween [unless you don't vote at all]; and the only rational, sane, intelligent choice among evils is the latter [unless you are too stupid to have the intelligence to tell the difference, which obviously you do not have and cannot do so]!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 2:36PM

PS: if you're that stupid that you can't tell the difference between Nancy Pilosi and John Boehner, then I'd suggest re-enrolling in a public school near your neighborhood [or possibly reading a newspaper etc]!!!!!!!

Warrior | 9.13.11 @ 2:58PM

You argue like a liberal. What does Boehner stand for? What part of deficit reduction did he stand for? What government agency or program has he cut any funding for? What stance did he take on the unConstitutional use of military force in Libya? Which executive order has he challenged? Which round of golf with Obama and/or Biden has he sacrificed?

Sorry I'm too stupid to see the huge gap in what the two parties are standing for. Maybe a few more votes for McCain would have put us in a better spot. Of course he wouldn't have supported health care legislation and would never champion an amnesty program...sorry, he ran a liberal Republican campaign and lost. W and a Republican controlled congress only gave us the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Medicare D, millions of mosquito nets for Africa, two unfunded wars a pair of stimulus packages, bailout of banks and auto makers...

Maybe the GOP is having a terrible time getting elected in large numbers and for a longer period of time because they do not offer any appreciable differences than the Dems? Too wild a concept for you? Please point out the differences in the parties for us stupid people, pretty please.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 4:37PM

Where's the 'Like' button?

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 4:53PM

I just did so, and you ignored partisanly same. If you can't understand the differences between Nixon, Reagan, GHWB, and GWB on the one hand; and Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama on the other hand [or between Pilosi, Schumer, Durbin, Clyburn, Reid, Boxer, Brown etc on the one hand; and Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, etc on the other hand], then there is nothing more for me to waste my time trying to explaining it to you. You obvious ARE THE ONE AMONG MANY REASON WHY BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS NOW THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and conversely why this country currently has effectivie 20% unemployment, a huge defecit/debt responsible from Great Society/War on Poverty governmental welfare programs of the 1960's and beyond, a housing market in total collapse from Democrats' 'affordable housing' welfare going back to the 1977, 25% of the population on governmental welfare while not working and paying taxes to support society, a mentality of self-centered a**holes in life with a GIVE-ME-GOVT-BENEFITS among today's youths, a moral decline from lack of religious training and church attendance, crime rates out of control, political correctness in our schools and even in the military, etc. WTF, I'm not going to wate any more time trying to 'SPLAIN IT TO YA [go educate yourself if possible]!!!!!

Warrior | 9.13.11 @ 5:10PM

You and your ilk is the reason why we have a Marxist sitting in the White House. You would rather be a Republican than a conservative. Other than Reagan, there is not one conservative you listed above. You want to offer the same non-descript moderate to liberal candidates and wonder why the rest of us with "r"epublican values yawn. Of couse, I'm the one who needs to be educated. I'll bet you believe that Lincoln fought the civil war to free the slaves also.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 10:12PM

I was a conservative before you were a gleem in your old man's eyeballs, so don't give that HS about being conservative. Just because you're political aware/active starting in 2005, don't show your ignorance [or stupidity if you know the difference]. ME AND MY ILK built this country, dumbars. I've paid more taxes in support of this country than you currently earn in salary at Mickey D's, so go run back to momma for advice. You worthless little excrements are what's wrong with this country, with your stupidity, disloyalty, unpatriotic BS about the insanity of some insane old coot that doesn't have sense enough to come in out of the rain [and should be institutionalized instead of allow to run for president as a GD Republican]!!!!!!!!!

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 3:30PM

Ronald Reagan.

On his first day in office, he cut the marginal tax-rate from 70% to 28%. Only in the deluded world of a Paul-bot is that a "growth" of the Federal gov't.

And you Paul-bots are affiliated with the Party of Ron...don't delude yourself into thinking that you're better than anyone who identifies as a Republican or a Democrat. The difference is that we know that our Party may not be perfect, but it best represents our views, while you Paul-bots think that every word that proceeds from the mouth of "Dear Leader Ron" is absolutely infallible.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 4:41PM

I'm sorry, didn't Reagan grow tax receipts? I don't care if he cut rates, if he raised more taxes as a result.

Also, it looks like the rate didn't cut until 1982, and then, only from 70% to 50%. But if you have a better link, please post it.

Here's mine... http://www.taxfoundation.org/p.....w/151.html

W| 9.13.11 @ 5:50PM

When you cut the RATE of taxes, the RECEIPTS usually increase, because of the increase in economic activity, and people selling capital assets and stocks. Of course, you cannot cut it to zero, anticipating the response of the economic illeterate liberals.

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 6:59PM

Permit me to explain it to you in terms that you might understand, UncleSim(pleton).

If I say to you that 90% of your McDonald's paycheck will go towards taxes, you have rather little incentive to work (you could make more than the 10% net by doing odd jobs under the tabble). If, however, the government lowers your tax rate to, say, 20%, you have more of an incentive to go back to your job at McDonalds. So, by lowering the tax RATE, the government increased its tax REVENUE.

Now, let's apply that to the corporate level. When the government lowers a business owner's tax rate, his net operating costs go down, which allows him to invest more money in growing the business. When his business grows, he needs more employees who, in turn, pay taxes on the income. See how it works? Lower tax RATE, increased economic ACTIVITY, higher tax REVENUE.

Ain't it beautiful?

Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:20PM

Yes, tax cuts grow tax receipts because they grow the total economy---that is NOT the same as increasing government as a total share of GNP. If you end up being able to more easily afford tanks because your economy is enormously bigger and the government is a smaller piece of the total pie, yes, I guess you could say Government is increased absolutely but not relatibvely, and certainly freedom would not have decreased.

I mean, one can raise taxes to the point of economic collapse and government can shrink in an absolute state even as it forms a larger percentage, but that makes no sense either.

UncleSim, in short, I'm not sure what the point is. I agree with Dr R, as usual.

Warrior | 9.13.11 @ 4:58PM

Nice triangulation. There is no statement made that cutting taxes grows the government. Unfortunately for your argument, the government grew in size under Reagan. Just as unfortunate is the still unanswered question of how the two parties actually differ. If you are going to use Reagan as your argument, who is running for President that has policies and conservative ideas to match Reagan? I'll concede Ron Paul is not a Reagan conservative and never will be one. I've not made one statement in this blog today that supports any GOP candidate to include Mr. Paul. You all want to attack me personally, when all I'm asking is why do you all blindly support the GOP and the answer I receive is the difference between the two parties. Again I ask, what is the difference between the two parties today?

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 5:17PM

Warrior: You are partially correct, in that Reagan raised expenses while cutting taxes and correspondingly the defecit grew. Want to know the reason for same? He wanted to cut expenses, but THE GD DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS WOULD NOT ALLOW HIM/REPUBLICANS TO DO SO, that's why. And why is that you ask? Because they historically legislate social governmental programs for their indigent constituents [for votes] that drives up governmental expenses, that's why. Reagan spent money on military matters only [necessary for national security], and if the Democrats would have allowed him/Republicans to cut governmental welfare expenses, governmental spending and the nation's defecit/debt would have decreased. Same with any/all Republican administrations. GOT IT NOW????????????

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 7:43PM

You're also missing a fundamental point. A substantial portion of the increased government spending under Reagon was attributed to increased defense spending. This was based in part on the need to rebuild a military that had been decimated during the Carter administration, but perhaps more importantly on the recognition that we could bring about the fall of the USSR by exploiting a fundamental flaw in communism (you eventually run out of other people's money).

Warrior | 9.13.11 @ 9:15PM

You are missing the fundamental point. The lines between the two parties have been blurred to a point of little no distinction. There is no Reagan conservative running for the parties nomination and there hasn't been one since, well, maybe Jack Kemp. Make all the excuses you want for why the spending and ever increasing size of government continues unabated. The problem is that you are all GOP flag wavers, lemmings and/or sycophants who believe in a party that has shown you nothing since 1988. At least the Democrats stay true to their deluded and maniacal self loathing base. You all spend more time in fear of Ron Paul than you do finding a true conservative to support. It's sickening and one of the main reasons conservatives in larger numbers do not want to be Republicans. Go ahead and scream Reagan all you want, unfortunately he is now dead and his brand of conservatism seems to have been buried with him.

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 9:31PM

Warrior,

I invite you to find any evidence to suggest that I (a) wave the GOP flag, (b) support any of the current crop of GOP candidates, or (c) disagree with your point regarding the growing lack of distinction between the 2 parties. I merely offered clarification regarding a historical point; namely, that defense spending increased substantially under the Reagan administration and the increase was both purposeful and intended. There's absolutely nothing in that statement to suggest that I support the inexcusable lack of fiscal responsibility that has characterized both Republican and Democrat administrations over the last 3 decades.

Back off. Take a breath. Calm the F down.

Warrior | 9.13.11 @ 9:52PM

Trinacria: There seems to be a distinctive blur at the end of this particular thread. You appear to have stepped into the field of fire. Next time, I will give the proper salutation before sending a salvo out.

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:38PM

Amazing the hypocracy of lunatics attempting to define others as 'lemmings' when they themselves are so far up Paul's rear, their earlobes wiggle from his navel!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 10:15PM

We don't attack you, but simply can't stomach your stated ignorance. Grow up and when you do, come back educated hopefully!!!

Warrior | 9.14.11 @ 10:50AM

Your post defines who the truly ignorant are. Of course, anyone who invokes Nixon and both Bush presidencies as an example or republicanism should not be expected to bring much to the table.

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:34PM

And anyone too stupid to understand that the Democrats from Kennedy to Obama have ruined this country is a DA THAT NEEDS TO SCRATCH HIS EARS ON HIS HEAD THAT IS EXTENDED FROM PAUL'S NAVEL!!!!!!

Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:23PM

Defense and taxes, Warrior.

Look, George may have done stupid things, but when the Republicans were last in charge of the Congress in 2006 with the Presidency, check out the Stock market, our bond rating, our taxes, and our economic prospects and compare them to today.

We were in much worse shape in 2010, with the Clowns in charge of everything. There is a difference between having problems and haviong a catastrophe.

Con Chef (NB) | 9.13.11 @ 12:29PM

So sayheth the neo liberal. "Hey, let's elave THEM alone & they'll leave US alone."

Nice way to go through life. If you're in 3rd grade. I suppose Jefferson was a "neo con nation builder" when he sent the Marines to kick the shit out of the Barbary Pirates at Derna. They (muslims) WILL NOT leave us alone. And you & all the rest of you neo liberal regressives are lethally stupid in thinking so.

hdee| 9.13.11 @ 2:25PM

Maybe you should research the Barbary War before you make comments like that. The Barbary pirates attacked merchant vessels and actually declared war on us first before Jefferson took any action. On top of that, Jefferson only sent our navy to protect merchant ships and then sought congressional approval to go to war. Congress never formally declared war but gave the president authorization to attack pirate ships.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War#Declaration_of_war_and_naval_blockade

Con Chef (NB) | 9.13.11 @ 3:11PM

So how's it any different than protecting our international interests NOW? Don't forget the hostages they took as well.

PS. You know there's a reason not ONE teacher on ANY level accepts Wiki as a source, right?

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 4:45PM

Because they're forced to buy dead trees from old cronies?

hdee| 9.13.11 @ 5:03PM

The difference is both Bush and Obama and recent presidents have initiated force first against other countries, Jefferson didn't initiate force until after the Barbary Pirates, specifically the ones from Libya, declared war on the U.S. first.

Here is a snippet of Jeffersons inaugural speech to congress... "The arrival of our squadron dispelled the danger. One of the Tripolitan cruisers having fallen in with and engaged the small schooner Enterprise, commanded by Lieutenant Sterret, which had gone as a tender to our larger vessels, was captured, after a heavy slaughter of her men, without the loss of a single 1 on our part. The bravery exhibited by our citizens on that element will, I trust, be a testimony to the world that it is not the want of that virtue which makes us seek their peace, but a conscientious desire to direct the energies of our nation to the multiplication of the human race, and not to its destruction. Unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense, the vessel, being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew."

After we won the battle with the pirate ship, the remaining crew and ship was released since we weren't at war and were defending ourselves. There is a huge difference between Jeffersons actions and what we do today.

No offense, but the only recent war that we can say was in our defence was in Afghanistan (though it can't be defended anymore). We were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists training in Afghanistan and congress voted to go in and get them. Everything after that is not protecting American interests, the best you could say is that our recent wars protect oil company interests and help grow the military industrial complex economy.

Also, just because teachers don't accept wikipedia doesn't mean it's not a good source of information. Typically wikipedia has a wealth of information on one topic in one place. If you're writing a research paper you would have to corroborate what you find in wikipedia with some legitimate sources of course.

hdee| 9.13.11 @ 5:06PM

Oops, that was Jeffersons first State of the Union address

Allen| 9.14.11 @ 8:30AM

Our "interests" now include aggressively exporting an ideology, ignoring the sovereignty of others we'd never put up with ourselves, and so on...

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:31PM

That makes about as much sense as A SCREEN DOOR IN A SUBMARINE!!!!!!

Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:25PM

Yes, I believe we were attacked as well. Iraq's government also tried to assasinate an American president.

However, I would have used bombing raids on both Iraq and Iran, until resistance was futile, a' la Japan and Germany in WWII. One American is worth 100 million Iraqis or Iranians. Safety first, I always say.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 5:15PM

You Israel Firsters Were Scared Of Saddam Too.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 5:21PM

Any SANE person would have been so, except the Democrats obviously [since they're too stupid to be scared of anything other than losing their governmental benefits paid for by taxpayers]!!!!

Lysander Spooner| 9.14.11 @ 12:53AM

Why did Reagan give him all of those chemical weapons then?

Allen| 9.14.11 @ 8:44AM

...and trained the Taliban and bin Laden.

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:30PM

Maybe at the time Reagan THOUGHT SADAAM WAS ON OUR SIDE possibly [or was Reagan a PAULISTA in disguise]??????

tho murphy| 9.13.11 @ 10:50AM

Keep trying, but realize your finger is in the dike. Ron Paul's ideas have absolutely taken over the political debate.
If he received half the media coverage and debate time that your establishment hacks receive, this wouldn't even be a race anymore.
Trying to call Ron Paul a hypocrite is like punching a block of granite with your fist!

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 11:32AM

It's done all the time and the granite breaks when it's done properly.

Stone has no tensile strength at all - it does not bend, it breaks. Neither does your candidate.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 4:49PM

Right, stone's strength is in its ability to resist compression, not tension.

I might pay to see someone punch granite, if they can break it. Countertop thickness, please.

Allen| 9.14.11 @ 8:20AM

Translation: Therefore one should have no solid principles excepting that of having no principles in order to get elected. The Party comes first, then everything else.

Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:27PM

Granite cracks all the time---you have to be careful with it when using it as a countertop surface. Pretty, it is, durable, it isn't.

I've had a couple of kitchens redone for she who must be obeyed.

Boar Hunter| 9.13.11 @ 2:10PM

Arsoll;

In typical Ron Paul fashion, you open your "dialog" by insulting those who disagree with you. You and quite honestly all of Ron Paul's supporters have repeatedly proven themselves to collectively warrant no more attention than a pack of barking dogs.

You aspire to debate in the public square, but unable to "handle" people who challenge your opinion, you simply continue your mindless yapping from the opposite side of a fence from where you know be you'll be safe.

My last interaction with a Ron Paul supporter named "God" ended with his ranting about my mothers vagina and me falling from the diseased recesses therein. "God" actually went on to gloat how he won the debate by silencing my irrational attack against Ron Paul.

He next attacked a female poster in similar fashion and once again won the day for Ron Paul. Yeah! Such a fine and eloquent tribute to Ron Paul and all those who support him.

I'm certain this imbecile is quite incapable of understanding how his ability to simply link every profane and vulgar word in his petty little mind together succeeds in accomplishing anything but bringing shame to himself and all those associated with him.

With that said, I would like to personally take the time to thank each and every one of Ron Paul's supporters, including you Arsoll, for it is thanks to the reprehensible actions of Ron Paul's own supporters that Ron Paul's permanent un-electability has been ensured.

Boar Hunter| 9.13.11 @ 2:18PM

Please stop teasing the yapping dogs!

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 4:56PM

Sorry friend... there are assholes everywhere, especially on the internet. But if you're going to judge Paul by his supporters instead of his own actions, just maybe Hitler wasn't all that bad, since so many good Germans supported him?

You seem too smart to let all the BS get in your way. If you want the truth, you'll find it. If you prefer a comfortable lie, you'll settle for that. Just remember, the truth is still true, even when said by someone you despise. Just don't let BS like you've experienced stand in your path to knowledge.

Peace.

Boar Hunter| 9.13.11 @ 7:19PM

I don't intend to persuade you, but "Peace" with who pray-tell?

Ron Paul swears he'll defend the motherland, "if," we are attacked by a foreign army. According to Ron Paul, "they" only hate "us" because we invaded and occupied their land. Really? I'm so confused.

Gosh, I really want to believe that if I vote for Ron Paul we'll have "peace in our time," but I struggle to reconcile that prospect with the fact there is not one single place in the entire world where these animals are not killing their infidel neighbors, fellow muslims or their own wives and children, praise be to Allah!

I know what Ron Paul says we did to make them angry, but what did every other race, creed, religion and nationality in the entire world do to piss them off?

Since they already reside in our country, if we leave their countries will they stop doing what they do everywhere else they exist? Do you think these people will suddenly adopt our laws and safely reside among us?

Muslims do not assimilate, just look at England. Is there anything those idiots have not done to appease Muslims? Everywhere muslims exist they kill. Their "Quran" tells them to "kill" or convert non-believers. Tell me, what is their view of multiple wives?, rape? pedophilia? Their holy book is an abomination to any right thinking rational human.

You say "Peace" I say how am I to find peace with those like Ron Paul who befriend and enable my enemies?

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 9:05AM

Yeah there is definitely a war going on inside your head. No offense but would you mind stepping over there?
Yeah, keep going...ok. See you later. Come back when you are all better.

Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:31PM

Donovan---Paul wants the Iranians to get nukes. Why is this a good thing?

Your songs sucked, too.

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 8:21PM

It generally helps when formulating an argument to string the words together in some fashion that doesn't appear to be random.

"The truth is true even when said by someone you despise; don't let BS stand in your path to knowledge".

Thanks, Grasshopper! I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for your thoughts on the pitfalls of existentialism.

Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:30PM

Well, I read the Paulbots and I read Paul's website. The two sound the same. Clint and Jack are execrable human beings who I wouldn't trust taking care of a stray cat, much less my kids, but they correctly reflect Paul's views. I lived in Galveston for 4 years. I went to UTMB. I know the district really well. The night of graduation, I left Paulville and I NEVER have gone back.

Alan Brooks| 9.13.11 @ 2:29PM

And Paul is too old. He would be carried out from the White House in a casket-- think of it as early retirement.
Why do Republicans choose old men such as Dole, McCain, Paul? because they are reminiscent of Reagan? no! Reagan was a good guy-- these guys are wannabes.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 5:02PM

Reagan was a good orator, but his administration left something to be desired. Kinda like Jefferson.

Also, Ron Paul acts nowhere near as old as the likes of McCain or Dole. And McCain, old as he is, brought his MOTHER out! I expect Paul has more years left than many would expect, and I notice none of his opponents have taken him up on his challenge to go on an hour-long bike ride in the Houston heat with him.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 5:12PM

ObamaBoy Brooks Is Afraid Of The Tea Party & Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.

Dr. Ron Paul,
I’ve offered to ride a bicycle for 20 miles in Houston when the temperature is 100° and the humidity is 100% and I will go 20 miles with them and then we’ll decide who’s the youngest."

Quartermaster| 9.13.11 @ 5:21PM

Looks like another Comment section for AmSpec's memory hole. One more Neocon article that uses special pleading and selective memory to diss Paul.

I'm no Paul fan, but you RINO Neocons really need to grow up a bit. Paul is not your enemy, even if he does have a foreign policy view that is unrealistic. You Neocons are your own worst enemies. Leave aside the Wilsonian trash and turn back to constitutional principles.

Jay| 9.13.11 @ 6:28AM

Does Santorum think people are stupid? Go to Paul’s site. Read the article. If Santorum is so anxious for war with Iran, he’s a younger man, why doesn’t he enlist. Put PFC Santorum in the turret of a HMMWV; let him see how he likes an IED-laden convoy route. Would Santorum send one of his seven children to wage war against Iran?

I am no pacifist, but we are bleeding our young men and women to death. We are deploying them so much that many of them are committing suicide because of the fatigue and the stress of constant deployments - all so we can police the world.

Santorum would condemn them to more war for his own private vision of American interventionism, and to score political points in an election.

Ryan| 9.13.11 @ 9:38AM

An argument CAN be made about over-deployment and fighting in wars that we shouldn't (luch as Libya, which Europe should be all-out to reform). I'll even entertain that Iraq was handled completely improperly.

However, I remain unconvinced that if we pulled every single troop home, defunded Israel and allowed them to be taken over, and let Iran run amok that they would not pose a significant national security threat to the US.

I don't believe we will ever significantly see Sharia law on our own shores outside of a few enclaves of Muslims and the occasional idiot judge; however, disengaging from Iran I cannot see being beneficial to American security.

James| 9.13.11 @ 10:30AM

Strawman, defunding Israel won't cause them to be taken over. They've got the biggest military in the area, second to ours.

Also, it's not about defunding Israel, it's about defunding Israel's enemies. We currently give $4 for every $1 that we give to Israel to Israel's enemies. Is that a smart policy? Does that help Israel?

Just say no to foreign aid. All of it. We need to bring our troops home to secure the US-Mexico border, and keep our dollars here in the US to get our economy going. Obama has us in more wars than ever. Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan.

Fighting costs money, and it's money we don't have. We are we sending my friends to die? I'm tired of attending military funerals. Why do you think out of ALL the candidates, including Obama, Dr. Paul gets the most donations from active duty military? The troops support him because they don't believe in these wars, they know their lives are being casually thrown away, and they want to come home.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 8:42PM

bring em home...fine! but I'm keeping that money...not funding your ideas of what it will take to "get our economy going." also...when the next domestic terror attack occurs....we'll come looking for Paulbots for accountability.....not the perpetrators.

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 9:13AM

Then you are a stupid jerk. If you would have listened to our leader immediately following 9/11 when Dr. Paul requested using the constitutional Marque of Reprisal (if I sp that right I'm gonna have a good day!) to go get Bin Ladden and his gang dead or alive.
That would have costed you at most $200 M (hey, I gotta eat don't I?). Instead, what did you do! What did you do!!!!?!!!
Should we hold you accountable for the lives lost and capital wasted on the plan not chosen?
Hmmmm. Nah, forgive and forget that's my motto. Come here you!!!

Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:33PM

James---given that the funds we give to iIrael's enemies go to the pockets of strongmen (Mubarak is worth $74 Billion---how?), while Israel uses hers in useful ways, I would say defund them and fund Israel. It's simply 3 billion more for our defense industry, is all.

Jack in Wi.| 9.13.11 @ 10:49AM

Iran is a threat to no-one. It is nothing but a backward 3rd world country who hasn't attacked anyone in hundreds of years. It is under constant nuclear inspection and has not violated any treaties. It is time to send an ambassador to Tehren and settle all differences and have peaceful trade relations with Iran. An unprovoked attack on Iran would be a terrible war crime. It would destroy the world economy and gas would at least triple in price. That doesn't bother the neocons. They care about nothing but their insane ideas.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 11:35AM

As Jack, you care about yours...

Stop the name calling, it only hurts your position.

Why are your peace-loving Iranians spending so much time and money and effort to build IED's for the Iraqi and Afghani opposition?

Mike| 9.13.11 @ 12:37PM

Perhaps, if they are doing so and frankly I'd like to see some proof of the claim, it is because they are neighboring nations being occupied by an aggressive foreign power whose politicians award medals to military officers who shoot down Iranian civilian airliners(USS Vincennes from the early 90's-you probably forgot, but the Iranians have a postage stamp dedicated to that tragedy), and frequently rattle sabres and the occasional ICBM in the Iranian direction?

Just a thought.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 1:04PM

Mike;

Looky here:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw.....line=Enemy Adapts To Counter-IED Tactics

Now, do some research for yourself...

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 5:09PM

You missed the point.

The US sells weapons around the world, but doesn't take any flack for producing the weapons that kill millions, yet Iran must be invaded because a few of their citizens helped their neighbors make a pipe bomb? Not even when our own govt sold weapons to Mexican drug cartels that came back and used them against our border agents, is our govt held responsible.

There are big players in the world, and you may love your king, but you're still just a pawn to him.

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 8:30PM

UncleSim,

You implying that someone has missed the point is rather like Janet Napolitano suggesting that Sarah Palin needs a make over.

Pot, meet kettle...

If you believe that the threat is based on the fact that a few Iranian civilians helped make pipe bombs, you're so far removed from understanding the problem that you've lost all credibility and forteited the opportunity to be taken seriously.

You poor simple-minded fool.

Jeff Perren | 9.13.11 @ 11:36AM

Tell that to the families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of advice, hardware, intel, and monetary support supplied by Iran to the jihadists.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 5:24PM

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of in my entire life [oh wait, Ronnie Boy said that same thing, I forgot]!!!!!!!!

Lysander Spooner| 9.14.11 @ 1:00AM

Correct, and Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Israel has not, and they have many nuclear weapons.

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:27PM

Wait LS, did by chance Israel attack the US with four commandeered jets on 9/11/01??????????

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:27PM

Wait LS, did by chance Israel attack the US with four commandeered jets on 9/11/01??????????

Eric| 9.13.11 @ 11:10AM

Exactly my friend. The war-chickens squawk loudly for war-profits behind the poor and middle classes actually doing the fighting.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 11:40AM

Eric,

The only people doing the actual fighting are volunteers.

Didn't you see the picture some of our soldiers sent to John Kerry after he said that the only people in the military were poor unfortunates?

Talk about chicken hawks, I am sick of chicken doves who so foully mis-characterize our brave, courageous, effective military personnel as poor unfortunates!

Look here if you don't recall " HALP US JOHN CARY WE R STUK HEAR IN IRAK!"

http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/.....ryiraq.jpg

Knock of the bologna, please.

DTOM

Eric| 9.13.11 @ 11:59AM

Dan,

You're right. I'm being naive. Recruiters don't specifically target the lower classes. And the lower classes have so many more opportunities these days don't they? Wal-mart or the Army. They are simply volunteering. Killing is cool. Here, play this video game. And the largest employer in the world isn't the state department. And they hate us for our freedoms. And real wealth comes from government direction. And big businesses hate lucrative war contracts and have no vested interest in seeing those same people with so many career options die in the desert. And the natives of the countries our government occupies have no right to fight back. My government's fight is not my fight. And I vote "no confidence" in the psychopaths running the show.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 1:10PM

Eric;

If you hate it so much, leave!
Show us your courage, act on your convictions, go somewhere else. No one is making you stay here, dolt!

Your points are totally cynical and can only have one objective, to convince your fellow citizens not to defend themselves. Why would someone wish not to defend his homeland? Unless of course, he doesn't believe in his homeland.

I ask you two questions: Are you a useful idiot or a Communist?

And when are you leaving this country which you obvioulsy despise.

And another thing, what's the matter with you? No spine? Or just no principles? Which is it?

DO NOT TREAD ON ME!

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 1:11PM

Eric,

Are you a typical Ron Paul supporter?

Case closed.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 5:37PM

Dan Hirsch = OWNED!

(Again.)

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 8:33PM

"Yeah, yeah, you tell 'em, Spike!" "You really got 'em with that one, Spike!" "Want me to lick you, Spike?"

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 9:26AM

Yeah, Dan!
Eric, don't go anywhere you are fine. I think Dan has ideas that have been treading on us for quite sometime.
Dan, you are an enemy to the prosperity of this nation. Your message of spreading fear and hate to the weak and young have been going on long enough! You are hereby ordered to shut-up and pack your bags and go live in the middle east for 12 full moons. That's right. I said full.
Now go on. What are you waiting for?
Guys, help me grab his wheel chair.

Libertarian84| 9.13.11 @ 6:05PM

Dan, who are you calling Communist? Your opinions seem to be closer to Communism than Eric's. I dare to suggest that America is not the same thing as its government (i.e. the Obama regime). One can despise the government's actions without despising the country (whatever it means). Wouldn't equating country and government be quite a Communist opinion? By the way, where are we supposed to go? All areas fit for humans on this planet are already controlled by statists.

What do you mean by believing in one's homeland. For me at least all borders are artificial and nationalism is a way to take away people's freedoms.

Lysander Spooner| 9.14.11 @ 1:02AM

Pssst, all those lines on the map... they are imaginary.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 5:11PM

Ever heard of 'Stop-Loss'? It prevents enlisted folks from leaving when their contract expires. Those affected may have entered voluntarily, but they have been extended involuntarily.

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 8:34PM

Do they no about this possibility when they agree to swear an oath?

Jesus, man, you're boring us!

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 10:19PM

Yeah, SLAP YO MOMMA Eric, cause 9/11/01 was just a mirage, right? Thsoe 3000+ in the twin towers are living the life of Riley at some resort in Mexico, right???????

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 6:31AM

"Progressive thinker" Ron Paul was loudly booed last night at a Tea Party debate when discussing his wack-job, blame America foreign policy opinions.

His campaign is effectively over.

Jared| 9.13.11 @ 7:23AM

You're officially the one person i know for a fact that hasn't read the 9/11 commission report or the pentagon reports from 2004 or the NSA reports from 2002. Which Ron Paul has been quoting for years, that say the exact same thing he said last night.

Ron predicted the another terrorist attack on the united states long before 9/11. Look it up.

People who don't agree with what he is saying are contrasting with all the government reports that have been issued. That, I believe, makes you a conspiracy theorist loon.

------
I'm also 90% sure this comment violates the posting rules: "Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. "

If not the entire article itself.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 7:33AM

The 9/11 commission was a sick joke that included Jamie Gorelick, the architect of "the wall" that prevented the CIA and the FBI from sharing information that would have led to the apprehension of the 9/11 hi-jackers.

The fact that Ron Paul would cite this bogus comission as opposed to dismissing it's conclusions based on the inclusion of Gorelick, whose sole job was to inoculate the Clinton administration from justified accusations of negligence between'92 and '00 means tha Paul is a deluded, blame-America fool.

And if you support Paul's stance and repeat it as well, then...well, we think you know.

Anything else, Junior?

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 8:07AM

"the pentagon reports from 2004 or the NSA reports from 2002."

Len| 9.13.11 @ 8:59AM

I've got more. Of course they hate us for our imperialism and not our freedom, but fools like you must find worth in an abstract artificial thing like a country. We overthrew a legitimate government in Iran for a British oil company that had been treating the Iranians like garbage, and put in place the Shah. This created enmity against us with the Iranians. We then supported a dictator in Saddam, further showing our willingness to support oppression so long as our interests are satisfied. We have also dictated to many countries as if we have some right to be the world's boss, and you think like Santorum that it's due to our freedom (which is a joke by the way), and not our bullying imperialistic attitude?

Hey how about the fact that with our Iraq embargo (again intervening in something that has nothing to with Common Defense), led to the deaths of around 600,000 Iraqis, or that we have since then killed close to 1,000,000, or that we have been killing so many Afghans, or that we cover up the crimes committed by our military?

Again, you are a fool who refuses to let go of your fantastical romanticized version of the US, and have obviously placed your identity in this lie.

Ryan| 9.13.11 @ 9:40AM

So the solution is absolute disengagement? Even if you are half-right and we completely pulled out of the Middle East, would Militant Islamists leave us alone?

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 9:44AM

Of course they would, Ryan! They'd instantly be our friends, and open up a new "Disney World" right next to Mecca.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 8:47PM

right on! even better...Columbia University students would have lunch regularly with Paul!!!!

Donovan | 9.13.11 @ 10:13AM

Your missing the point Ry. Since we started it, let's bring it home. Then we become the good guys again As an ex-Marine, I will defend my home, and all of the good folks of this blog site (even this good doctor guy) if there lucky to be my neighbor. That is what defending your country means.
My moms generation started this fight, I'll fight on her behalf if they come here, but I'm not going to be a coward and send someone else's kids overseas to fight my battles.
That just seems so .... European.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 8:49PM

and I served 20 yrs+ and recall that my service was voluntary. yes...it is all about you! semper self!!!

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 9:34AM

Shut-up old timer. Of course it's all about me. What am I going to write about you. Yeah, always faithful to my self because always faithful to my God.
Stop yapping at my heals. I amost stepped on you that time.

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 10:50AM

Of course they would. Didn't that work out for Spain and the Madrid train riders? Oh wait, nevermind.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 9:47AM

The Iraq embargo has NOT led to the deaths of around 600,000 Iraqis.

We have NOT killed 1,000,000 Iraqis since 2003.

Those are lies best spread on DailyKOS.

Yes, we've killed lots of Afghans. So what? They're in the Taliban and Al Qaeda? You've heard of them, right? They declared war on us on 9/11/01.

Since you walk around with your head up Ron Paul's posterior, maybe you didn't know..?

Eric| 9.13.11 @ 11:13AM

Research and links please.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 12:28PM

I don't have to; I'm not making the ridiculous assertions.

Nice try, "Eric".

Mike| 9.13.11 @ 12:41PM

"Yes, we've killed lots of Afghans. So what?"

The indiscriminate killing of civilians does not justify the indiscriminate killing of civilians.

I'm agnostic, but I'll pray for you. God help you if there is a God.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 1:28PM

Innocent civilians are NOT being targeted in Afghanistan, intentionally or otherwise.

But 3,000 innocent civilians WERE targeted on 9/11, and they did die, you jack-ass.

You Paul-bots are despicable pond-scum.

Boar Hunter| 9.13.11 @ 2:22PM

When did the terrorists start wearing uniforms? Aren't they all civilians? Does that mean we cant kill them?

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 2:32PM

Yes.

According to Eric Holder's new Rules of Engagement, before shooting anyone in Afghanistan, we MUST ask each and every person if they are "An Al-Qaeda or Taliban agent intent on doing harm to US personnel".

If they answer "Yes", we can shoot them.

If they answer "No", we must apologize for detaining them, give them a free meal, clean their weapon, and give them a free box of ammunition for the inconvenience.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 8:50PM

gimme a break...the ROE in Afghanistan is so restrictive it has without doubt led to deaths of Americans.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 8:52PM

"You Paul-bots are despicable pond-scum."

yup!

and let's face facts...can you imagine sitting through four years of National Addresses by Sponge Paul? not I!!!!

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 9:40AM

Quick carnot! Why are you suggesting that Mr. Paul is like the Nickelodian legend, Sponge Bob?
Go!

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 9:54AM

Nothing?
.
.
.
Not-a-thinga?

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 10:05AM

Ok, anyone else want to try?

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 1:28PM

Really? Chest thumping over a Sponge Bob challenge? You really are irredeemably stupid. Do you realize how utterly impotent and foolish you look?

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 10:24PM

Why don't you take your un-American attitude and go move to Cuba, Russia or China. Please anywhere, and get the hell out of this country. You American bashing traitors are what has/is destroying this country from within. Hell, take your Europeon ars-kissing attitude and establish residency in Greece [in fact invest your $5 in their bonds, as I'm sure your reek a handsome profit from same]. Viva La France!!!!!!!!

Johnathan| 9.13.11 @ 10:03AM

So you admit you are indeed a conspiracy theorist?

Yeah as a matter of fact you didn't comment on the NSA reports or the pentagon reports, which say the same thing.

James| 9.13.11 @ 10:31AM

Sure, head of CIA's Bin Laden unit Michael Scheuer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 1:54PM

Wasn't that the guy who was in charge of a special CIA unit that was supposed to catch Bin Laden but couldn't do it?

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 5:17PM

So, you're against the report, and you're against the guy who opposes the bloated bureaucracy that gave it to us?

Let me guess... you think big govt is ok, as long as the 'right people' are running it? Since that is a virtual impossibility in our (ha-ha) 2-party system, should such an entity be allowed to continue to amass power?

Anonymous| 9.13.11 @ 7:23AM

Just because he told the truth, his campaign is over? That's amazing; other candidates were booed last night: isn't it strange how they didn't get their own article about how the audience disagreed with them?
As much as you wish the war could go on in the middle east and people could be in misery for longer, that won't happen for much longer with such an intelligent and dedicated man that soon could be in power. Nutjobs are not anti-war doctors.
You notice they didn't let him get his word in about the federal reserve? Did you notice how many people were cheering after he spoke? You notice how they were constantly talking to Romney and Perry and ignoring Dr. Paul? They know that they have to cover him up as much as they can, and that they have to try to spread propaganda to make him look bad; but the Internet exists, and they cannot cover him up like they could others before. They don't think he's an idiot; they're afraid he's going to win.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 8:59PM

Paul doesn't stand a snowballs chance in H of winning the Repub primaries let alone a National Election. look at the guy: he's not a leader......his mannerisms, his responses, his very persona - he's a whiny, uncharismatic, petulant little man. we can discuss the pros/cons of his ideas endlessly.....but in the end....the man is not inspiring and does not evince the qualities of a leader.

next.

jonathan| 9.13.11 @ 10:12PM

yeah. ron paul is whiny, uncharismatic, not a leader. that's why millions have joined what has been known since 2008 as the ron paul revolution. because the most dedicated and rapidly expanding grassroots support in all of american history was inspired by one man, who was of course boring and uninspiring.

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 10:10AM

Ooooooooohhhh!! carot! School much? You poor thing!

Nah, it's cool.
So, who you rooting for?

William R| 9.13.11 @ 7:24AM

Michael Scheuer the man the CIA put in charge of fighting Osama bin Laden agrees with the Texas Congressman

http://non-intervention.com/99.....-ron-paul/

Jim| 9.13.11 @ 8:37AM

No one is blaming America as a whole. We do need to be honest with ourselves though that our politicians foreign policy decisions do have consequences. That is all he is saying. That doesn't "blame America". Don't be so falsely patriotic that you can't face the truth and adjust your thinking.
We aren't perfect, we have made mistakes in the past and we will make mistakes in the future. We should address those mistakes though and try to correct them.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 2:01PM

You assume that I think the overthrow(s) of Mossadegh, Arbenz, and Allende were mistakes.

I don't.

They were excellent operations, done to secure the best interests of the USA. And by and large, they succeeded.

Ron Paul seems unaware that the world is an ugly place, full of entire nations who don't have our best interests at heart and if we'd only play footsy with them, they'd like us. To that end, he thinks we should disengage, and hope for the best.

That's beyond foolhardy, it's stupid and dangerous.

Within the next 20 years, unless checked by American power, China will make a play for domination of the western Pacific, and that will affect our allies AND trading partners in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand.

What do you genius Paul-bots suggest? Simply look the other way?

Idiots...

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 5:20PM

Awfully naive for a guy who spent 5 years in the Air Force during Vietnam, eh?

I am amazed that you think the rulers of our country have 'our' best interests at heart, when their actions continually prove that they don't. What lets you maintain your faith in the face of such contradictions? I'd like to try some.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 5:24PM

In case you hadn't noticed, China owns more American money than our own govt does, so it wouldn't even need to invade... it could just foreclose.

The cure, in our case, has been worse than our disease. Rather than a few connected politicians and their cronies taking the losses they deserved, they've sold our futures in order to maintain their positions of power over us, even after demonstrating their utter incompetence at the task.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 9:02PM

I realize you're trying to adopt a moderate tone here...but the whole argument is stupid in the extreme. so...if a country adopts and aggressive foreign policy there will be those who oppose the agenda. that's the message? BS. Paul is ultimately making a moral assertion.

Chris| 9.13.11 @ 8:38AM

I agree. Some asinine Libyan official kept telling Ghadafi and his supporters that their policies will end up causing the people to retaliate against him, but Ghadafi was smart and didn't stop his policies. I'm certain to this very day Ghadafi and his supporters think they did everything right.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 5:26PM

What's curious, is that before the invasion justified by his human rights abuses, Libya was ranked one of the free-est and most prosperous nations in Africa. There are far worse atrocities in other African nations, but France doesn't get its oil from them.

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 9:21PM

Ain't it a bitch? Political priorities and national interest and all that...

Hey, Skippy - it ain't curious! You see, that's the way the world works. Join us, won't you?

Kimmie| 9.13.11 @ 9:16AM

9/11 is an emotional subject. However, US Government's foreign policies of intervention and occupation in Arab countries is NOT helping; this policy is hurting us 4 ways: increased debt, death of American soldiers, loss of resources, and continued danger from terrorism.

Ryan| 9.13.11 @ 9:41AM

We'll still be left with the 4th if Ron Paul is President.

James| 9.13.11 @ 10:35AM

Terrorism is ALWAYS a danger. However, action we take will either encourage it or not encourage it. The money we sent to the rebels in Libya, they're Al Qaida. Does it really seem smart to be assisting them in Libya after what they did to us?

Putting boots on the ground and huge military bases in foreign countries pisses the people off. Every time a drone missile hits a house or school, we kill children and the families of those children come to hate us. If someone blew up my family's home and killed them, you'd better believe I'd do some crazy things. Imagine if China were over here dropping bombs "to keep us safer" all the time. We'd go nuts to get them out.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 2:04PM

Terrorism is NOT a danger when the terrorists understand that there ARE serious consequences to their actions.

WHY do you thjnk the hostages in Iran were released the day that Reagan was inaugurated? Coincidence? A gesture of good will?

Try FEAR. Fear that Reagan was getting ready to bomb them back to the stone age.

It's time we stopped worrying about "pissing people off". They need to start worrying (again) about whether or not they piss US off.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 5:30PM

So, you think you can pass a law that would stop a suicide bomber from attempting his crime, by guaranteeing 'serious consequences'?

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 8:44PM

Yeah, you're right. F... it; we can't stop it, so why try?

The point, Skippy, is not to threaten the individual suicide bomber with "serious consequences", as it's self evident that said bomber has rather little regard for consequences post-mortem, but rather to threaten states who would otherwise engage in state sponsored support of terrorism with grave and serious consequences.

Big picture, Skippy, big picture. Try to keep up!

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 9:08PM

no Uncle Sim...I'm with you. I believe that if we tell these folks we're circling the wagons around our white suburban Paulbot neighborhoods and out up a "no further" sign....these folks will drop all animosity toward the US and let us live in comparative peace. everyone understands that human beings will fly themselves into buildings rather than fight for another day because they they detest foreign interventionism. there aren't any more profound causes. and, of course, even were we to completely extricate ourselves...there will be no grounds for conflict in the realms of ideas, culture, religion and economy. afterall...these are rational people...they have to be in your formula.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 5:31PM

Didn't the CIA create Al-Qaida?

Not as easy to put down as Ol Yeller.

Lysander Spooner| 9.14.11 @ 1:09AM

Logic and reason don't work here. They're all brainwashed.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 5:28PM

You're right... terrorism can't be eliminated any more than any other crime can be.

The potential will always be there. The check on that potential is within the individual's heart, not in any govt agency.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 9:10PM

I think I'm going to cry!

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 9:49AM

Without western "intervention", most of the Arab world would still be farming sand and living in tents with camels.

OIL is a reality that our economy must have, and until we start massive drilling within our own borders, we need to get it from somewhere.

Liberals...Libertarians...all have lost touch with reality.

James| 9.13.11 @ 10:36AM

You're against using our resources why? I say let the Arab world farm sand and live in tents with camels. Does that hurt us?

Eric| 9.13.11 @ 11:16AM

No, true libertarianism is based on the principle of non-aggression. True free trade is of course not in conflict with this principle. Occupation is. Or would you feel the same way if the Chinese were hunting extremists and terrorists in the hills of Idaho?

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 9:12PM

wow. guess you don't follow the NFL.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 12:29PM

No, I'm NOT against drilling. READ the post, please.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 5:44PM

Doctor Right = PWNED! (Again.)

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 8:46PM

"Good one, Spike! Good one! I was right here behind you if you needed me, Spike! The whole time! Really, I was!" "Nobody messes with us, Spike!"

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 5:42PM

I am a libertarian, and I agree that we should produce our own energy here. We've got lots of gas and oil, but like Deebo in Friday, we want to use someone else's. Does that make us thugs? Imagine Deebo with a badge and a gun... yikes!

It seems your reality is based on America's willingness to invade countries that have not attacked us, in order to produce politically desirable outcomes, but I suspect it only focuses on the immediate, 'seen' effects, and ignores the secondary, 'unseen' effects... sometimes called blowback.

Frederic Bastiat warns about this danger, of failing to account for secondary unseen effects of actions or decisions. Henry Hazlitt summarized his theories well in his 'Economics in One Lesson'. For a quick brush-up on the basics, you could also just Google the 'Broken Window Fallacy'.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 9:15PM

"...we want to use someone else's"

this so patently stupid it defies imagination.

ummm.....someone else wants to sell us there energy wealth.

yes...and the predictive accuracy of these theories? not open ended...but specific identification of actors, dates and targets?

Mike| 9.13.11 @ 9:26AM

Over? Use logic. If the islamic extremist hates the american way then why are they not attacking america on a regular basis before 9/11? We started occupying islamic countries and 9/11 happens. Sense then it has been a 90% increase of attacks. What he said was we came to them and this is the consquence. Pure logic! And if that wasnt enough then remember the people who booed him also cheered the idea to kill someone with medical problems and no insurance. So not over just proves we could save money by getting rid of the Dept of Education. Obviously it is not working.

Michael Tomlinson| 9.13.11 @ 9:44AM

You're a Muslim apologist they've began attack the West during the Nixon administration. Imperialistic Islam is on the march again and the target is the West (Europe and the US).

RINO Ron Paul like traditional liberals and neo-liberals is an apologist for a violent and militant theology/ideology bent on world domination.

James| 9.13.11 @ 10:38AM

Have you read anything on this or do you just watch The Factor every day?

Have you read the CIA reports on the situation in the Middle East? They're public, so spouting ignorance isn't really all that cool anymore. Have you heard of Michael Scheuer, the head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit? Did you read the 9/11 Commission Report?

Do you have logical skills? What we do if China put a base in Texas and told us how to live our lives? How would you react? I know what I'd do, and it wouldn't be too pretty.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 9:21PM

I don't know...has Texas been funding acts of atrocity against Israel?

btw.....do Paulbots suffer no moral qualm with the genocide, murder and rape that occurred in Iraq over the course of decades? or is the concept of moral culpability somehow strangely transmuted to reside in the physical presence of US military bases overseas? is the Paulbot philosophy that so long as MY HEARTH AND HOME aren't violated....there are no higher obligations?

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 10:16AM

I rather suspect it would depend on why they put the base there in the first place, James. C'mon, sport, let's not pretend that we were just out lookin' for a place to drop some cash and spill some blood and randomly settled on the middle east because it's such a lovely place to winter. With respect to Mr. Schemer, how did that gig work out for him?

Life ain't a fairy tale, Skippy. Wake up.

Lysander Spooner| 9.14.11 @ 1:11AM

please read 'Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism' by Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago

Ryan| 9.13.11 @ 9:44AM

How were we "occupying" Islamic nations before 9/11? Do you REALIZE how few troops we had over there?

Also, you DON'T know the intel. There's a reason that President Obama didn't close Gitmo - I'm convinced he got hit with a dose of reality the day he entered office and even he realized what was on his plate.

If there were not credible threats or attempts (which there have been, even in the news), then why didn't Obama close Gitmo?

James| 9.13.11 @ 10:45AM

Easy, because Obama LOVES big government and being able to do whatever he wants. Just like he loves the UN and doesn't bother going to Congress before going to war in Libya.

Do you not know the history of our meddling in the Middle East? Jon Stewart actually does a humorous take on it: http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/66570/detail/

The truth is, we overthrew the democratically elected Shah in Iran. We've shoveled weapons and money back and forth since the '50s, and it's just catching up with us.

The Daily Show clip is hilarious btw.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 5:55PM

Jon Stewart is more conservative than your average AmSpec neocon.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 9:25PM

that's dissembling nonsense. Obama was boxed in because there were no relocation takers.

as for "meddling" your concept, aside from its historical reconstructionism, is so unrefined as to encompass any set of actions you do not favor.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 5:44PM

I was one of over half a million troops stationed in Saudi Arabia in the early 1990's. Does that count?

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 9:26PM

no.

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 10:09AM

Just as serving as a busboy in a 5 star restaurant doesn't render an individual an expert in the culinary arts, and serving as a flight attendant doesn't make someone an aeroapace engineer, donning the uniform of the US military doesn't make one a bona fide expert on foreign intelligence.

Thanks, nonetheless, for your service.

Jeff Perren | 9.13.11 @ 11:39AM

Through their proxies, Iran HAS been attacking Americans in many countries since 1979. The data is readily available. For example, see the website of John David Lewis.

(Sorry I don't have a link at hand.)

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 1:30PM

They were attacking America before 9/11, dim-wit.

Ever hear of Khobat Towers?
US Embassy in Kenya?
USS Cole?
Twin Towers in 1993???

Seriously, how friggin' clueless are you?!?!

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 5:54PM

I lived in Khobar Towers in 1991 and 1993, and separated in 1994 (thank goodness).

By the way, Al Khobar is still in Saudi Arabia, not America.
Kenya is in Africa, not America.
The USS Cole was in Yemen.
OK on WTC93, but we had already had troops on Saudi soil for well over 2 years. Half a million of them. The attack was heinous, but not incomprehensible - we know why it happened. The dog was growling, and we stuck our hand in its dish anyway. A vicious dog we'd fed for years so that it could annoy our enemy, who no longer existed.

It is time to honestly study the path to the destruction we have experienced, and avoid doing the things that made us their target. An ounce of prevention, and all that.

Unless you're the one selling the cure, prevention is probably in your best interest, no?

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 5:57PM

Doctor Right = PWNED! (Yep, again.)

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 8:49PM

"Yeah, Spike! Good one! You really showed 'em, Spike! I was gonna take 'em, Spike, but then I saw you had 'em! Can I wipe your ass, Spike?"

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 9:30PM

As someone who served 20+ yrs...I can't decide whether I'm thankful you separated or not!

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 9:29PM

they're advancing a circular argument doc. ignore them.

Michael Tomlinson| 9.13.11 @ 9:39AM

Proof he's not a mainstream Republican or Tea Party favorite. Fraud Paul is a RINO, neo-libearl who has more in common with George Soros and Barack Obama than Ronald Reagan (the grandfather of neo-conservatives).

James| 9.13.11 @ 10:53AM

Which is of course why he was one of only 4 in Congress to support Reagan.

Sorry, but he's true to principles, not to party. When the party goes astray, Paul is there to lead it back to its roots. Paul started the Tea Party. Paul audited the Fed.

Not these Johnny Come Latelys. Bachmann has a SMALL amount of street cred in her short tenure. Perry? Used federal stimulus funds to balance the books and is closing on their constitutional debt limit, not to mention his tax increases. Romney? Obamacare. Cain? Some street cred, but every time he opens his mouth outside of the debates he gets himself in the crud.

Sorry, Paul is our best option for CONSTITUTIONAL government.

Eric| 9.13.11 @ 11:18AM

This guy is pretty funny.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:00PM

Do Soros and Obama support liberty and prosperity for others, or only for themselves and others like them?

You may be right about Reagan being the grandfather of the neocons... he talked like a republican and acted like a democrat, which is my understanding of what a neocon is, or am I wrong?

Jack in Wi.| 9.13.11 @ 10:56AM

Are you kidding? Sure some Cheneyite dead enders booed. We booed the hell out of Cheney when we had the chance at a conserative conference. That was to be expected. There is a huge fight going on here. Romney, Huntsman, and Perry were all roundly booed who cares? Ron Paul has the intellectual and moral strenth to stand up for what he believes. He is right on this so called war on terror and the blowback caused by it. The country wants nothing to do anymore, with the neocons and their wars. Your day is done.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 1:33PM

Ron Paul is an intellectual lightweight, and so are his followers.

It doesn't take a grand intellect to blame America and preach isolationism. Liberals have been doing it for years.

You deluded Paul-bot fools are pathological. You're so desperate to believe in a political savior that will solve ALL of your problems and settle some imaginary scores, too, that it's pathetic.

I advise you fools to stay away from open windows in tall buildings after Paul the RINO loses the nomination.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:07PM

When you say 'America', you seem to mean what its govt does.

Must we define ourselves by our tainted govt? Or is it possible that 300 million individuals make up something a representative govt can barely define, let alone lead to prosperity?

We do not blame the 'America' that is our countrymen, families, friends, and neighbors. We do blame the actions by the few Americans that have hindered both justice and prosperity. Admitting that imperfection exists in America is not treasonous, no matter how much many folks of your ilk would like it to be.

Also, Paul is not an isolationist, unless you define that term as 'not attacking people who have not attacked us'. Is a person who trades with his neighbor an isolationist? Must he invade his neighbor's home and tell him how to live his life, in order to NOT be an isolationist?

Prudence| 9.14.11 @ 1:15AM

Marry me?

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 9:43PM

and they sure don't know how to encourage support!

doesn't really matter. as I noted above....Paul doesn't have stature that resonates. every debate I have watched he has evinced the persona of a whiny, petulant little man.

btw...if you want a clue about real purposes...ask a Paulbot if they will support the eventual Republican nominee if not Paul. invariably...the answer is no. why should anyone engage with this "my way or the highway" mindset. but this is in keeping with Paul's petulance. he's a small man some of whose ideas are sound. he's not a leader. he's not inspiring. he's unelectable. refer to the last time he ran for the Presidency - if real facts actually matter. as an aside, looking at Paul's foreign policy positions, perhaps the gynaecologist has become the object of his practice.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 5:27PM

Yeah, you're the typical moron-fools that chased Hannity in NH with Paul signs. You're worse than the domestic terrorists now running our country into the ground and should be thrown in jail for your asinine, Chicago Way violence!!!!!!!

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:08PM

Yes, they should have set their signs down before trying to ask him questions. Too much information confused the gatekeepers of the public dialectic.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 10:28PM

The the goons in NH are akin in their radicalness to those occupying the Wisconsin statehouse and their political leaders who ran like theives from doing their taxpayer-paid duty as congressmen!!!!

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 6:12PM

AmSpec Neocon Speak: "Ron Paul is an intellectual lightweight, and so are his followers. ... You deluded Paul-bot fools are pathological. You're so desperate ... it's pathetic. I advise you fools ... you're the typical moron-fools... You're worse than the domestic terrorists ... your asinine, Chicago Way violence..."

Translation: "It's obvious I have no chance in honest civil debate, so why try? Therefore, I'll do what I do best: project my faults onto you with character attacks!"

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 9:53PM

it's not about civil debate. it's about power and the disposition of power. voters have done their personal introspection once already (in the case of Paul) and decided that Libertarianism doesn't suit their notion of where the balance between government and individual should fall. they don't want Obama's big government...and they don't want Paul's anarchism. sorry...in a muddy world that doesn't fit your theoretical puritanism....that is reality.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 10:26PM

Nope.

Try again.

sirbourbon| 9.14.11 @ 12:43PM

Where have we heard that one before?
Big clue: GOP '07 debate at the R.R. Library.
Second time: Fox news debate when Ron Paul and "progressive, slash, secret democrat Ghouliani got into it over this same issue of Muslim "blowback."

100,000 dead Iraqis from NATO/US bombs. A US presence in the region. Nah, why should that bother anyone living in a bombed out village. Why should thousands of US troops bother a single Arab? After all we've designated ourselves policeman of the world. We have a duty to mankind to be their protectors. The ancient Romans had a presense in the region and look how well they "protected" the people.

When bribe money( foreign aid) by the billions of inflated dollars handed over to Saudi Kings and hand delivered to Muslim governments does not do the trick then we bomb them into doing what we want them to do. Hillary calls for more aid to the Palestinian Authority. She had a good coach in G.W.Bush who handed Abbas millions of inflated US dollars to the heir of the PLO.
http://thenewamerican.com/usne.....olicy/1522

Yea, according to Limshannity that makes for good foreign policy.

Mike Hawk| 9.13.11 @ 6:34AM

Rube Paul is a Paleo-progressive and a nut. His followers are a coterie of kooks and will be here in full crackpot rage today.

Seek| 9.13.11 @ 12:21PM

Check out www.lewrockwell.com, the anti-state website to which Rep. Paul is a regular contributor. I can assure you, this article will not go unheeded. Llewellyn Rockwell, by the way, has personally guaranteed that Paul will win in a landslide.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:13PM

How can anyone offer a personal guarantee of a landslide? It would be worthless, and Rockwell is too smart to do that.

He may have argued that its possible for it to happen, but would never guarantee it... he knows better.

It is rather amusing to watch the libs and cons try to make sense of a libertarian, but I never thought it would be all that hard... A libertarian, usually, is a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative. While Paul may be slightly less socially liberal than I am, I respect the consistency of his positions.

Tharms| 9.13.11 @ 6:41AM

The writer is a lobbyist. Why doesn't he just say so?

James| 9.13.11 @ 10:54AM

Because that would undermine his entire poin....

Oh. Ooooh... I see where you're going with this now.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 6:19PM

Yep.

Ooopsy!

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 6:46AM

The other Candidates are catching up & Parroting Dr.Ron Paul on gettin' out of Afghanistan. Lybia, The FED, Social Security....

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

chuck| 9.13.11 @ 7:12AM

Clint, you're a fraud, an anti-Semite, and your messiah, DOCTOR Ron Paul, is a fruit cake.

And quit using the Tea Party name.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 7:43AM

Uh Oh !

Ricky Perry Algore HillaryCare Cheerleader, Chuckie attempts to Play The Anti-Semite Card, once again on Tea Party Clint.

Why don't you try & make me quit The Tea Party Patriots, Toughie Girl, Chuckie.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Chuckie's Ricky Perry Algore HillartCare Cheerleader Pom Poms.

Dick Nome| 9.13.11 @ 8:06AM

A typical Paulbot response. Insults and venom. Your guy is a crackpot and so are you. Don't count on that cabinet position he promised you. He's retiring next year.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 8:09AM

Box of Tissues Ricky Perry Algore HillaryCare Cheerleader Dickie ?

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

whatever5678| 9.13.11 @ 8:44AM

No that is not correct, most of the RP supporters will provide great insight and engaging answers. Sorry but his foreign policy is spot on. His economic views are spot on (austrian economics). These are the two most important things to me at this point in time. Do a quick search on google: look up "ron paul predictions". There are several videos but one that he alludes to our being attacked (9/11), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan lasting and then the housing bubble/burst collapse. He is a smart man and he doesn't play to the talking points.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 9:24AM

Whatever5678,

Did your mother give you that name?

Congressman Ron Paul is not worried about Iranian nuclear weapons. I am. You should be, too.

Telling the Iranians that we won't invade and telling the Israelis that we won't support them if they retaliate against the Iranian nuclear threat reduces our options and simplifies Iranian planning. A very counter productive diplomacy, at best.

Most Americans are worried about the Iranians when they think of them - Congressman Paul is telling us we should just forget about it.

Tell that to the surviving families of 9/11, Lockerbie, Iranian IED's in Afghanistan, Iraq, and everywhere.

PS
The Holocaust was NOT a Zionist PR stunt!

Mike| 9.13.11 @ 9:31AM

Not forget but understand. What I cant figure out is we are for freedom but we shove our believes down everyones throat. Why are we the keepers of the world? And Im not to worried about Iran. Its next to a 3rd world country but Russia has millions of nukes and they dont like us. So why are you not worried about them? Oh thats right because this country gets things done by scaring its citizens.

Jim| 9.13.11 @ 9:41AM

Dan,

How do you propose we pay for this involvement? Do you want to personally fund it?
America is broke, face the facts.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 10:28AM

You can find all you need, right here:

Department of Agriculture (68 percent increase in spending):
2007- $84.427 billion
2008- $90.795 billion
2009- $114.440 billion
2010- $142.016 billion

Department of Commerce (158 percent):
2007- $6.475 billion
2008- $7.721 billion
2009- $10.718 billion
2010- $16.714 billion

Department of Defense (31 percent increase):
2007- $528.578 billion
2008- $594.662 billion
2009- $636.775 billion
2010- $692.031 billion

Department of Education (61 percent):
2007- $66.372 billion
2008- $65.963 billion
2009- $53.389 billion
2010- $106.944 billion

Department of Energy (90 percent):
2007- $20.116 billion
2008- $21.400 billion
2009- $24.683 billion
2010- $38.278 billion

Department of Health and Human Services (29 percent):
2007- $671.982 billion
2008- $700.442 billion
2009- $796.267 billion
2010- $868.762 billion

Department of Homeland Security (35 percent):
2007- $39.172 billion
2008- $40.684 billion
2009- $51.725 billion
2010- $52.903 billion

Department of Housing and Urban Development (37 percent):
2007- $45.561 billion
2008- $49.088 billion
2009- $61.019 billion
2010- $62.518 billion

Department of Interior (15 percent):
2007- $10.469 billion
2008- $9.817 billion
2009- $11.775 billion
2010- $12.042 billion

Department of Justice (29 percent):
2007- $23.349 billion
2008- $26.545 billion
2009- $27.711 billion
2010- $30.333 billion

Department of Labor (340 percent):
2007- $47.544 billion
2008- $58.838 billion
2009- $138.157 billion
2010- $209.265 billion

Department of State (87 percent):
2007- $13.737 billion
2008- $17.493 billion
2009- $21.427 billion
2010- $25.726 billion

Department of Transportation (47 percent):
2007- $61.697 billion
2008- $64.944 billion
2009- $73.004 billion
2010- $90.944 billion

Department of Treasury (3 percent):
2007- $490.589 billion
2008- $548.797 billion
2009- $701.775 billion
2010- $502.980 billion

Department of Veterans Affairs (71 percent):
2007- $72.792 billion
2008- $84.749 billion
2009- $95.457 billion
2010- $124.565 billion

This is also why we are broke. Not because of Social Security, not because of medicare.

It's because Obama has crushed business's and the world's confidence in our economy, thus nobody can risk anything right now because Obama has made it perfectly clear that he will punish your success and punish it well!

And his stimulus and Tarp crap have crowded out all borrowing for consumers and business. Don't know what crowding out is? Go Googletm Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize, and Crowding out.

That's what's happening now. Even a caveman could figure it out. (I'm not so sure about Lewis Lehrman, though.)

Good grief!

DTOM

Jack in Wi.| 9.13.11 @ 11:01AM

We are boke because our wars. We waste at least 500 billion a year on proping up dictators and kleptocrats. We need a defense policy not a war policy. Bring the troops home now. Cut all foreign aid. Slash the federal domestic budget. Ron Paul has been right for decades. The people are figuring it out and our country club, bankster, and neocon masters don't like it.

LiveFreeOrDie| 9.13.11 @ 11:29AM

Jack, I see your math hasn't improved and you still don't let facts stop you from making ignorant statements. 500 billion a year, even if that was a correct figure, doesn't add up to 15 Trillion.

I do not agree with all of our country's military actions but those are not and never have been the cause of this nations overspending.

Jack in Wi.| 9.13.11 @ 5:49PM

It's 500 billion a year easy. It adds up to a large part of the 14 billion when you see that it has been going on for 2o years and includes vast piles of intrest. That is not counting all the inflation. You boys are very upset that Dr. Paul and his ideas are winning and Perry and Romney are imploding before October. Who are you going to drag out next, Cheney or Rumsfeld?

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 12:01PM

Cheddarish Jack,

Look at the numbers above - DOD ain't all that much.

Besides, if we didn't fight those wars, those numbers would not be written in English, they'd be in German, Japanese, or Chinese. Come to think of it, they may yet be written in Chinese.

Get it, yet?

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 6:22PM

Dan Hirsch = liar.

Mike D.| 9.13.11 @ 8:15PM

What is your purpose here Asshole? Can you do something other than type = and ten letters. CR Wilson = @sshole. Whooaaa thats challenging.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 9:56PM

I predict we will be attacked again sometime in the next quarter century. can I be President?

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 10:31PM

Wait 'spot on'? Like in RUN SPOT RUN????

James| 9.13.11 @ 10:55AM

LOL, did you read the post it was replying to?

Insults and venom? How about reading your own post man. Talk about pot and kettle.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 1:37PM

Clint has the intellectual acumen of a 5th-grader, but he's far less clever.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 5:29PM

Perserve Medicaid, since Ronnie Platehead will need a nursing home shortly!!!!!!!

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:16PM

That is what we like to call an 'ad hominem' attack. Personal attacks of this nature usually are a result of an inability to continue to debate an issue logically, and usually signals that a speaker has lost the argument or given up. Thus, the resort to illogical, irrelevant attacks on the speaker.

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 8:58PM

Thanks, professor, cuz -well, golly damn, nun of us hear at this here website noz what ad hominem meens. I declare, if it wasn't fo' you smart folk educatin' us on them there fancy latin terms, well, I swanee, I reckon we'd have to go and luk it up.

Was that what that Jackie Gleason feller was talkin' bout when he use to say "ad hominem hominem hominem"? You meen he lost sum kinda argument?

Hey, honey, come in here for a sec - we got us some feller on this here internet speakin in Latin - said somethin about hominems. I can't wait to use this 'un on the fellers down at the Feesh and Tackle...

Jay| 9.13.11 @ 6:47AM

No hypocrisy here from a "health care revenue" lobbyist.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 6:54AM

Big Governmeny Lobbyist are Scared of Dr.Ron Paul & The Tea Party.

We're Gonna Take Away Their Rice Bowl.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 7:18AM

No one is scared of Ron Paul, Clint-wit.

We're laughing at him, especially after last night. And in case you didn't notice, genius, Paul was booed at a Tea Party debate -loudly.

You're a deluded fool and an irritant.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 7:46AM

You're Scared Of The Tea Party & Our Tea Party Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul, Dr.Reich.

Boo !

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 7:54AM

Clint-wit provides another cut-n-paste, pre-written response!

"Doctor" Ru Paul's political career is over in 2012. He can go back to writing anti-Semitic articles with his buddy Lew Rockwell.

But what will you do, Clint??? What wandering, sheep-like herd will you join in 2016? And who will be your next sheperd?

And what political movement will you pretend to belong to? You know...to give your life meaning?

Donovan | 9.13.11 @ 9:20AM

How dare you mock the only man that has dedicated his life to my freedom?!?
What part of Dr. Paul's message do you disagree with? And who will you empty your pockets for? There is none other for me right now. So, I will stand and fight for his cause as long as my wife and children are watching because I owe it to them.
Who will you stand and fight for? Seriously?!?

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 9:27AM

"...the only man that has dedicated his life to my freedom..."

Every been awake Veterans Day or Memorial Day? Maybe not.

WAKE UP!!! He is not the only man to blah blah blah. Try thinking a little bit before typing.

Sheesh.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 9:29AM

And another thing, what do you do when your wife and children are not watching?

I, as any good American, will fight and stand for you and your right to express your confused political opinion, as well as any other American citizens.

Will you fight for mine?

Mike| 9.13.11 @ 9:34AM

We are fighting for your right to express your opinion. Thats why we are voting for Ron Paul 2012. The only canidate who supports the Constitution!

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 10:29AM

I hope he can be more effective than he has been over the last 35 years in warning us about the Fed and all. Some leader, him...

DTOM

James| 9.13.11 @ 10:56AM

Oh you mean the only guy to get an Audit of the Fed through congress? You mean the reason why we know that the Fed gave out tons of money to foreign banks, including Libya?

Yeah, you mean that Ron Paul?

Brit| 9.13.11 @ 10:44AM

Who receives the most military contributions? Ron Paul.
Who will my Vet. husband and I vote for this election? Ron Paul.

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 11:01AM

And this is one 20 year Vet (and his wife) who will never vote for Ron Paul. Guess we cancel each other out.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 6:26PM

No, Drunk. You do not cancel them out. You are of the tiny minority among vets and active-duty military. Nice try. (Not!)

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 8:14PM

LOL, Nice Try yourself. I know many veterans that think he foreign policy is not smart. You refer to a poll that includes civil service employees (had this discussion already with another know it all). Keep dreaming and if Ron Paul pulls a upset and wins I will come back on here and admit to all that I was wrong. Can you say the same?

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 12:32PM

"...the only man that has dedicated his life to my freedom?!?"

Are you demented? Seriously?

Mike Bergsma| 9.13.11 @ 1:30PM

"How dare you mock the only man that has dedicated his life to my freedom". This sort of comment is probably the single scariest thing about the paulistinians, their hero worship to the point of strangeness. This causes them to trash anyone who is not a Ron Paul supporter and in my case to file lawsuits against me because I would not support their efforts to poach delegates they did not win at the ballot box. We have some of their folks as precinct chairs here and they do nothing for any of our candidates. Instead they wage a campaign of harrassment of our party leaders and watch like hawks for when these volunteers make a mistake on party rules. Now those rules are of no relevence to their activities. Some of the behavoirs are just petty, like crashing fund raisers without making a donation, sending mocking and insulting emails, and heckling speakers at events.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 1:39PM

It's bizarre, isn't it?

And the irony of his comment is totally lost on him. Immediately after I posted the statement "And what political movement will you pretend to belong to? You know...to give your life meaning?", he posts:

"How dare you mock the only man that has dedicated his life to my freedom?!?"

These are demented hero-worshipers in search of a hero to worship...

Mike D.| 9.13.11 @ 2:20PM

They are cultists, I exposed one of these nutjobs the other day for what he was. That comment about "the only man who has dedicated his life to my freedom" was THE most @ssinine comment I have read on a message board in years. Thats is seriously dellusional partners.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:19PM

Every party has hero-worshipers, and many of them are migrating away from both major parties due to Ron Paul. If they continue to pay attention, they may learn principles. Those who remain in the major parties likely never will.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 10:00PM

not Paul! seriously!!

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 12:44PM

Yes, how dare you mock some doddering old loopy retired snatch doctor! Shame on you!

Eric| 9.13.11 @ 11:29AM

I don't think you are much different than Clint. Please provide a link and explain why a particular article is anti-semitic.

Dick Nome| 9.13.11 @ 8:06AM

I am the Tea Party and you are full of BS.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 8:17AM

Gee, Ricky Perry Algore HillaryCare Cheerleader Dickie & Dr.Reich Dickie , You Can't Handle The Truth.

"Tea party activists are divided roughly into two camps, according to a POLITICO/TargetPoint poll: one that’s libertarian-minded and largely indifferent to hot-button values issues and another that’s culturally conservative and equally concerned about social and fiscal issues.

The survey, an exit poll conducted by Edison Research at the massive Tax Day protest on the National Mall, found that the attendees were largely hostile to President Barack Obama and the national Democratic Party — three-quarters believe the president “is pursuing a socialist agenda.”

Yet they aren’t enamored of the Republican Party as an alternative. Overall, three out of four tea party attendees said they were “scared about the direction” of the country and “want to send a message to both political parties.”
Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.

Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values — the hallmarks of libertarians. He came in second to Palin with 12 percent.

When asked to choose from a list of candidates for president in 2012, Palin and Paul also finished one-two — with Palin at 15 percent and Paul at 14 percent. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Dr.Reich & Dickie's Pom Poms.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 8:32AM

Oh, I'm not enamored of the GOP???

Gee, Clint-wit...thanks for telling me!

...Moron.

Indy| 9.13.11 @ 9:23AM

Clint, your favorite candidate is Ron Paul, are there others in the Tea Party Movement who support him, yes but there are many of us who are not, please stop posting the same comment. You do not speak for everyone in the Tea Party.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 5:20PM

No.

Get Bent.

Thank You.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:21PM

*Like*

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 10:02PM

exactly.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 5:31PM

Yeah, we've already had one former military looney-tune Muslim sympathizer gun down numerous soldiers at Ft Hood, so we have possible reason to be scared of ya boy!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 10:35PM

You're correct in that many of us are scared.....that he will completely lose it and spray the audience with a weapon of some kind [ever view AN ANGRY MAN with Michael Douglas?]!!!!

Donovan | 9.13.11 @ 9:11AM

The one thing I've learned since since Dr. Paul woke me up in 03/2007, is that anyone who attacks Dr. Paul is either ignorant or a paid stooge.
Others have found out that as an Ex-Marine, those who attack ME for supporting Dr. Paul wind up with either a fat lip or a black eye or both (sorry, I wish I could articulate my ideas better).

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 9:33AM

Donovan,

Old man, learn at least one MORE thing, please.

Not every thing you have learned is necessarily true.

Besides, all those fat lips, sooner or later somebody bigger than you will take offense at your offense...

Don't Tread On Me....

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:23PM

Someone understands 'blowback'... :D

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 11:03AM

" an Ex-Marine"

Huh, and here I was taught that once a Marine, always a Marine. At least that is what all the Marines I served with told me.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 12:04PM

I think "ex-Marine" refers to people who were formerly married to a Marine...

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 12:38PM

I saw that, too!

Another phony Marine...

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 1:40PM

"The one thing I've learned since since Dr. Paul woke me up in 03/2007, is that anyone who attacks Dr. Paul is either ignorant or a paid stooge."

When you post something this idiotic, please don't expect to be taken seriously...

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:28PM

Yes, he shouldn't go into such absolutes. But attacking Ron Paul is actually a pretty consistent indicator of either ignorance, being paid/told what to say/think, or both. I have read very few, if any, critiques of Paul that have been both intelligent and accurate.

Links to the contrary are welcome.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 10:06PM

he can't lead. how about that practical reality? it is evident from past elections...heck...this board...that not enough have been convinced to follow. that his acolytes are largely unpalatable only emphasizes the point.

save the theoretical puritanism for those who are interested.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 5:33PM

What, YO MOMMA gonna beat somebody up??????????

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 10:03PM

my my...that hardly sounds Libertarian!

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 10:37PM

Wait, he 'woke you up'? OMG, don't tell us that he's a PERVERT also!!!!

Dan manning| 9.13.11 @ 7:08AM

"To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate lower covered part D drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries." - He voted for this instead of voting on party lines. Bravo. He reads.

-And Reagan- They were on exactly the same page, but Reagan finanacially did not live up to his own principles.

Chalkdust| 9.13.11 @ 7:09AM

Ron Paul got a fatal thumping in Tampa. He stupidly raised his skirt for all to see his world view on national TV and his badly flawed bid for the white house is finally over for good.

Donovan | 9.13.11 @ 9:16AM

Fatal thumping? What part of Dr. Paul's message do you disagree with? And who will you empty your pockets for? There is none other for me right now. So, I will stand and fight for his cause as long as my wife and children are watching because I owe it to them.
Who will you stand and fight for? Seriously?!?

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 11:05AM

"So, I will stand and fight for his cause as long as my wife and children are watching because I owe it to them.
Who will you stand and fight for? Seriously?!?"

What the hell, do they teach you Ron Paul supporters to cut and paste the same crap, over and over, on every post? We heard your machismo the first dozen times.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 1:41PM

"What part of Dr. Paul's message do you disagree with? "

EVERYTHING under the heading of "FOREIGN POLICY", for starters...

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:30PM

Thanks for your in-depth response. Might I trouble you to either elaborate on your point, or fluff up your list a little with some other items?

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 9:01PM

AD HOMINEM! Did I uze it rite there professor?

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 10:21PM

no...I don't think so. so...in Paul world.....let's imagine we have extricated all our troops, retired them from service....shut down the war making machine, etc. do we place intelligence agents overseas or not to monitor and understand movements whose objectives are inimical to the United States? if one nation invades another...commits atrocities...say genocide...do we intercede or not? if Iranian proxies light off a nuc in Israel...do we respond or not? if we do respond...exactly what forces do we use to project power? under a Paul Presidency...do we vitiate all mutual defense compacts/treaties? under a Paul Presidency.....how do we respond to Chinese hegemony in Asia? under a Paul Presidency...do we tax citizens to support R&D that has a tech transition rate under 30%?

Doorgunner| 9.13.11 @ 7:10AM

After aligning himself with the geopolitical interpretations of Paul Krugman last night, Dr. Paul is more done than a burnt pot roast that's already been chucked into the trash can.

Good riddance. And don't let him in another debate.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 7:13AM

Associated Press-GfK poll: Ron Paul the most favorable GOP candidate

A new national poll of the general population has revealed that top tier candidate Ron Paul is the most favorable choice in the Republican Presidential nomination race.

Ron Paul 37% favorable vs 36% unfavorable = +1
Mitt Romney 39% favorable vs 41% unfavorable = -2
Rick Perry 33% favorable vs 36% unfavorable = -3
Michele Bachmann 35% favorable vs 43% unfavorable = -8

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 7:44AM

You've been citing the same bogus poll for weeks; got anything new to say?

...crickets...

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 7:48AM

The Truth has Dr.Reich all angst ridden & atwitter.

You're Scared Of The Tea Party & Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul.

Booo !

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 11:06AM

Now DR. You know as soon as a new poll comes out showing Dr. Paul in a favorable light, Clint will post it. It's not his fault there hasn't been one in almost a month now. Maybe when the good Dr. tries again in 2016

Eric| 9.13.11 @ 11:33AM

True, the morons are out voting apparently. I guess this stupid state educated population will get what it deserves.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 1:42PM

And so will you Paul-bots when your man goes down in flames...again!

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 10:23PM

excuse me. not the good doctor. the gynaecologist. we must strive for detail.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:34PM

I agree people who copy/post are intellectually lazy, but I think you spend far too much time arguing with idiots. I hope its not because those are the only arguments you can win, because you have alleged that we are all as foolish as the fools I've seen you address today.

Love,
An American Fool (I guess)

Mike D.| 9.13.11 @ 8:20PM

WTF are you, the intellectual debate police? If you have something to say then say it nitwit, if not then why not spare us your queensbury debate rules BS after every post.

Trinacria| 9.13.11 @ 9:11PM

That's precisely what UncleSim(pleton) fancies himself to be -the intellectual debate police (I refer you to his earlier post above attempting to educate us on the meaning of the term "ad hominem" - rather like me going to Bill Belicheck's house and attempting to educate him on the finer points of the play action pass).

Like all self-proclaimed blogosphere philosophers, the trouble with UncleSim is that the scope of his expertise is limited to the boundaries of his own rather limited mind.

I must say, I found it entertaining at first, but then I came to realize there's something profoundly sad about witnessing a man so carelessly exposing himself as utterly vacuous and intellectually inadequate.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 10:24PM

lmao!!!

black knights 1802| 9.13.11 @ 7:49AM

Polls don’t mean squat. The only poll that counts is the one at the voting booth.

Jed| 9.13.11 @ 9:02AM

Krugman also argued that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Does this somehow negate Perry's truthful statement?

A broken clock is correct twice. I guess these are the two times?

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 10:25PM

not if it is continually accelerating relative to you..

Mike| 9.13.11 @ 9:44AM

Yes why vote the media does this for you to right? And fatal blow. If anything it shows that the tea party movement has some very misguided individuals. By your logic they booed him so he is done. They also cheered for someone to die!

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 10:26PM

no.....they cheered for the execution of murderers who were tried and found guilty. geez...don't be so dishonest.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 7:11AM

Do Your Homework.

Dr. Ron Paul has never voted for an Appropriations Bill.

Dr. Ron Paul,
"But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Carpe Diem.

Old Soldier| 9.13.11 @ 7:17AM

Correct, Paul brings home the bacon with the best of them.

John Navratil| 9.13.11 @ 7:31AM

Old Soldier,

I'm no fan of Paul's, but when Obama spends the next year moving money around to please HIS constituents I believe we will find a new respect for earmarks. Earmarks are directed spending which can, and are, abused for lavish monuments to the earmarker. Viewed another way, they are Congress taking control of spending from the departments and putting it back to where it, arguable, belongs. In an ideal world, I'd like to see every dollar spent because of specific Congressional authorization. Blanket authorizations hand the power of the purse over to the Executive branch.

Old Soldier| 9.13.11 @ 8:54AM

I understand. What I want Congress to do is defund the departments and agencies - not compete with them.

David T| 9.13.11 @ 9:27AM

I disagree that blanket authorizations give the Executive too much spending power. The Executive needs the budget flexibility to manage efficiently and effectively. Congress hinders this responsibility when it tries to micro-manage the budget.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:44PM

LMAO... oh my sides...

Can you cite an example of the Executive managing efficiently and effectively, so that we can copy that performance? In my memory, the federal govt has consistently produced far more failure than success, despite more budget 'flexibility' than any successful private individual or business.

In actuality, the Executive need limits on its budget flexibility to be efficient. It has no supply/demand price signals to limit it, since it can tax/borrow all it needs, even despite our best attempts to limit it.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:37PM

Paul merely guarantees his constituents a place at the trough.

Everyone else makes sure the trough is filled. If they all did what Paul did, federal spending would drop like a rock.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 9:38AM

So why is voting against something that you know must be and will be passed so honorable and admirable?

Since he knows it cannot fail and he votes against it and does nothing else to defeat the spending, is this honesty? Is he really walking the walk? He certainly talks the talk...

DTOM

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:53PM

How dare he serve his constituents, AND stick to his principles?!!

Everyone knows an American politician is expected to be greedy and lie. Of course, the only reason Paul might avoid self-serving falsehoods is because in reality, he can't be trusted to be a typical American politician. And if he can't be trusted to be untrustworthy, how can anyone trust him at all?

Ethan| 9.13.11 @ 7:12AM

If you can't understand Paul's principled approach to earmarks or you do, but choose to misrepresent it for your article, then I can't be bothered to look into your claims about a few individual pharmaceutical votes. Paul votes against earmarking revenues, but if those bills are going to pass anyway then he wants to bring as much money back to his constituents as he can. Otherwise, people are just taking it from them.

As for Paul "abandoning" Reagan, it was Reagan who abandoned the principles he ran on - and Paul along with them. Even Reagan ended up considering himself a failure at sticking to his principles.

Len| 9.13.11 @ 9:02AM

You've got it, Reagan talked a great talk, but reality was far different, in fact he supported the unconstitutional programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which no one claiming to be a constitutionalist can do. Then there's his meddling in Latin America, in the Middle East, his unconstitutional Executive Agreements (which are nothing but treaties by another name.

Le Cracquere| 9.13.11 @ 9:12AM

Nice principles there: "The Brinks truck is a smoking wreck on the highway, and every dollar will end up in SOME thief's pockets at this point. Might as well stuff my own."

I'd rather my congressman kept his grubby mitts off such earmarks, thank you: bad enough there's such thievery without his making thieves of us, his constituents.

Len| 9.13.11 @ 9:17AM

Your analogy is worthless. In the case of earmarks, the constituents have been robbed by the many unconstitutional acts of the federal government, and Dr. Paul is just trying to get some back.

Le Cracquere| 9.13.11 @ 9:29AM

The analogy holds, I'm afraid. The lucre which Paul seizes upon for his sticky-fingered constituents comes from taxpayers across the country, not just them.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 6:58PM

So, his constituents should just be content to be taxed, and receive nothing in return?

I'm as small-govt as anyone, but you must understand the prisoner's dilemma to assess this situation.

The Brinks truck was full of the savings of the looters... it is legitimately theirs to repossess, before the thieves plunder it all away. They are the part-owners of that truck, not the thieves.

Le Cracquere| 9.14.11 @ 12:52AM

That's a pretty neat catch-all justification for pork. Who'd have thought that Paulists could wax so eloquent in its favor? ... ... Well, anyone who mistook a cult of personality for actual principle at work, one supposes.

matt| 9.13.11 @ 7:13AM

There's no hypocrisy by Paul. His letter and resignation were at the direction Reagan went, not his original platform. It is this platform which Paul talks about. I'm sure many of your readers will notice this point.

Johnathan| 9.13.11 @ 7:26AM

Yup. Paul broke with party because they raised taxes, grew government, and abandoned their platform.

Old Soldier| 9.13.11 @ 8:55AM

Except for the part where the Republicans never had full control of Congress while Reagan was President.

Jed| 9.13.11 @ 9:39AM

I seem to remember Reagan trying to save Social Security and bringing Randoid Alan Greenspan to fix it. They ended up raising "premiums." The reality is that it was an increase in tax.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 10:44AM

Jed,

So modifying an involuntary insurance program to attempt to return it to actuarial stability is bad. Especially when the Democrats have so effectively demagogued ANY effort to save it, much less repeal it.

Ever heard of the "third rail" of politics?

Ever heard of a wise politician recognizing what is and is not politically possible at a point in time.

Do you often lift yourself up by your bootstraps? Please post that job on Youtube, willya?

I think this is where Congressman Ron Paul loses credibility...not the bootstraps, the political wisdom to differentiate between what can and cannot be done.

DTOM

PS But I note that Social Security's third rail status seems to be a little less inviolate than in earlier times. Before 2008 any way.

Democrats, who's going to kill Social Security? Looks like a Democrat...BHO

DTOM

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 6:33PM

Dan Hirsch = fraud.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 10:35PM

in other words.....the actualization of total Libertarianism is impractical. you're right. that its acolytes appear to be supremely disagreeable people...well that's just one more onus for the gynaecologist to shoulder.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.11 @ 7:20AM

The Doctor is toast. Our Chief Executive has to be accetable on ALL facets of his/her beliefs.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 7:25AM

Kenny is A Ricky Perry Algore HillaryCare Cheerleader.

Con Chef (NB) | 9.13.11 @ 12:37PM

And Clit is a neo liberal Ru-Paulite Chamberlain wannabe.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 5:26PM

ConChef Is An Israel Firster Neo-ChickenhawkPussy Slandering Liar.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 5:35PM

Clintorius speaks...shazam!!!!!!!!

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 7:02PM

LOL Oh, my sides... yes, every President in history has been acceptable at every level of scrutiny, or was not elected.

We've NEVER had to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Still laughing... heh.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 10:41PM

what? are you suggesting that...in temperament...he is not different from the ideologues we are currently suffering? say it aint so!

cmon now....even more profoundly: watch the man in these debates...he doesn't have the physiognomy, the stature that screams "follow me in crisis. I will deliver." he's every ounce the petulant little man.

Old Soldier| 9.13.11 @ 7:20AM

It's a shame Gary Johnson isn't being invited to the debates. As a libertarian Republican Governor, he has far more useful experience than Paul. He is also far less of a hypocrite and a kook - and the lobbyists and statists would hate him just as much.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 7:04PM

I like Gary Johnson too, mostly. But if he would be hated as much as Paul (as he is, actually) perhaps neither is a kook, and it really does have to do with their libertarian principles?

William R| 9.13.11 @ 7:22AM

Where does the American Spectator dig up these hacks.

Conservative Drug Split
Reimportation is right and good.

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....rd-h-crane

Ed Crane and Roger Pilon say Drug Reimportation is a right and good!

Jed| 9.13.11 @ 8:52AM

Unlike the Spectator recently, National Review seems to be willing to be conservative without recycling the GOP establishment doctrine. They're anti-Paul too but they usually make good arguments.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 6:34PM

Yep.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 7:23AM

Interesting Issue.
Dr. Ron Paul, "I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills."

However, understand, "If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don't cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We're talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?

I'm saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows..."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here .

William R| 9.13.11 @ 7:28AM

I'm truly embarrassed for the American Spectator . Why on earth does the magazine continue to run out these third rate hacks to attack Ron Paul

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 8:34AM

Because it points out what a fraud Ron Paul is, that's why.

Jed| 9.13.11 @ 8:48AM

It could have had a point if David didn't resort to straw man arguments. There's a reason why I'm ending my subscription here but keeping the one I have with National Review.

William R| 9.13.11 @ 8:49AM

The only fraud is your sorry ass.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 1:51PM

Really? How so?

'Cuz I don't get in line and goose-step to Ron Paul's picture?

You Paul-bots are funny. Not funny "hah-hah", either...funny sad.

You are all DESPERATE to have a hero to worship. And you all consider yourselves to be exemplary patriots, too...the ONLY true patriots left!

Fact is, most of you aren't leaders, you're pathetic followers who are easily led by a slogan ("Audit the Fed! Get out of Iraq! It's OUR fault! Blow-back!!") or a slick, folksy hustler, even when that hustler wraps himself in the Constitution to hide his kooky, fringe ideas.

Most of you fools probably thought Ross Perot would save America in 1992 and joined the "Reform Party".

Perot...Paul...Obama...it's all the same. You're disaffected outsiders looking for a leader to tell you what to think, what to do, and who to blame for your problems.

In 1933, you'd have probably all thought Hitler was a cool guy, and it was no business of ours what he did in Germany 'cuz we could still "trade" with him.

Pathetic.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 6:37PM

The fraudulent "Doctor Right" is easily rattled by the ugly truth.

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 12:48PM

"Yeah, Spike! Good one! You told him, Spike! Yip, yip! Want me to bite some ankles, Spike?"

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 7:14PM

Dr Right... you could probably write a better article than this one. But I doubt it would be any more effective.

Paul's supporters know far more about him, on average, than any other candidate's supporters, because we came to our philosophy/beliefs first, then looked for a candidate that best matched those beliefs. We do not follow a man, we respect a man who respects our beliefs and tries as hard as we do to follow them, even when its not easy to do so.

Usually when an article is written about a candidate, they at least FEIGN respect for their subject, but rarely is this true about Paul. No one is perfect, but usually, we give folks the benefit of the doubt that they're trying to do what they think is right, even if we disagree.

If the author had adopted this mindset, his work might be more widely accepted. But it would also have made his job much harder, and so we're left with the impression that something motivating him is more important than an honest assessment of his subject.

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 8:18PM

UncleSim. Paul supprts can also say to know more about their canidate as he has been running for office for decades.

Drunken Sailor| 9.13.11 @ 8:18PM

should be supporters. Wish this thing had spell check.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 10:48PM

yup.

Paul is interesting...right up to the moment one starts contemplating hypotheticals that involve complex tradeoffs. the simplistic binary that is libertarianism begins to break down.

FL John| 9.13.11 @ 9:06AM

Hack bloggers do this to boost their hit count. Ron Paul in the headline does the trick.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 6:37PM

Yep.

UrbanII | 9.13.11 @ 7:34AM

Ron Paul the One for 2012
(The taste for analysis comes to nations only when they are growing old, and when they do turn to their thoughts to their cradle, the mists of time have closed round it, ignorance and pride have woven fables round it, and behind all that the truth is hidden.) Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville.

The truth hurts, and usually it doesn't sound near as cool as fable. It does not matter what you impose on people if you do it by force. Until we can see through those mists and realize that our Forefathers did not just come up with ideas like NO permanent alliances out of thin air, but lived through the aftermath of those alliances. People will be booing Ron Paul for trying to put this Country on the right track!

Sophist Watch| 9.13.11 @ 8:29AM

"Ron Paul the One for 2012"

Really, you are going to call him the One. How appropriate, another phony with ridiculous followers. We will be in incredible trouble when Americans don't boo the blame America first sentiment of Ron Paul. He might get a standing ovation in the Democratic Party though. That neolib description of Paul and his Sancho Panzas is spot on.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 7:26PM

Another person (I assume) who thinks America and Washington DC are synonymous.

Paul does not blame America first. He recognizes failure no matter where is comes from, even Americans. And lately, we have had far more failures than successes, especially out of DC.

If, on 10-1-01, Bush said it would take $10T, 10 years, several wars, and thousands of American casualties to bring the head of a tiny criminal enterprise to justice, maybe we'd have just built a hundred new WTC's with that time and money, instead.

After all, Al Qaida had already lost 19 of their best agents, right?

The war on terror is an extension of the victim mentality, a vengeful adventure that doesn't mind racking up new victims in its pursuit of the illusion of justice.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 10:59PM

you're right. I can't wait for Paul to intone "it will take two weeks and two weekends of church donations to undo the international terrorist network, its State supporters and the social structures that cultivate pilots who resupply the chain." yup...I feel completely comfortable with the philosophy that if we simply withdraw any foreign physical presence and avoid any conflicts....we'll never be attacked! and if we are attacked....hey...we'll be able to respond cuz...well.....we defend our homes **mn it!

UrbanII | 9.13.11 @ 10:49PM

sophist watch

I believe it is called taking responsibility for your own actions wrong or right. most people acquire this learned trait as teens or preteens. Every empire ends. Hopefully this neocon empires end will not destroy America and our children's future!

JimH| 9.13.11 @ 8:16AM

Paul is correct in saying that our presence in many part of the world is provocative to some of the natives. That said, it does not excuse the acts of terrorism committed by them. For some reason Okinawans and Germans manage to refrain from launching suicide attacks against us. He either does not see this or chooses to ignore this, much to the damage of his credability.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 7:59PM

Have you not heard of the backlash against Americans in Okinawa? After those troops gang-raped the schoolgirl in the 1990's, Americans have been unsafe there. It seems even Japanese natives don't like being oppressed.

I have been an American soldier in other countries, and trust me, none of them like us all that much. They tolerate us while we're spending our money in their businesses and acting like humans. They even learn English, usually. But that doesn't mean they don't resent our presence. Imagine if Spain occupied your state, and in order to stay in business, you had to learn to speak Spanish and started accepting Pesetas in addition to Dollars for payment? Might you feel a little resentment? What might it take to set you off, under such conditions?

If you can imagine that, perhaps you can understand what motivates many of the attacks against 'us'. If you can't imagine that, you have no idea proffering any opinion on either foreign policy or human relations, imho.

Understanding their behavior does not excuse it. It only permits us to avoid stepping into the same kinds of messes again.

I must suspect, that since you demonize Muslims, but accept Germans and Japanese (both nations had people executed for war crimes after WWII), that you sway whichever way the DC breeze blows. In the 40's, you'd likely have the same contempt for German or Japanese people as you have for Muslims today.

I have had almost as many Muslim friends as Christian ones, and it is my experience that the vast majority of both are far more similar than different. Both have criminal elements, and no society has succeeded in eradicating these. Most people, regardless of religion, race, or national origin, try to do good things.

I don't feel a need to hate on my Muslim friends, just because some criminals who called themselves Muslims attacked some corrupt bankers' properties. I was not attacked on 9/11, DC and the banks were, and it makes me sick that the taxpayers bailed them out, transferring the negative consequences of their policies from those most responsible onto those least responsible. It makes me even sicker that our own govt has done more to whittle away our liberties and wealth than the "terr'ists who hate us bc we're rich and free".

Thank goodness some govt agent is willing to be rich and free, instead of me, so that maybe I won't be a target for terrorist attack. Unless I happen to be standing in a building that's owned by someone rich and free, or next to a person still rich and free... oh damn, I guess we'll have to dismantle all our buildings, just to be safe, and never stand anywhere near a rich person. Oh, the danger.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 11:02PM

JimH..see the dishonesty in the response?

JimH| 9.14.11 @ 8:09AM

Thanks Carnot I see.
My response to UnclseSim - Considering how I am usually lambasted here as some sort of Paulbot fellow traveler, I’d like to understand the line of reasoning which led you to believe that I hate Muslims. In some ways you make my point for me. I didn’t say they like us in Okinawa and Germany (even the English in WWII had some resentment towards us even though we were saving their butts). I picked them because they are countries were we have a large military presence. I was making the point that most people in other countries do not feel compelled to kill us and innocent bystanders because we are there, And that this is a morally unacceptable act. You are the one who imputes in these acts some connection to Islam not me.

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 12:55PM

JimH,

You're pissin' in the wind with Uncle Simpleton, brother. He seems to have wondered into our friendly high stakes poker game without the requisite intellectual juice. I'm embarrassed for him, but he's an adult and therefore has the freedom to persist in his quest to make an unmitigated ass of himself.

Individuali$t| 9.13.11 @ 8:30AM

Anyone who believes that people in other countries hate "us" for our freedom or wealth is delusional and childish. First, they hate the U.S. government for how it behaves, and so should Americans. Second, anyone who believes they can reduce the size and scope of the state without reducing militarism and eliminating the printing press is chasing a rainbow-colored unicorn. Anyone who booed Ron Paul last night (or would have if they were there) supports war and socialism. Woodrow Wilson would be proud.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 9:44AM

For an individuali$t, you have painted a pretty false choice support Ron Paul or support war and socialism.

You disqualify yourself as irrational with that.

Maybe you should call your self, "self-¢entered..."

DOTM

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 6:39PM

Dan Hirsch = fraud.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 8:04PM

Oh, is there a choice that does not conform to those 2 given?

The R party leadership loves our socialist status-quo, and the D-party loves our militarism. If the war party supports welfare, and the welfare party supports war, who's left to support individual rights and freedoms?

James| 9.13.11 @ 8:34AM

Is it really that hypocritical to try to send some money back to your district if congress approved of it beforehand? Ron Paul voted against the bill that allocated the amount of money congress had available to use for their earmarks.

Ron Pauls Response on Fox News:

"I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that’s the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don’t save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds."

Chris| 9.13.11 @ 8:34AM

Best line of article "Perry and Reagan eventually realized that the Democrat party was drifting ever leftward, abandoning the principles that had once claimed their loyalty. "
Of course Reagan realized it in 1953, somehow Perry must have seen Carter and Mondale and Gore as right leaning, but Clinton just put him over the edge!
The American Spectator is becoming a rag, except with Internet rags I can't use them to potty train my puppy.

Dick Nome| 9.13.11 @ 8:42AM

Carter/ Mondull ran as conservatives. Carter was all for fiscal reponsibility, downsizing gummint, and zerobased budgeting to control costs. It was a fraud. But then you may not be old enough to remember that. I have the old campaign literature to prove it.

Chris| 9.13.11 @ 8:45AM

That's how they ran in 1976, Perry was supporting Gore in 1988. To top that off, he wasn't even a Republican during the Reagan Revolution. What changed Perry into a Republican, if Reagan couldn't do it?

Jed| 9.13.11 @ 9:33AM

So did you vote for him? I voted for Reagan in the primary and was laughed at. I then voted for Ford in the actual election. Anyways, I wonder how Perry voted.

Jed| 9.13.11 @ 9:34AM

Really though, you should apologize for even associating Carter with conservatism! He was a little more to the right than most of the clowns in the Democrat Party at the time, but so what?

Mike Hawk| 9.13.11 @ 5:32PM

Carter ran as a Southern Conservative, nummnuts. He associated himself with being a conservative. Mondull was one of those Democrat 'moderates'.

Louis Jenkins| 9.13.11 @ 8:37AM

Paul has some interesting observations. One particular is the Federal Reserve. A private bank. While I doubt that Paul will stand a chance in the coming months, remember, an idea cannot necessarily be responsible for its creator. It's an idea that's time has arrived. And if we don't look into its origin, how it works, and who is running it, we're doomed.

Dick Nome| 9.13.11 @ 8:44AM

That idea predates Rube Paul. His Libertarian predecessor Harry Brown played that same shtick. The same kind of kooks were out supporting him that are out for RP. Harry quit running when he died. He was 79. Rube Paul will be 77 next year.

aware| 9.13.11 @ 2:34PM

Honest money is a kooky idea, huh?

tajitj| 9.13.11 @ 8:39AM

Really three supposed areas. Also any libertarian worth his salt would know the Congress has the power of the purse which is why he would like to spend the money where he'd like and not just give it to the executive. But someone like you knows his reason, you just wanted to write a Ron Paul hit piece and get some views on a poor article.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 6:41PM

Yep.

Jed| 9.13.11 @ 8:42AM

I'm actually a lonely Cain supporter, but this is rubbish and is only the tip of the iceburg that is leading me to end my subscription to the Spectator.

Paul's ad was deceptive. True. It's laughable that he would call out Perry for supporting Gore in 1988 when Paul was running against the GOP in 1988.

But David, did you really read the letter? I'm a huge Reagan fan but lets face reality. His Presidency was a disappointment. Bush Sr was worse, but we expected as much from the guy. Reagan brought back true conservatism that was lost in '64 but within eight years it was less about shrinking government than it was about image. This is why Perot ran in '92 which woke up the GOP to get back to what we need to do: shrink deficits, cut taxes and get government off our backs!

It doesn't even necessarily attack Reagan, just what ended up happening under his watch. Paul seems to be angry at Republicans in general.

Next, Perry. Perry was a Democrat, yes. But why? You try to use the Reagan argument, but it doesn't fly. Reagan was a Democrat who saw his party turn into the party of anti-liberty and changed. What was Perry doing in the 1970s and 1980s? Being a Democrat? If there was anytime to NOT be a Democrat, the late 1970s were it! Anyone who remembers those days know that while Nixon embarrassed Republicans, Carter's impotence embarrassed Democrats. There was no Scoop Jackson when Perry was a Democrat, but there was George McGovern!

Your comment about Medicare Plan D is as deceptive as Paul's attack ad on Perry. Paul did vote for a measure to modify it, but he voted against the plan itself while other Republicans embarrassingly supported it. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll669.xml

The rest I agree with but the points above left such a nasty taste in my mouth that I don't even care. Ultimately I will vote for Perry if he wins but truth be told, what Ron Paul said in 1987 is mostly what the tea party today is angry about.

Chris| 9.13.11 @ 8:49AM

+1. Good argument. Perry lacks convictions and principles and I'm afraid he'll be another GWB in office (though GWB on the campaign trail was amazing). I would voter for Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann or Paul. No one else is getting my vote.

Jed| 9.13.11 @ 8:58AM

Definitely, but the media turned it into Mitt Romneycare vs Executive Order Perry. And sadly many conservatives are eating it up.

I voted for Bush in 2000 but I was skepitcal and it turned out I was right.

People like David here would call me a hypocrite because I want a smaller government and balanced budgets and am willing to call out people I elected as being statists.

The only good thing Obama did was bring conservatives a little bit closer to reality.

Red Phillips | 9.13.11 @ 9:07AM

"It's laughable that he would call out Perry for supporting Gore in 1988 when Paul was running against the GOP in 1988."

Not at all. Paul was running against the GOP to their right. His 1988 campaign was a self-conscious right-wing populist effort, much to the chagrin of some libertarians who like to see themselves as either a type of leftist or above left and right distinctions. Perry was supporting a Democrat to the left of Reagan. Is this really only about partisanship and loyalty to the GOP? Or is it about principles and ideas?

Jed| 9.13.11 @ 9:21AM

Right, but watch the ad again. It deceptively argues that Ron Paul was there for Ronald Reagan in the late 70s/1980 only to cut to 1988 and talk about Perry.

It's a smart campaign move that ruffled Perry's feathers though.

UncleSim| 9.13.11 @ 8:21PM

I mostly agree with you, but would disqualify Bachmann for working for the IRS, and Newt for having no spine. Cain has some ideas, but was once president of the KC fed, I believe, so would probably serve the bankers and other entrenched powers.

Even Gary Johnson is a bit adventurous on foreign policy, but I think his fiscal conservatism would help him. However, if Obama was compromised by 'state secrets' into abandoning his campaign promises, Johnson would probably follow, as well.

IF our govt is compromised in that way, it would take an EXTREMELY principled candidate to resist. Maybe even Ron Paul could be compromised, but I doubt it.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 9:49AM

Yea, it was a disappointment for the Soviets...

Grow up, in 8 years not even RWR could reverse FDR, LBJ, and Jimmuh Carter.

If you were disappointed with Reagan, didja like Clinton, mebbe? Who didn't disappoint you?

Sheesh...

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 6:44PM

More fallacy and self-defeat from Dan Hirsch.

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 1:22PM

More biting commentary and brilliant insight (supported with irrefutable evidence) from the village idiot, the incomparable CRW.

Jed| 9.13.11 @ 8:44AM

Why I'm not a Paul supporter is because I disagree on some of his foreign policy views and mostly because I want Obama out. Otherwise, if somehow God puts his grace on the congressman and he becomes the GOP candidate I will not only vote for him but will have no second thoughts unlike Perry and especially unlike 2008 where I was mostly voting for Palin and against Obama.

JE5| 9.13.11 @ 8:57AM

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -John Quincy Adams

If you vote for Ron Paul in the GOP Primaries and he doesn't win, that doesn't mean Obama instantly wins. It just means another candidate is going up against Obama.

So I don't understand your point of "mostly because I want Obama out." Especially when Ron Paul has good showings against Obama in national polls. I can see how his foreign policy ruffles a few feathers though.

Jed| 9.13.11 @ 9:10AM

I like Paul and like I said, if he can do it, excellent.

But whereas his son seems to be polished when it comes to political correctness, Ron says it how it is. This is acceptable to people like me who realize that honest men seek the truth (like when Perry said social Security is a Ponzi scheme... it's actually worse because it's mandatory) but a lot of people treat certain things like their little kids and you're telling them Santa is not real.

For example, when asked about drugs Ron pretty much said he's legalize everything. His son, in a town hall meeting, said the federal government shouldn't be involved. Its the same exact position as his father has in that his father would leave it to the states. But Rand said it in a way that isn't as scary to some people as how Ron said it.

The liberal media is already ignoring the real conservatives in the debate and are focusing on Romney and Perry. Along with Obama's deceptive campaign, they will use everything to paint the congressman as a loony old man who wants to get rid of the entire government which is far from the truth. Or worse as they did to Goldwater in '64.

I live in the Socialist Republic of California, so I actually have a chance at seeing who's leading before I vote. Tell you what, if Paul is around or close to second by that time and Obama's approval is continually decreasing as it has been, I will vote for him.

JE5| 9.13.11 @ 9:51AM

It's true, Paul can be unapologetically blunt, but I'm not voting for charisma (that's how Obama got in).

The idea that the media is ignoring people like Paul right now is because this is where they have the most influence over the race. His message is resonating with the people and he has a record to back it up. They can't possibly deny his coverage if he wins the nomination. Not only that, his message will be amplified 100 fold.

If you mostly agree with his policies, disagree with some; Remember that the Presidency is not the alpha and omega of this country. Though that's easily misunderstood with the way administrations of the last decade have handled things. Matter of fact, Paul wants to reduce the current powers allowed to the position.

I implore you not to wait and see. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” This is the time where your support counts the most. The primary is the biggest hurdle.

JE5| 9.13.11 @ 8:46AM

I stopped reading at "The sordid reality is that his loyalty to Ronald Reagan lasted only so long as it was politically expedient"

Loyalty to your country > to your President.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 9:57AM

I hope you meant that as the mathematical statement "Loyalty to your country > (is greater than) to your President.

If you meant that "Loyalty to your country = to your President" then you are a Tory boob!

We are a nation of laws, not of men. Nobody is supposed to be loyal to the guy holding the office, you are supposed to be loyal to the office!

When an officeholder stops supporting the Constitution which he swore to uphold, he should be removed from that office.

We don't have royalty here. Figure it out. Do you sometimes find that you are very confused...

Don't Tread On Me!!!

JE5| 9.13.11 @ 10:08AM

It was a mathematical statement indeed. Thanks for elaborating for anyone else with this author's "sordid reality".

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 12:09PM

There are a lot of mathematical illiterates (innumerates?) out there - I wanted to make sure...

DTOM..
DH

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 6:46PM

Dan Hirsch = PWNED!

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 12:58PM

"Yeah, Spike, good one! You really pwned him, Spike, yip yip! I was gonna pancake him, Spike, but I knew you had 'em!"

fyi2day| 9.13.11 @ 8:47AM

Necon establishment propganda rag.
-Gandhi- "First they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win."

Do the American people really care if Goldman Sachs let's General Electric (Obama/Biden) or Halliburton (Bush/Cheney "insert Perry or Romney here") run the place this time? I guess that's yet to be seen. But, I can tell you many of us traditionally Non-politicals are fed up with losing the essence of our great country to communists and carpetbaggers alike. Ron Paul is offering the only alternative to the corporatist model that Eisenhower warned of and has all but taken over already. A vanished free press has left us with the left and right media outlets complicit in keeping Paul's message from a waiting public.
If not Ron Paul we will surely end up with Clint Webb (www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ5cGYBV2TQ) as president.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 12:15PM

Mebbe you didn't see this article about the one political figure who is directly addressing this issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09.....Zl8xOiUg7g

You betcha, the freaking New York Times...

And the person who controls the agenda controls the outcome. President Palin, anyone.

Run, Sarah! Run!

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 6:48PM

Wrong. Try again.

Then again, don't (for your sake).

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 1:01PM

Brilliant, clever, insighful, compelling, eloquent, profound. What's next - "am not; are too"?

HappyDaze| 9.13.11 @ 8:53AM

Folks, I wouldn't be writing Ron Paul's obituary just because a few rednecks booed him at a debate. The one difference between the good doctor and the rest of the candidates is the devotion of his supporters. Even Hillary mentioned this at a congressional hearing. One becomes a Paul supporter because they "get it." It's an a-ha moment, as Oprah used to say. The rest of the field, it's just a popularity contest, like a bunch of girls deciding which football player is cutest, it changes depending on whose making the big play at that time. You could save a lot of time by getting some cardboard cutouts and playing a record. Paul's numbers won't go down because his support is solid. In an open primary state like New Hampshire, someone like Paul, who polls higher with Dems and Indies than any other GOP candidate...we'll just have to wait and see.

Dick Nome| 9.13.11 @ 9:04AM

Paulbots are kooks.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 5:29PM

Little Dickie Is A Ricky Perry Algore HillaryCare Cheerleader.

Mike Hawk| 9.13.11 @ 5:35PM

You are a Paulbot buttboy.

Steven| 9.13.11 @ 8:54AM

"David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS."

That says it all.
I guess you have trouble lobbying Dr. Paul.

FL John| 9.13.11 @ 8:59AM

Got it. Ron Paul has a 20+ year voting record. Some of his votes benefited his constituents. The problems that Ron Paul warned against for the past 35 years are now in the forefront of the national debate and the other candidates are parroting him on everything but foreign policy. Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy and national security are strongly supported by veterans; he has received more donations from active military than the other candidates combined. Whether he is elected or not, his foreign policy views will probably (and unfortunately) be vindicated.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 9:58AM

He must not be very effective if he's been warning for 35 years and we still got here, or is he?

FL John| 9.13.11 @ 10:29AM

People are waking up.

Mark Jeffery Koch| 9.13.11 @ 8:59AM

Ron Paul is also an anti-semite who is bitterly opposed to the State of Israel, and fortunately Bachmann, Palin, Santorum, Romney, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich disagree with Ron Paul 100% on his hatred of Israel and his vile antipathy towards Israel.

The Republican Party does not need another Jew and Israel hating Pat Buchanan wannabe. Ron Paul needs to look at the Middle East and realize there is one democracy surrounded by Islamic fundamentalist nations that have millions of people that hate America, and not because of Israel but because of what America stands for.

Jed| 9.13.11 @ 9:13AM

While I don't agree with Paul 100% on foreign policy, we haven't been Israel's best ally in a while, if ever. We tend to give them money and tell them they can't defend their own country while paying their Arab enemies money with little strings attached.

Mark Jeffery Koch| 9.13.11 @ 12:28PM

Jed, I agree with what you said.

Ron Paul's views on Israel have not changed. In the 2008 debate Rudi Guliani angrily criticized his remarks about Israel. The fact remains that of all the Republicans running for President in 2008 and 2012 only one of them has expressed a viewpoint towards Israel that every single other candidate vehemently disgreed with. This is significant because normally 75% of the Jewish vote goes to the Democratic candidate as does most of the fund raising. Support for Israel is a bi partisan issue and actually support is much higher for Israel am0ng Republicans now than it is for Democrats. Any Republican running for President that strongly supports the State of Israel knows that at best they may get 25% of the Jewish vote. If you are a Republican and want to see that percentage change dramatically then hope for a ticket of Mitt Romney/Mark Rubio. That ticket will win.

William R| 9.13.11 @ 9:38AM

Clueless and just plain dumb.

http://www.cato.org/multimedia.....dens-goals

Ted| 9.13.11 @ 9:52AM

Mark, please cite some facts before you start throwing out comments like this. Read first, comment after. Paul argues that if the United States cares about Israel, the U.S. should not get them so dependent. He states that "the surrounding Arab nations get seven times as much aid as Israel gets and also a recent study came out that showed that for every dollar you give to an Arab nation it prompts Israel to spend 1.4 dollars." Paul would not stop Israel from defending her interests in any way she saw fit. Our foreign military aid to Israel is actually more like corporate welfare to the U.S. military industrial complex, as Israel is forced to purchase only U.S. products with the assistance. We send almost twice as much aid to other countries in the Middle East, which only insures increased militarization and the drive toward war. We have adopted a foreign policy that has left Israel surrounded by militaristic nations while undermining Israel's sovereignty by demanding that its foreign and defense policies be essentially pre-approved in Washington. That is a bad deal for Israel, as sovereign nations must determine on their own what is a most appropriate national defense. On foreign policy as well, the U.S. steps in to prevent Israel from engaging in dialogue with nations of which the U.S. administration disapproves. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and—unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration—defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel's. His votes against support for Israel is consistent with his opposition to all foreign aid.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 10:00AM

Dr. Paul has changed his mind on a number of things since 1981. Like the Republican Party, at least twice...

Ted| 9.13.11 @ 10:38AM

And he was right to do so.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 12:24PM

There are two responses to political opposition:

1 - Politically fight the fight to win the point, or

2- Quit the party and go away.

You may overcome following strategy 1.

You cannot overcome following strategy 2. Unless, of course, you defeat your former fellows from without. In a two party system, that means going Democrat, or going 3rd party which is irrelevant in a "two party" system.

Not realizing this simple reality and bolting the party multiple times does not recommend one's capacity for strategic thinking, does it?

Especially, when you do it twice...

PS You supporters of Ron Paul should be careful not to let yourselves get so tied up in knots-it does not do your candidate any good.

An earlier poster mentioned that "Hack bloggers" referred to Ron Paul as a method of generating a lot of hits. It's true - it does, and methinks you might be being played here...

If the shoe fits...


Battle

Ted| 9.13.11 @ 2:00PM

"Not realizing this simple reality and bolting the party multiple times does not recommend one's capacity for strategic thinking, does it?" - What capacity for strategic thinking are you talking about? The guy had the balls to stand up for what he believes is right. From his 1987 resignation letter "Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together?" Again I say he was right to do so.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 4:25PM

Ted,

If you do things that make you look stupid, then, 'guess what? You look stupid!'

Not realizing that this is the inevitable outcome of his action means, well, he looked stupid.

Whose fault is that, anyway? Ever see the joke sign reading "Plan Ahea
d" ?

Guys who want to be President should not make such dumb, strategic, political errors. He did it, not me. Case closed.

DTOM

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 6:57PM

The fraudulent Dan Hirsch got worked again.

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 1:19PM

"Yeah, Spike! Good one! Take that, Mr. Hirsch; Spike really told you! (I, however, have nothing meaningful to contribute, so I'm going to stand behind you in my short skirt and bobby sox and be a cheer leader)"

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 5:33PM

Uh Oh !
Mark Jeffrey Attempts To Play The Anti-Semite Card On Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Israel is our close friend. While President Obama’s demand that Israel
make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her
long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own,
without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United
Nations.

“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington"

Red Phillips | 9.13.11 @ 9:00AM

Does the author actually want Ron Paul to embrace the open borders libertarian position? If he did, conservatives would crucify him for that, and rightly so. So I think the author is being disingenuous. Accusing Paul of not being a faithful libertarian and wanting him to embrace a position that is political suicide on the right.

This is why I make the point often that Ron Paul is best described/understood as a paleolibertarian. There is a libertarian case to be made for immigration restriction, and it has been made well by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Paleolibertarians in general follow Hoppe's argument on the matter.

Jed| 9.13.11 @ 9:18AM

This was another part of the article I thought was absolutely ridiculous. Libertarians are also generally prochoice too. Why should I care about what libertarians think? These are the same guys who cry when Glenn Beck says he's libertarian-leaning.

Kel| 9.13.11 @ 9:02AM

David Catron, You are a joke and part of the problem. What happened to reporters reporting facts and not slander.
"It reveals the sordid reality that Ron Paul is a fraud of the first order." What??
Reagan changed his policies after his election adding to government instead of shrinking it, and changing his fiscal policy... that is when Paul changed his allegiance.
DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS
RUN RON RUN!!!!

Donovan | 9.13.11 @ 9:09AM

The one thing I've learned since since Dr. Paul woke me up in 03/2007, is that anyone who attacks Dr. Paul is either ignorant or a paid stooge.
Others have found out that as an Ex-Marine, those who attack ME for supporting Dr. Paul wind up with either a fat lip or a black eye or both (sorry, I wish I could articulate my ideas better).

Le Cracquere| 9.13.11 @ 9:25AM

Never fear, Donovan. As a great man once said: rather than rendering themselves unclear, people with articulacy problems usually end up making themselves all too clear.

And I don't doubt for a heartbeat your reductive views of people who'd oppose Mr. Paul, or your violent streak towards them. You're a nearly Platonic exemplar of the man's army, and fit your chosen milieu like a glove. Carry on, I guess.

Kevin Jordan | 9.13.11 @ 9:46AM

"Woke me up" is a great way to put it. I feel the same way! He woke me up so much that I started a website! ronpaulusa.blogspot.com

USS Constitution.| 9.13.11 @ 10:34AM

He didn't wake me up. I actually agreed with him almost completely since 2003, but I had never heard of him at all until 2007 debate.

But he did cure my apathy towards politics and give me a bit of hope for the future.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 7:10PM

Le Crackhead = PWNED! (Again.)

Le Cracquere| 9.14.11 @ 12:53AM

OH NOES!

(Though I'd be grateful for an elucidation of how, exactly, in this case. Somehow it's less than self-evident to my purblind eyes.)

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 1:02PM

"Yeah, Spike! Good one! You tell 'em, Spike! Yip yip!"

Len| 9.13.11 @ 9:23AM

So Perry who is a proven tyrant in forcing the vaccinations is liked by the Tea Party which is supposed to for liberty?

So Romney who also favors the tyranny of taking money from one group of people by force and giving it to another through Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security (all clearly unconstitutional) is liked by the Tea Party?

On another note, for all the Johnny come latelys, in regard to the Federal Reserve, the reason that the federal government was granted authority to coin money was to prevent paper money. In fact for those historical and constitutional illiterates it was a big argument, as many understood the danger that fiat money or bills of credit presented to an economy, so anyone who on a constitutional basis alone does not oppose the Federal Reserve should be dismissed, let alone the economic truth of how central banking only enables government to grow, and for a certain financial elite to prosper at the expense of the rest of the country.

john dubose| 9.13.11 @ 9:34AM

It is better to be attacked even on bogus grounds than ignored. I would call that progress.

Go Ron Paul

Sean| 9.13.11 @ 9:37AM

The leftist attacks on Ron Paul continue.

1. Ron Paul supported Reagan in 1976. At that time it was not politically popular. He left the Republican party that was about to nominate George Bush sr. He criticized Reagan for not doing enough to control spending and the debt.

2. Rick Perry was a Democrat and only switched to Republican when it was politically convenient. Al Gore had already started his global warming crap while rick Perry supported him.

3. Re-importation of drugs is just free trade. Companies like to charge Americans higher prices than they do to other countries. If I buy pharmaceutical products in another country I should be free to transport them to America and sell them here at any price I want.

4. All spending should be done by Congress through earmarks. Ron Paul votes for the least amount of spending than anyone in Congress. You will criticize Ron Paul over 2 million, but you will give others passes over 700 billion. You do this because you are at heart a liberal.

Ryan| 9.13.11 @ 9:55AM

Wrong on 3. Pharm companies have to charge more here partially because they cannot profit overseas due to price controls and patent laws (which I partially support). Re-importation will just reduce the profit motive and reduce the number of useful drugs on the market.

Sean| 9.13.11 @ 10:01AM

If they can't profit overseas then they shouldn't sell there. Also a lot of the reimportation we are talking about comes from Mexico and Canada. We are told we have a free trade agreement with those two countries. What we really have is a managed trade agreement.

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 1:04PM

Really, Sean - I'm begging you; please stop! You're in over your head and you're embarrassing yourself. It's painful to watch.

Hobbes| 9.13.11 @ 9:39AM

Viva la Ron Paul revolucion!

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 1:05PM

Si! Si! Viva la revolucion de la loony retired snatch doctor!

Kevin Jordan | 9.13.11 @ 9:45AM

That's it? That's all you got on Ron Paul? You sir, are twisting the facts. "Forgot to mention he was a democrat"? That just makes it worse!! Paul has said many times, the message of Reagan is great, but the debt he ran up was not. Paul is perfectly consistent over 30+ years. Find another politician that has this type of consistent message and I'll eat crow!

Dan Beaulieu | 9.13.11 @ 10:17AM

I agree. This piece is desperate and not worthy of a rebuttle.

Doctor Right| 9.13.11 @ 1:54PM

Perfectly, consistently wrong about MANY things...

fmm| 9.13.11 @ 9:52AM

The real miracle is that Rand is so different from his father. Must be a conclusion there somewhere.

Kelly| 9.13.11 @ 9:56AM

It is sad when lies and bias stand in stead of good journalism. My journalism professor would have given me an "F" on this piece. MSM is so fearful that a message of peace, prosperity and sound money would resonate too loudly and drown out the crooked politicians, lobbyists and bankers that make their money of the American taypayers' backs. So sad. I think of where my daughter and her children will be years from now if we don't end this madness. God save this country and the world.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 7:23PM

Yep.

Tim Howell | 9.13.11 @ 9:58AM

Perfectly crafted start and stopping points on Ron Paul's record. Crafted just like someone outside the beltway. Just based on how you wrote this my level of trust for anything you would write would be very low.

Zorkon| 9.13.11 @ 9:58AM

Ron Paul is polling 13% nationally, according to yesterday's CNN poll. In the CNN poll from 9/9/07, he was polling 1%.

Jack in Wi.| 9.13.11 @ 11:18AM

Ron Paul is tied with Obama in 2 national polls, Gallup and Rasmussen. Ron Paul is in third place in the Republican party nomination race. Most of the public by huge majorities agrees with him on ending the wars, ending all foreign aid, decreasing the size of the Federal government and ending our worldwide empire. The country is broke and it is pretty obvious to thinking people that Ron Paul is the only one who kows what to do about it. Perry and Romney are as hollow as bamboo. They are already self destructing.

Dick Nome| 9.13.11 @ 11:51AM

And CNN polling is meaningful because...... why???

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 10:05AM

So at that rate of conversions, by 2023 he'll be electable, at a 3% annual improvement - assuming no compounding, of course.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 10:11AM

Does anyone else think that Dr. Paul might just be the 'right wing nut job' version of John McCain to the MSM?

Sorry, Paul supporters, but the mainstream would really, really do damage to him in the general election. I think he overpolls versus Obama right now because of two factors - 'anybody but Obama' and Ron Paul has a lot of name recognition from so many years of running. In the general, I think that the Democrats could sour enough marginally-attentive GOP and independent votes that Barry could sneak back in; or induce RP to run third party which would also re-elect BHO.

Give it up, Paulistas. It's not going to work. Ever. Maybe he could do a speaking tour with Fred Thompson. I don't wish him ill, I just don't think it can happen...Sorry.

Dan Beaulieu | 9.13.11 @ 10:15AM

You're silly Dan Hirsch. The idea of Ron Paul are winning, regardless of who takes office in 2012. Ron Paul's ideas have shaped the entire debate. Ron Paul's ideas will ultimately win, it's a revolution not an election.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 12:45PM

If you think I'm silly, I find some comfort in that.

Ron Paul's ideas are not really winning. The laissez faire economic platform that libertarians have historically followed are winning, primarily because the hopeless Keynesian economic models are showing themselves, yet again, to be hopeless.

Congressman Paul's isolationism may be winning in your view, but I think in most Americans' view they are not. We as Americans are not happy that we have battles around the world to protect our interests. However, we are sanguine enough to know that we cannot do business in the world and not protect our interests.

Congressman Paul's virulent isolationism is unrealistic given our involvement in the global economy. Yet many people are tired of the hapless, hopeless, planless, pointless military operations we are currently involved in around the world. We have no interest in Libya, other than re-taking the Lockerbie murderer the Scots let go. We do need to protect ourselves from the Islamic terrorism fomented in the Middle East, (Remember last Sunday?) So when Congressman Paul is cheered when he says he wants us to get out of Afghanistan, it is not surprising. I cheer at the idea myself. But I jeer at isolationism with its central tenet that the evil in the world will leave us alone, if we tell them we will leave them alone. Isolationism has failed us before, remember the 1930's? That didn't work out so well, did it? People who believe in the fairy tale of isolationism, I say, are truly silly.

Mr. Beaulieu, are you that silly?

Don't tread on me.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 7:25PM

More lies and rhetorical obfuscation by the self-defeating Dan Hirsch.

USS Constitution.| 9.13.11 @ 10:28AM

It's already worked.

Last night in the debate I couldn't make up my mind if I should be upset that every candidate was stealing Ron Paul's platform, or if I should be happy every candidate was stealing Ron Paul's platform.

The neo-con party is done in the GOP.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 5:36PM

Tokyo Hirsch,

Give Up Yankee Dogs.

You Will Never Defeat The Imperial Ruling Elite.

You Die Paul Marines.

Dan Beaulieu | 9.13.11 @ 10:12AM

This piece is so desperate. LOL.

I considered doing a rebuttal but don't think I want to spend the time refuting this idiotic a$$wipe.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 12:47PM

DB;

Very brilliant point, yours is...

DH

Don't tread on me!!!

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 1:18PM

Limbaugh just came out and said that Huntsman and Ron Paul are not electable.

Your uphill battle just tilted beyond the vertical, you are now hanging by threads....

Sorry bout that, Paulistas.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 5:38PM

Tokyo Rush,

Give Up Yankee Dogs.

You Will Never Defeat The Imperial Ruling Elite.

You Die Paul Marines.

Radioman777| 9.13.11 @ 10:17AM

Ron Paul is a left-wing kook disguising himself as a libertarian disguised as a Republican.

Donovan | 9.13.11 @ 12:23PM

You sir, are a robot disguised as a human pretending to be a patriot.

Trinacria| 9.14.11 @ 1:09PM

And you, sir, are a marginally witted douche bag disguised as...well, a marginally witted douche bag.

USS Constitution.| 9.13.11 @ 10:26AM

Apparently the author didn't get the memo that pointing out Ron Paul left the Republican party due to the Republican party leaving it's principles is good for Ron Paul.

I'm guessing the author doesn't realize that a large part of the republican base has either completely left the republican party for the same reason, or they have done things like form a tea party in response.

So thank you for point it out.

And the problem with Perry isn't that he was a liberal, it's that he still is. And he's been catching flak for it everywhere.

To add to this, apparently the author has no clue on how earmarks work either.

Let me give you a hint. The money for earmarks is set aside PRIOR and will be spent regardless. Earmarks do NOT increase government spending. If Ron Paul hadn't put in for the earmarks, they would have went somewhere else. All he does is put in the requests people from his district gives him.

And then he votes against the bills.

Oh well, this is just a trash article that isn't going to change anyone's minds. Anyone who supports Ron Paul already knows the article is filled with lies. And anyone who is left just doesn't care and wouldn't change their minds anyway.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 4:27PM

Ron Paul stole that line from Reagan...

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 7:27PM

Liar.

Ted| 9.13.11 @ 10:33AM

The author of this is obviously a lobbyist for the healthcare industry and is flat out embarrassing himself with this hack piece of "journalism". He states" Shortly after the Democrats returned to power in the House in 2007, they introduced a bill calling for the government to "negotiate" the price of prescription drugs bought for Medicare Part D. In this context, "negotiate," is nothing but a euphemism for price-fixing, something that a genuine free-market libertarian would reject out of hand. Nonetheless, Rep. Paul voted in favor of the measure."

What? Negotiate=Price Fixing? The passage of the act was to amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate LOWER covered part D drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. Read the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congres.....ill=h110-4

David Rairigh| 9.13.11 @ 10:43AM

After reading the article and many of the comments it seems clear to me that once again America is going to get the government it deserves.
There are just too many fools in this country who either can't take the time to read a book or who are too arrogant to realize that America has NOT been the great bastion of freedom Americans think it is. She has consistently been interfering in the business of sovereign nations for 50 years. Well, the consequences of being a bully have come home to roost.

Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 12:06PM

Well, you really need to read something else besides Howard Zinn's, A People's History of the United States and every other piece of left wing propaganda your ex-hippy public teacher gave you. Go away useful idiot and stop hating your country.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.11 @ 12:31PM

Gosh, David R.
You sound just like Obama's "minister" God d___ America?
Screw you.
I ersonally "interfered" with dozens of countries myself.
I lifted u their lives while doing rojects there.
What have you done?

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 11:09PM

what?!! it's not a clean world? there's complexity and uncertainty? *amn....we all better line up behind Paul certainty immediately! deontological sophists.

ron_pablo| 9.13.11 @ 11:14AM

You know, the most telling indication that America's Statesman, Ron Paul, will be the next POTUS occurred when he became the 800-lb gorilla and elephant in the room - merely by acting to save the world including unpatriotic Americans. And the world awes him.
Therefore to humanity-haters, please ramp-up the ad hominem attacks and propagandistic omissions. It's free endorsement and perhaps miraculous.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 11:13PM

were Paul even a remote probability for success, the attacks directed at Perry the last two debates would have been aimed at Paul. the candidates have worked their political abaci and calculated that Paul isn't a threat.

so....exactly how would Paul end all the welfare transfers, entitlements, etc.?

Mike| 9.13.11 @ 11:19AM

What have you got against Ron Paul? Defending Perry's real hypocrisy while creating an illusion of hypocrisy with Ron's voting record? Not to mention Ron Paul has the most consistent voting record in congressional history yet you want to call him out on some intentionally distorted votes tha in reality reflect his integrity? What else do you hate? Honesty? Ethics? Morality? Earmarks are a way to get money back to the taxpayers you clown. It's a way of diverting money back to your taxpaying district that is already designated to be spent. Its like a committee deciding a budget of 5oo dollars voting on it and passing it and the earmark is deciding on what to spend it. Free trade means trading with all nations freely. Thats the definition, that includes communist and socialist countries who may have price fixing as policies. We can't decide other nation's policies you Neocon.

crooked wren| 9.13.11 @ 11:32AM

I remain mystified by the popularity of Ron Paul. In every debate he has managed to ultimately place his foot squarely in his own mouth and prove he is unelectable in the 2012 Presidential race. Did any of you Dr. NO fans notice how the liberal moderators of the last two debates used Paul to undercut both Republican leaders Perry and Romney? Again and again it was the same pattern; Question Romney, Perry, rebuttal, then always follow Perry with Paul. He's the one candidate the Progressives would most love to see in a debate with Obama. Forget Ron Paul. He will never be President.

Ted| 9.13.11 @ 11:43AM

crooked wren, go troll somewhere else. You will not be fed here.

Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 12:00PM

Ted, you are the troll. That is a new and cute trick.
You are the one that does not belong on a conservative web site. Get lost. Skip on over to your cousin's house at the Huff and Puff or go home to one of Ron Paul's web sites.

Donovan | 9.13.11 @ 12:28PM

No Simon,
You go.
We go to the fight. Always have always will. It is you that should clearly explain your positions. How are they Patriotic?
Speak now Simon!

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.11 @ 12:37PM

Donovan,
Simon.....and I.....simly cannot kee_ you cultists from drinking the _oison kool-aid. Sorry. You are lost souls.

We true _atriots just want to unseat Obama and the Democratic Senate majority.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 12:50PM

Did your computer discharge too many p's last night? Over-served was it?

Hope you get petter!!

DTOM

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 11:18PM

yup.

they do manifest the intolerance of cultists.

and yes.....one step at at time seems reasonable to me.

that their philosophy incurs difficulties when confronted by real world complexity...well we can cover that another time.

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 10:42AM

Then what Tex?

Ted| 9.13.11 @ 12:57PM

Simon, just for the record I am about as conservative as they come. My voting record proves it. I am not a "Paulbot", just a lot more educated than you. You said that up "until only a few months ago you knew very little of Ron Paul or his supporters and your particular brand of libertarianism." Where have you been? How old are you? Be honest, are you even old enough to vote? You have a lot of reading to do and I don't mean reading more of Jeffrey Lord.

Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 8:30PM

No, you are not. A mature conservative would never make that little cheap shot liberal smarmy remark.

I do not usually pay too much attention to minority candidates and fringe political movements like Ron Paul's nor do I follow the careers of every politician in the house and senate as I have a life and do not do this for a living. I am well aware of and have read significant enough material about libertarianism and the clasical liberalism of our founding fathers.

As far as you modern loonies and trojan horses in the Paulbot movement, yes, I am largely uninterested and uninformed. But Clint and Jackboot and the rest of your pals have given me an excellent education.

As far as being more educated, I doubt it..do you hold more than 6 advanced education degrees?

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 11:22PM

very nice. your second sentence exactly captures my immediate reaction on first read!

Dick Nome| 9.13.11 @ 11:46AM

Rube Paul is an outlier. He doesn't poll worth a blip in his native Pittsburgh or anywhere else in PA. He is retiring next year.

Ted| 9.13.11 @ 11:51AM

Thanks Dick for jumping in on the troll action...

Con Chef (NB) | 9.13.11 @ 12:42PM

So sayeth the Ru-Paulite web fingered goober. Don't you have a copy of "The Turner Diaries" to go jerk off to?

Ted| 9.13.11 @ 1:07PM

Stay classy Con Chef.

Dick Nome| 9.13.11 @ 5:40PM

Glad to oblige.

os| 9.13.11 @ 11:33AM

Where were all you 'conservatives' when Bush was greatly increasing the size of the federal government? It's amazing how many of you actually believe there's much of a difference between Bush and Obama.

Dick Nome| 9.13.11 @ 11:49AM

We disagreed vehemently with the Bush administration on spending and gummint growth ding-a-ling. If you had been concious in those years you would know that a big disappointment with Bush 43 was spending and gummint expansion. Obama nonetheless makes him look like an rookie in that aspect.

os| 9.13.11 @ 12:29PM

Bullshit! There was very little opposition to Bush policies in mainstream conservative publications like this one. You Bushites didn't become concerned with government spending until Obama came along.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 12:53PM

os;

AND your mother wears Army boots!

Get a life - I have been augering to get the Federal government downsized since LBJ!

Heck, I lost a month's allowance on Barry Goldwater's Presidential bid in 1964! Talk about a true conservative! Barry, even more so than me...

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 7:31PM

There goes Dan Hirsch again, making things up to cover his long-defeated rear-end. Museum specimen sociopath.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 11:28PM

DH...this is a silly "mine's bigger" exchange you should ignore.

the poster's tactic of conflating Bush and Obama is irrelevant. what matters is the existential fact of how one responds to the present set of choices.

Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 11:55AM

Catron, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for exposing this fraud and his nut ball cohorts and robots. You are a very brave man.

As soon as I saw the title of your article, I knew that there would be no less than 200 responses and an avalanche of Paulbot responses. I wish I had a dime for every time the word 'neo-con' is thrown up in their responses.

For all the Paulbots and phony libertarians:
I want you to know that up until a few months ago, I knew very little of Ron Paul or his supporters and your particular brand of libertarianism. You have now opened my eyes.

Dick Nome| 9.13.11 @ 12:16PM

Jeffery Lord has had two excellent articles in previous weeks in case you missed them. The Paulbots went ballistic over those and called Jeffery all sorts of unkind things. He really hit dead center on those kooks.

Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 12:18PM

Yes, I read them. Very informative. Thanks, DN.

Angus MaCaupy| 9.13.11 @ 12:18PM

Neo-con in the Paulbot lexicon means Jew. They don't much like Jews, being the anti-Semites they are.

Con Chef (NB) | 9.13.11 @ 12:43PM

As a conservative (politically) Jew myself, I'm inclined to agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY. They're the new Buchanan acolytes.

Mike D.| 9.13.11 @ 3:29PM

Bingo. A lot of anti-semites cloak themselves with the Neo-con or Stop foreign aid monicker when its Jews and Isreal that are the crux of their paranoia. Some of the Paul supporters have good points, its the fringe foaming nutjobs on the edges that really turn people off. Same with the tea party. Lots of legit people for a real cause that I agree with, then you have the far right lunatics glomming onto a legit movement. These are the kinds of people that the leftist newsmedia paints the whole movement with. Some are plants who are here to setup the movement for the media to attack and demonize.

Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 12:22PM

News Flash,

Our troll, Clint, was arrested and is now on video.
Check it out. The cop was right, you never know where he is coming from or what he will say next.
Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 2:46PM

Ronnnnnn Pwaul 2012! It is my constitutional right to drive drunk, man. No..see..you do not know the constitution, man.....!!!!

Indy| 9.13.11 @ 8:10PM

Simon Templar - thank you for the humor break, I'm in the final phases of finishing up the tax return...definitely needed to laugh.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 6:00PM

Simon Pimpler in his Ricky Perry Algore Hillarycare Cheerleader outfit.

http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....ap-man.jpg

Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 8:34PM

Clint, how did you get out of jail so fast? Did Ronnie post your bail?

Stephan D. Markos| 9.13.11 @ 12:34PM

Every intelligent American can surely see that Dr. Paul must be elected president.
The truth needs no defense.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.11 @ 12:46PM

Ste_han.... I'm a heck of a lot more intelligent than you...and a universe more accom_lished than you.
Go ahead and nominate the jerk...if you can... then if Obama wins the general... buy LOTS of ammunition and beans.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 6:01PM

No Your Not Kenny The Squirrel.

Dan Hirsch| 9.13.11 @ 12:59PM

SDM;

Surely you cannot believe that made up quote "The truth needs no defense." Please show me ONE instance where the truth without vigorous, intentional, prolonged support overcame the lie.

Mark Twain had it right when he said, roughly, 'the lie is halfway round the world before the truth has its boots on.'

Only in incredible naif could believe something so that shows itself to be hopelessly false so often.

WAKE UP!!! Smell the coffee! This is politics, it ain't beanbag!

Stephan D. Markos| 9.13.11 @ 1:23PM

To me, there seems to be a growing swell of citizens becoming aware of the enormous theft, fraud and and corruption that is the STATE.

carnot| 9.13.11 @ 11:32PM

and that leads inexorably to Paul? I don't think so.

John M| 9.13.11 @ 12:38PM

Aren't they all the same?

JFGalt| 9.13.11 @ 12:42PM

You know you're on target when hit pieces come out against you in places that you would not expect them from - but then again these guys here are pro-Perry.

Kenneth Olsen | 9.13.11 @ 12:45PM

Paul plays the earmark game in order to recoup his constituents' money in the only way now possible. It's sadly obvious that the hypocrites and frauds are the writers and editors at American Spectator.

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 7:38PM

Yep.

Wallace| 9.13.11 @ 12:47PM

What a spin-job Catron -- you neocon chicken-hawks need to crawl under the rock you came from.

" health care revenue cycle expert " -- another title for heathcare industry leech.

I reject your opinions outright.

PS: You and your comment board supporters use the same restroom as Larry Craig.

sirbourbon| 9.13.11 @ 12:48PM

One of the positve things Ronald Reagan did was to endorse Ron Paul's run for congress.

Principle versus pragmatism
The simple answer is that Ron Paul kept his oath to the Constitution and his promise to his constituents NOT to raise taxes and NOT to increase the power of government over the people.

Recall that Reagan campaigned on a platform to ABOLISH the Department of Education and Department of Energy and terminate OSHA!

What Reagan did that was disturbing to Paul was raising the debt limit. During Reagan's first term we busted through the ONE TRillion dollar mark.

It is interesting that the leftists are trying to use Reagan's signing the Mazolli and Simpson amnesty act to bash conservative candidates for not supporting "comprehensive immigration reform."

The Reagan administration was not what many conservatives had hoped it would be, albeit it was better than sell out artist Jimmy Carter, the man who sold out the Shah and Anastacio Samoza and gave away or Canal in Panama, but Reagan did even attaempt to break FDR's socialist death grip on our economy despite his words that "government is the problem not the solution."

In reagan's two terms we still witnessed the raising of taxes ( the highest inhistory up to then); our national debt was raised and the blundering and stiffling bureaucracy was left in tact.

You bash Paul but all he is doing is showing the liberalism of Perry, a man who brags about being so conservative when the fact is that Perry is not conservative.

Paul was endorsed by Ronald Reagan and said a lot of good things but when push came to shove Reagan remained tied more to the policies of FDR more so than to the polices of Robert Taft, the senator known as "Mr.Republican."

C.R. Wilson| 9.13.11 @ 7:42PM

Yep.

BobS| 9.13.11 @ 12:51PM

Once again the AMSpec descends to the level of neo con hacks and trolls.

As in folks who can't tell the difference between what Reagan said and what he actually did.

As far as Santorum goes and his remarks at the TP Debate, the CIA calls it "blowback". Rudy Giuliani (who dat?) learned that courtesy of RP in 'o8. Rick is not doing any better.

Angus MaCaupy| 9.13.11 @ 1:13PM

Loony Paulbots out in force today, what. Good for a laugh, but not much else.

Jason H | 9.13.11 @ 1:29PM

Just another butt-hurt neocon looking for page hits. Nothing to see here.

Angus MaCaupy| 9.13.11 @ 3:43PM

I'm not Jewish, hope that doesn't disappoint you, you anti-Semite.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 6:03PM

Angus Attempts To Play The Anti-Semite Card Again.

You're Scared Of The Tea Party & Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.

paul| 9.13.11 @ 1:35PM

He has explained his position on earmarks on numerous occasions. Earmarks, in and of themselves, DO NOT increase federal spending by one penny; all that they do is redirect spending which would otherwise be made discretionary for the executive branch. Earmarks are a red herring in the way that they are depicted as a major issue for fiscal conservatives. The actual spending comes from money appropriation bills, which start with some net sum (“This bill proposes to appropriate $1 billion dollars for public use” or what-have-you), then go through committee, where various congressmen tack on earmarks for their own home districts- which DO NOT change the total amount of money appropriated by the bill, but only the way in which it will be spent should the bill pass- before the bill goes to a vote. Now, Ron Paul votes against the money appropriations every single time, but he adds in earmarks so that, in the event that it should pass in spite of his wishes and his vote, some of the money will return to his district, which will, after all, be forced to pay into the appropriation.

The main legitimate argument against earmarks is that they provide incentive for Congressmen to vote in favor of spending bills they might otherwise have opposed in order to obtain the funding for their own pet projects. However, this clearly does not apply to Ron Paul, who has literally voted against every one of these bills through his entire congressional career, and thus there is absolutely no harm done whatsoever by his adding in earmarks. The most they do is redirect money, which is being appropriated anyway. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch. Earmarks are more desirable than non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats because they provide transparency. Ron Paul believes all spending should be decided by congress so we at least know where all the money goes. He cites TARP funding as an example of where Congress and the public are still trying to figure out where all the spending went.

PK| 9.13.11 @ 1:39PM

When will the neocons learn that the watered down conservatives they keep electing will never actually shrink the government?

Ron Paul supported Reagan because he was the first Republican presidential candidate that talked seriously about shrinking the government. But when he became president, he failed to live up to his rhetoric. The debt really started to explode during the Reagan presidency.

Ron Paul is right to criticize Reagan for that; he's criticizing him for failing to live up to his conservative rhetoric. According to the neocons, somehow this makes Ron Paul a non-conservative? That's twisted logic.

Reagan was great on rhetoric, but weak on results, and that's the truth. We can do better.

Bill in StL| 9.13.11 @ 1:52PM

What a ridiculous article. Ron Paul supported Reagan when it was politically expedient, then abandoned him when it became convenient? Try the exact 0pposite! Dr. Paul stood against the establishment when Reagan espoused the principles of freedom, at political cost, then withdrew his support once Reagan had succumbed to the siren song of typical Washington big government - once again, earning him the enmity of his party's leaders.

Do writers have no more pride? Editors no more shame?

Derek F| 9.13.11 @ 1:54PM

Catron,
If you bothered to do just a little more research, you would have discovered that Ron Paul explained why he left the Republican Party, the Party of Reagan. He stated he agreed with Reagan's rhetoric about smaller, limited government, but disagreed with what he actually did - increasing government spending, increasing the size of government, and, at the time, massively increasing government debt. This was the opposite of what Reagan said he would do. And that's why Paul left the Republican Party.

paul| 9.13.11 @ 2:02PM

I heard from my brothers friends cousin that ron paul hates puppies and rainbows. I will never vote for anyone that hates puppies and rainbows. Byah! David, we got them. We own those "paulbots"

(Paid for by your dear friends at the Federal Reserve and the Military Industrial Complex.)

Dick Nome| 9.13.11 @ 6:06PM

Je$$e Jerk$on would not approve either. If he hates rainbows that makes him a bigot in Je$$e'$ world.

Dave| 9.13.11 @ 2:06PM

Paul? Not the saintly old man he was touted as by so many TAS commentators?

Really? I'm shocked!

Not.

crooked wren| 9.13.11 @ 2:39PM

Ron Paul will never be the candidate. I cannot believe you people are STILL yammering at each other!

Dream ticket: Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio with Newt, Santorum, and Cain somewhere in the Cabinet and Bachmann still in the House.

Angus MaCaupy| 9.13.11 @ 3:44PM

Rubio for Senate Majority Leader. DOn't kill his career by making him Veep.

aware| 9.13.11 @ 3:22PM

Today we have a full scale character assassination of Paul and defending Perry at all costs at the Spectator. Wonder who the Groupthinkers here are behind? Glad I dropped my 25 year subscription in the Bush years. Not one, single, solitary writer here cares about individual liberty at all. And as far as economics goes, equally abysmal with nothing but zombie supplysiders pretending to be freemarketeers. A great mag in the '80s reduced to echo chamber status.

All in all, a sorry display that shows we are freakin' doomed!

Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 4:20PM

You may be doomed for the ash heap of idiotic trojan horse political movements and philosophy.
Real small "l" lbertarianism will live on...just not your crazy version of it. You would serve yourself better if you joined up with the DNC.

os| 9.13.11 @ 5:00PM

Poor, poor, Simon. Bless his heart. He actually believes that the conservative movement began with the election of Ronald Reagan, and that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin are the intelecualls of that movement. Poor ignorant Simon has never been told about Russell Kirk or been taught the rich history of anti-war conservatism.

os| 9.13.11 @ 5:12PM

intellecuals

Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 8:56PM

Actually, jackass, it started with Edmund Burke. Since the 20th century, he has generally been viewed as the philosophical founder of modern Conservatism.

Kirk was among many post world war two thinkers and writers that wrote about their ideas on conservative thought. He did not start anything. He did invent a bunch of meaningless and ridiculous names and labels like neo-conservatives and paleo-conservatives. He is as much a founder of conservativism than Ron Paul is the father of the Tea Party movement, another ridiculous claim you idiots like to claim.

Once again do not speak for me or tell me what I think. Kirk did not invent the idea of non-intervention and the avoidance of foreign entanglement or anti-war sentiment. These ideas can be traced all the way back to our founding fathers.

See the difference between them and you imposters is they did not blame their nation first in everything nor would they EVER make a statement like your Ron Paul did the other night. Nor would they be as dumb to accept the propaganda and motivations of their enemies as credible explanations for their enemy's aggression.

os| 9.14.11 @ 2:24PM

Only a jackass would believe that Kirk had little influence on 20the century conservatism and coined the terms neo-conservative and paleo-conservative; only a jackass would believe there's something historically conservative about the Bush Doctrine; only a jackass would believe that the Founders got along with each other and never blamed each other's policies, foreign and domestic, for America's woes; only a jackass would believe that Western intervention had nothing to with the creation of organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda; only a jackass would believe that the father of a child killed in a drone attack will all of a sudden start buyin' what we're sellin'; only a jackass would believe that U.S. intervention had nothing to do with the Islamic Revolution; only a jackass would...oh what's the use.

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:15PM

Obviously, it's not the Paulista "intelecualls" !!!!

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 6:06PM

Ronald Reagan,
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

The tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 8:57PM

Get yourself into AA. This is an intervention, Clint!

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 10:37PM

Get Bent Israel Firster Asshole Simon.

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:12PM

Nah St, what's medically needed is a protology exam in order to extract his cranium from Paul's backside perhaps!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:17PM

Then why don't you simply go read the NYT,SFC,WaPo,HuffPo etc instead of wasting your time [and ours] here????????

Dan Mathewson| 9.13.11 @ 4:25PM

Paulican comments to criticisms of their 'Lord and Saviour' Ron Paul: yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap!!!!!!! Down, dammit!!

Dan Mathewson| 9.13.11 @ 4:25PM

Paulican comments to criticisms of their 'Lord and Saviour' Ron Paul: yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap!!!!!!! Down, dammit!!

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.11 @ 4:58PM

Folks,
I knew that this article was going to bring on a firestorm from Paulbotism. Heh.

Nothing new here.

Same ole, Same ole.

Fortunately they are a 2% fringe group ...WITH REALLY LOUD MOUTHS.

Who s going to be their fuher when Doctor Paul croaks?

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 6:09PM

Associated Press-GfK poll: Ron Paul the most favorable GOP candidate

A new national poll of the general population has revealed that top tier candidate Ron Paul is the most favorable choice in the Republican Presidential nomination race.

Ron Paul 37% favorable vs 36% unfavorable = +1
Mitt Romney 39% favorable vs 41% unfavorable = -2
Rick Perry 33% favorable vs 36% unfavorable = -3
Michele Bachmann 35% favorable vs 43% unfavorable = -8

Margie| 9.13.11 @ 8:32PM

Hey, that sounds an awful lot like Paulbotulism. Heh.

John Giles| 9.13.11 @ 5:02PM

Whatever the author and readers might think of the other GOP candidates, Perry is a big government politician. Texas has no income tax, so the tremendous growth of its government was accomplished by socking Texans with higher other taxes and fees, and by undertaking considerable debt. The state's debt-to-GDP ratio is now worse than California's. May the good Lord not let Perry be the GOP nominee. It's bad enough how he has messed with Texas.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.11 @ 5:31PM

John Giles,
You are simply incorrect........or a dog liar.

I live and run a business in Texas. I am enjoying welcoming a lot more folks to Texas.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 6:11PM

Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

Publius101| 9.13.11 @ 5:38PM

Right on, right on! Finally exposing the Paul Neo-Liberal hypocrites that they are. Good job David Catron!

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 6:11PM

Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:07PM

Reagan must have said that before he switched from Democrat to Republican!!!!!!

Richie| 9.13.11 @ 6:12PM

Ah, I love watching you pawns fight like kids in a schoolyard. "No, my daddy's better!" "No, you meanie, my daddy is better!" hahahahahahahahaha. Losers.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 6:30PM

If you dig a little deeper into some recent polls, you'll find that Dr. Ron Paul is in FIRST PLACE among Independent voters...

PPP National Poll...

http://www.publicpolicypolling.....tional_...

Ron Paul 21%
Mitt Romney 17%
Michelle Bachmann 14%
Herman Cain 10%
Rick Perry 9%
Newt Gingrich 7%
Tim Pawlenty 6%
Jon Hunstman 4%
Sarah Palin 4%
Undecided / Other 9%

ARG Iowa Poll...

http://americanresearchgroup.c.....ry/rep/ia/

Ron Paul 24%
Mitt Romney 23%
Sarah Palin 15%
Jon Huntsman 7%
Rudy Guiliani 4%
Michelle Bachmann 2%
Gary Johnson 2%
Herman Cain 1%
Tim Pawlenty 1%
Buddy Roemer 1%

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

So many idiots here| 11.1.11 @ 3:53PM

RON PAUL!

erich| 9.13.11 @ 6:36PM

Umm, Ron Paul stopped supporting Reagan because he ran up huge deficits. Ron Paul clearly stated that he supported Reagan as the candidate and his ideas, not the president. You're really going to hate on the man for standing on principle? This was clear in Paul's response - he supported the candidate not his presidency; it only takes someone with half a brain to realize the difference.

So many idiots here| 11.1.11 @ 3:55PM

These clueless neocons don't get it.
They all support Obama anyway, and have no idea about being conservative or anything similar. They just see a chance to attack Ron Paul erroneously, and do so without giving it any analytical thought.
What policy do they NOT agree with?
They like paying taxes? They like wars? They do not like their freedom?

Cpm| 9.13.11 @ 6:50PM

It's hard to believe that old dessicated fossil was once a young congressman.

So many idiots here| 11.1.11 @ 3:55PM

Now he is a bitter neocon.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 7:49PM

" Ron Paul, 76, Challenges Status Quo to 20-Mile Bike Race in Houston Heat

Ron Paul: I’ve offered to ride a bicycle for 20 miles in Houston when the temperature is 100° and the humidity is 100% and I will go 20 miles with them and then we’ll decide who’s the youngest."

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:05PM

Or maybe who is the STUPIDEST!!!!!!

Tomás| 9.13.11 @ 8:12PM

LOL...wow, someone's desperate to attack below themselves. Ron is definitely winning.

Principled Man| 9.13.11 @ 8:21PM

I don't know that I've ever seen a political attack article grasp at straws to the degree this one does.

Principled Man 2| 9.13.11 @ 8:25PM

Reagan had the power to veto, yet raised taxes and spending year after year over two terms.

Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 9:03PM

Retire Ron Paul 2012!
Catron, I think you broke a record! You out done MR. LORD!

You know when you speak the truth when you hit their nerves this hard and you get this desperate reaction.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 9:24PM

You're Scared Of The Tea Party, & Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul, Israel Firster AgendaBoy.

Count Up The Ron Paul Supporters Here .

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Oldefarte| 9.14.11 @ 2:04PM

Capitalization of every word.....how stupid!!!

Critic| 9.13.11 @ 9:38PM

This is one of the worst pieces I've ever read at this site. One can disagree with Paul, but to call him a hypocrite is absurd. Whatever one's beliefs, a representative has to ultimately vote for what constituents want at times and certainly all politicians have voted for large bills that have elements they don't like, or voted against large bills with elements they do like.

This piece has no substance and is just establishment bile directed at someone with real intellectual integrity. I expect more from the American Spectator.

Wayne| 9.13.11 @ 9:39PM

Pretty pathetic hit piece on Paul, and beneath the dignity of AS.

POST American| 9.13.11 @ 10:51PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

RON PAUL appears to be the ONLY non-scripted,
non TAVISTOCK, NON blackmailed and extorted, NON David Rocklefller
capstone cardboard figure on the scene.

------------------------------GO FOR IT!

Koby in Detriot| 9.13.11 @ 10:53PM

This is the most pathetic collection of comments ive seen on any Ron Paul attack article in recent weeks. The average "political" IQ of posters here is less than their shoe size. Here is the bottom line.

Neocons have ruined the world. IT IS NOT DEBATABLE. They have been brainwashed by their masters....like good little Nazis, which is the party they most closely resemble.

Ron Paul is ANTI NEOCON...therefore he will be attacked, ad hominem, until the NEOCONS think they've brainwashed the public, yet again....but there is a problem.

IT WILL NOT WORK THIS TIME. your days are OVER. Peace and Liberty are what the productive sector of the US want. NOBODY IS BELIEVING YOUR LINE OF BULL....THEY ARE LIVING WITH THE RESULTS OF YOUR POLICIES....AND HAVE HAD IT.

Ron Paul 2012 (and 2008 as well)

Bob D| 9.13.11 @ 11:13PM

If you expect Ron Paul to support agregious defecit spending just because Ronald Regan succumbed to it in later years, I suppose you can twist it around to make Ron paul a hypocrite for not supporting a hypocritical policy of ronald Reagan. You can argue that but it makes no sense.

Cpm| 9.13.11 @ 11:52PM

Judging by the amount of time the Paulbot fanatics spend on this forum spreading their hate and the ferocity with which they attack any nonbelievers in The Word Of Paul, one can only assume this is their job, and that they are well paid shills. It ain't working, bots.

aware| 9.14.11 @ 5:57AM

Judging by the time neo cons spend name calling they must be desperate. I love how you pretend to be innocent bystanders who had nothing to do with the mess we are in. It all started with the current sock puppet in chief, right? History started in'08 and Bush big government never happened, huh?

Neo cons think there is nothing wrong with massive government, just a little problem with who runs it.

Cpm| 9.14.11 @ 9:52AM

Name calling? "Sock puppet in Chief?" and that old nugget 'cause ya dug it, "neo cons", which is just Paulese for Jews. I suggest you consult Clint, if you aren't him, about name calling. He's written the book, all in CAPS.

aware| 9.14.11 @ 3:58PM

So supposedly I hate Jews like you hate Paul, right? No, neo con means big government Statists who pretend to be "conservative". Like you, pretender. And by the way, I don't happen to be a Paul guy.

Bill Evelyn| 9.14.11 @ 6:36AM

If this is the best you can do, I'll take a nap.

Donovan | 9.14.11 @ 10:33AM

To all anti-Ron Paul posters:
Why don't you state who you are for? It's a bit creepy that not one poster has mentioned the name of the candidate who they are for.
Are y'all just a bunch of haters? Or are y'all just a bunch a Anti-Paul java scripts embeded on this website?
Just gave myself the heebie-jeebies.

os| 9.14.11 @ 4:19PM

They're waiting for Rush to tell them.

Ronny Mckinsly| 9.14.11 @ 12:57PM

The reason David Catron attacks Ron Paul is because of his primal fear of freedom. I understand David, being of a dying breed it is only natural that you fear people like Ron Paul. Rather then beat around the bush about him you should simply come out and say how much of a pathetic loon he is. The more blunt you are in your opposition to him the better your chances of getting your warped and twisted view across to the reader. As Hitler once said, "The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."

John Champoli| 9.14.11 @ 4:50PM

Are you Serious- He is a beltway operator when he left the Republican party when they were in power- I think my goodman you are either out of your mind or a moron...

John Champoli| 9.14.11 @ 4:52PM

Ron Paul for President - End the Fed - Please wake up you turkeys- Have you no sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ron Paul is the only politician (and I shun when I call Dr. paul that) that speaks the truth and isn't in bed with Lobbyists and the political hacks- Hannity your a joke and your a Republican spokesmouth - If you had a brain it will kill you because you wouldn't know what to do with it...

MarkR| 9.14.11 @ 7:59PM

Ron Paul runs for president..Ron Paul wins straw poll...Ron Paul wins straw poll... Ron Paul wins straw poll....Ron Paul drones seem like an army of locusts....Harold Stassen ran for president...Pat Paulson ran for president...Ralph Nader ran for president...Ross Perot ran for president...John Anderson ran for president...In 2012 there will be a republican nominating convention...At the republican convention Ron Paul will be absent...Paulbots will be absent...Ron Paul revolution will be history..The sun will rise..The sun will set... Life will go on...YAWN...

mzk1| 9.15.11 @ 8:25AM

Regarding GOre, I remeber those days. Gore was considered the CONSERVATIVE candidate among the two main Democrats, so its actually in Perry's favor. I connot get past the fact that Perry advocated giving a vaccine for what is basically an STD to 12-year old girls, though.

mzk1| 9.15.11 @ 8:26AM

Let me rewrite that.

Regarding Gore, I remember those days. Gore was considered the CONSERVATIVE candidate among the two main Democrats, so it's actually in Perry's favor. I connot get past the fact that Perry advocated giving a vaccine for what is basically an STD to 12-year old girls, though.

Stefan Stackhouse| 9.15.11 @ 12:03PM

How can you keep track? We've seen so many different versions of Al Gore, including dozens just in 2000 alone.

Stefan Stackhouse| 9.15.11 @ 11:55AM

This is why I don't belong to the Libertarian Party. They are more interested in purging their ever-shrinking small tent of anyone who fails to be sufficiently pure ideologically. It is ironic, isn't it: the party of freedom that brooks no dissent and expects lockstep conformity.

As for Paul's departure from and return to the Republicans, I recall the words of another politician who did pretty much the same thing: "Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat." -Winston Churchill.

Kim | 9.15.11 @ 2:55PM

BOO!
Ron Paul might have a few flaws for being a person but he's not the Politician-For-Sale most of them are. He's stayed on course with fiscal responsibility and continues to expect it from government which is going against the flow of SNAFU. He wants, expects and delivers something better for America. I was disappointed that his committee chose to slam RPerry instead of more constructive solutions for our country. I was also disappointed that so many GOP use a few of Ron Pauls ideal 'buzz' words to gain support so they may run also. We have more GOP candidates up and running than media coverage on Barry Sotero aka BS. The media refuses to keep hearing and reporting on Ron Paul, but critical attacks on Ron Paul reflect back to the writer of this article, not on Ron Paul. He may not be perfect, but he's sure better than most.

dete maurer| 9.15.11 @ 10:14PM

That was well written

Jordan Viray| 9.15.11 @ 3:20PM

I guess you never learned about appropriations when you got your MBA Mr. Catron. Do you think rejected earmarks get returned to the taxpayer? They don't. Those funds get sent to the executive where spending is even less accountable.

You're an idiot | 9.15.11 @ 4:41PM

I know why I don't read this site. It's full of lies, misinterpretations, and boobs (not the good kind either).

This site blows!

Clint's Other ID| 9.15.11 @ 5:52PM

But you can call me Asshat.

Jonathan Charlton| 9.15.11 @ 8:42PM

Wow, stating that a disagreement of ecconomic policy with Reagan is analgous to calling him, "Stalin." Man you are way off the mark.

The truth is that Ron Paul is more Republican than Reagan ever was (which is what his letter proved in his argument) and is infinitely more Republican than Rick Perry ever will be. Reagan was a centrist and Perry is a joke. Social conservatism is not analogous to Republican. Open up the anti-federalist papers, read them, and you might actually have a clue. Republican means to protect the LIBERTY of the individual, and the Federal aspect of the Republic was agreed to by the anti-federalist as a means of protecting individual liberties. You can actually thank Ron Paul for the fact that we are even debating the Federal Reserve - which Nixon screwed us over on with his Nixon shock (again, refer to books, not divine wisdom - there's none to be found here on Earth for sure, and none on your blog). If you don't remember, Republicans are against war and imperialism - that's the stuff of Woodrow Wilson's party.

And by the way, all you big-military-government conservatives, why don't actually join, learn Arabic, go on the front lines, get broken, come home, face the same old crappy health care you're currently providing veterans, and then talk about how enthusiastic you are about fighting in wars that have nothing - not a damn thing to do with national security. It's not so hard, I did it at 21.

You see, Ron joining the Libertarian Party - which is an awesome party dedicated to Liberty instead of corporatism and militarism like the Democrats and Republicans of late (I mean the Democrats and Republicans, other than Ike, since the 16th Amendment) - is the only guy in the field who has the correct handle on the values that the Founders of this country had in mind. You social conservatives, like Christine O'Donnell, don't even know that there is a clear separation of church and state, that Congress is the only entity that can declare war, NOT A PRESIDENT.

So social conservatives (and certainly big government liberals) before you start thumping your chest as Americans, actually read the Constitution, and stop trying to add exceptions to it.

And don't be pissed that it doesn't allow you to invade other countries and put 900 bases worldwide in the EXACT SAME WAY that it doesn't allow you to print money to fund it or any other government BS program.

Become American - vote RON PAUL 2012!!!

Cpm| 9.15.11 @ 9:12PM

Now that Ron Paul has picked up the all-important Barry Manilow endorsement, I take back everything I said.

dete maurer| 9.15.11 @ 10:10PM

You are such a fricken lier, If you want to talk about billions then talk about what Perry and Romney took under Bush and Obama

dete maurer| 9.15.11 @ 10:12PM

And both are members of the Bilderberg Group and both violated the logan Act I will not stand for the NWO IDIOT

John| 9.16.11 @ 5:39AM

Ron has proven that he is more dedicated to his ideolism than he is to a party. I want someone who will stick to his word, rather than some false facade that this current two party dictatorship represents.

My only request for Ron, is that he abandon both parties, and run as an independent. Cast aside the mantle once and for all.

John| 9.16.11 @ 5:40AM

oops... + 1 for proofreading...

idealism

Amber| 9.16.11 @ 11:00AM

No one is perfect. Especially politicians. Although I find this a little sad to know about Dr. Paul it does not change the fact that I will be voting for him. He stands for more of what I want from this country than any other candidate. Ron Paul 2012!

D. Estrada| 9.16.11 @ 7:08PM

Brazenly deceptive? If anyone is being brazenly deceptive, it's Rick Perry and his new cheerleader David Catron. Throw in the lame stream media and talking heads Wolf Blitzer, Candy Crowley, and most of Fox News "reporters" while you're at it.

He left out the fact that Rick Perry was a Democrat when he supported Al Gore 23 years ago? I think he left that little fact out because it's beyond obvious that that was the case. That's the point! Duh... Rick Perry will be anything you want him to be... as Merck can attest to... for the right price.

It's obvious by Rick Perry's voting record that he has no core principles. The only Republican candidate that has stood by his principles and fought the good fight regardless of its popularity at the time is Rep. Ron Paul.

lew glendenning| 9.18.11 @ 2:13PM

Mr. Catron is quite amazingly dishonest.

This is propaganda, not an honest attempt to assist people in understanding reality, but an attempt to confuse their thinking.

No wonder I don't read American Spectator.

Doctor Elefant| 9.20.11 @ 7:46PM

This article lost me when Ron Paul was called a "hypocrite" over the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. That's absurd. Here is Paul's reasoning, and it's very consistent with his philosophy...

"Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to engage in direct negotiations with pharmaceutical companies regarding the prices the companies will charge Medicare when the companies provide drugs through the Part D program. Contrary to the claims of its opponents, this bill does not interfere with a free market by giving the government new power to impose price controls. Before condemning this bill for creating ``price controls' or moving toward ``socialized medicine,' my colleagues should keep in mind that there is not, and cannot be, a free market price for a government-subsidized good.

Members concerned about preserving a free market in pharmaceuticals should have opposed the legislation creating Part D in 2003. It is odd to hear champions of the largest, and most expensive, federal entitlement program since the Great Society pose as defenders of the free market.

The result of subsidizing the demand for prescription drugs through Part D was to raise prices above what they would be in a free market. This was easily foreseeable to anyone who understands basic economics. Direct negotiation is a means of ensuring that the increase in demand does not unduly burden taxpayers and that, pharmaceutical companies, while adequately compensated, they do not obtain an excessive amount of Medicare funds.

The argument that direct negotiations will restrict Medicare beneficiaries' access to the prescription drugs of their choice assumes that the current Part D system gives seniors control over what pharmaceuticals they can use. However, under Part D, seniors must enroll in HMO-like entities that decide for them what drugs they can and cannot obtain. My district office staff has heard from numerous seniors who are unable to obtain their drugs of choice from their Part D providers. Mr. Speaker, I favor reforming Medicare to give seniors more control and choice in their health care, and, if H.R. 4 were a threat to this objective, I would oppose it.

Federal spending on Part D is expected to grow by $100 billion in 2007. It would be fiscally irresponsible for this Congress not to act to address those costs. I recognize that giving the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to engage in direct negotiations neither fixes the long-term problems with Medicare nor does empowers senior to control their own health care. However, we are not being given the opportunity to vote for a true pro-freedom, pro-senior alternative today. Instead, we are asked to choose between two flawed proposals--keeping Part D as it is or allowing the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate prescription drug prices for the Part D program. Since I believe that direct negotiations will benefit taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries by reducing the costs of prescription drugs, I intend to vote for this bill. "

supra | 10.18.11 @ 1:41AM

Thanks for sharing. This website is to I too have to help. Very good.

Brandon| 10.20.11 @ 12:42AM

now I can't quite argue the pharmatucetical side (lack of expertise)... I think his support came from the idea that the US allows no importation of cheaper, e.g., Canadian drugs because of the lobbyists for big pharma corps. don't want it so I assume he was in favor of the competition. Was it necessarily right... maybe, maybe not... but in a system that is fixed to keep prices high for medicine and insurance and (more) gov't intervention is the only way to inject some type of competition then until we throw out the lobbyists out of Washington then yes vote for competition

secondly, the whole Reagan thing is retarded.. first off Repubs need to be there own men and women and stop comparing themselves to Reagen all the time... Reagan was a good Pres, I think,, but he did increase the size of gov't which is why Ron Paul left the party (based on principle)... and if we really want to keep talking about this "betrayal" well maybe we should talk about Ron Paul supporting Reagan (1 in only 4) Congressmen to do so for his Presidential bid because of limited gov't... Reagan went away from that so naturally on principle you don't back him... fyi Reagan invited him onto Air Force 1, but that's petty (oh wait you started petty, David) and btw Perry may have been a Conservative all along but that doesn't change the fact he still endorsed a still very Democratic Al Gore

finally earmarks won't and haven't been ever removed from the budget (won't ever be until we get someone serious about cutting, like oh I don't know, RON PAUL).. so since Ron Paul can't get rid of them, hmm I wonder what he would do to help his tax paying constituents from the Galvaston district... hmmm oh I know he would fight to get all of their money returned to their home district so the money they spent in taxes could be put to use where it would benefit them.

And if he is so anti-liberterian and not principled then why does everyone call him Dr. No... nice try but until you can find real issues David and argue on substance don't try to drag RonPaul in the dirt

Kelly Halldorson | 10.22.11 @ 9:59PM

Here is an awesome rebuttal:

http://www.swissarmywife.net/2.....-response/

Obomneycare| 11.1.11 @ 10:17PM

http://www.instituteformoremediaaccuracy.org/

"NEW! Shame on You, American Spectator!
Over 50 Falsehoods in David Catron’s Article on Ron Paul"

LOL

RCAndrews| 11.5.12 @ 4:36PM

Say hey Catron now that the world now knows the republicans much like the democrats are nothing but collectivist pigs, hows that that bed of fleas and on big fat pillow of hypocrisy you been wallowing in working out for you and your sheep?

More Articles by David Catron

More Articles From Eminentoes

Trudeaus and Terrorism

April 22, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

The Thatcher Haters

April 12, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

Goodbye, Mr. B.

April 5, 2013 | George H. Wittman

Venerating Saint Hugo

March 12, 2013 | Paul Kengor

Intergender Cagefighting Champion of the Brave New World

March 8, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/13/the-hypocrisy-of-ron-paul

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|97 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|102 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|56 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|31 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|19 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.