Ron Paul in New Light - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Ron Paul in New Light

Re: Shawn Macomber’s Dr. No on Ice:

My compliments to Shawn Macomber for a generally positive article about Rep. Ron Paul (comments about Birchers aside). I would merely suggest that Mr. Macomber misoverestimates the “animosity” towards Dr. Paul in his own party. It is true that he has attracted a lot of supporters who have never voted in a Republican primary or caucus before. Heck, he is attracting people who have never even thought about voting before! And while some have booed Dr. Paul at Republican debates, others have cheered him. Another Paul supporter scanned some of the leading conservative blogs this morning, noticed that they were absolutely silent on yesterday’s $6 million Tea Party “moneybomb,” and asked why conservatives aren’t talking about how to harness all the enthusiasm and energy that Dr. Paul has inspired. Indeed — why not? If the Republican Party could welcome Reagan Democrats, why not Ron Paul independents?
Catherine Windels

It is nice to see that good journalism is alive and well at the Spectator. Shawn’s article was well written and very fair to Dr. Paul. We are definitely a passionate group and when you are on a fixed income watching the pricing explosions in gas, food prices you come to realize that things might just get out of control. Also, imagine 35,000 of our troops in one of the most financially sound countries on this planet for the past 55/57 years.
Thomas J. McArdle

Thank you for publishing a positive article on Dr. Paul.

With the way the mainstream media is promoting candidates for “style,” “likeability,” and other superficial reasons, it is refreshing to see that someone is reporting on Dr. Paul’s message.
Matt Thomas

“EVEN IF ONE WERE TO OVERLOOK the animosity towards Paul in the party whose nomination he is seeking, it’s fairly clear the country is not ready to elect a strict constitutionalist so long as reporters continue to ask Paul questions like…well: ‘What’s it mean to be a Constitutionalist?’ “

While I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, when I read something like this, I just hang my head down and cry.
Mike Showalter
Austin, Texas

Re: Jennifer Rubin’s Five Steps for McCain:

I am so tired of the DC pundits (that includes you, Jennifer) telling us how John McCain can win. As long as there are conservatives around who remember just how liberal he is, John McCain will not be our nominee…
Judy Beumler
Louisville, Kentucky

John McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts.

John McCain spoke out against the Bush tax cuts.

John McCain predicted the Bush tax cuts would cause massive increases in the annual budget deficit and would hurt the economy. He was massively wrong!

Tax cuts are one of those issues that define what a conservative is. John McCain is not a conservative.

While I respect his prior service to this country, he represents all that is wrong with congress and should be replaced. He is just another unimpressive Senator running for President, for what reasons, I’m still not sure. (Are presidential candidates allowed to use their campaign contributions to maintain a lavish lifestyle?)
Paul Hoffmann
San Antonio, Texas

McCain is in trouble because he is compassionate towards Democrats and terrorist detainees but hard on Republicans. Much of the Republicans’ current woes can be traced back to McCain’s compassionate and compromising attitude towards Democrats and their fellow travelers in GITMO. Let’s not forget he seems to have been more worried about securing al Qaeda detainees civil rights than actually reelecting Republicans in 2006. A McCain Presidency would have all the paranoia of a Nixon regarding fellow Republicans, but none of the loyalty as shown by Reagan and both Bush Presidents. Still if the choice is between a backstabbing McCain and a Democrat I’ll go with the backstabber over the traitor every time.
Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina

Wow! What will he do about the arrogant, scurrilous attack on the 70% of us out here who he disparaged about the security of our borders?

How about those of us who noticed each time he helped the Democrats attack President George W. Bush, especially during the President’s first term. Unfortunately for McCain, many thousands of us have a pretty solid memory. I would never vote for McCain, under any circumstances whatsoever. Yuck!
Kathy Ridlon
Dallas, Texas

I cannot think of a reason I would vote for McCain. Yes his stand on amnesty for ILLEGALS is a big reason, but also his stand against freedom of speech in election ads is another mark against him. The McCain/Feingold bill is a disaster
Elaine Kyle

This advice is nonsense.

McCain is fatally flawed. His stand on amnesty for illegal aliens put him beyond the pale. To use an analogy even McCain might understand: he put his plane (campaign) went into too steep a dive to recover. It’s over.
Peter Skurkiss
Stow, Ohio

Re: Shawn Macomber’s Dr. No on Ice and Jennifer Rubin’s Five Steps for McCain:

After reading Shawn Macomber’s article about the hostility of the Republican elite toward Ron Paul and the fervor of his grassroots supporters, I read Jennifer Rubin’s article about how John McCain can salvage his candidacy.

I note that Ms. Rubin writes from Northern Virginia. She ought to consider a move to Madison Avenue. Mr. McCain may well make himself electable by following her advice, and the result would be that we’d have the chance to elect another fraudulent conservative to the Presidency, a la George W. Bush.


Most specifically, she claims that McCain is “well positioned” to pitch himself as the opponent of “compassionate conservatism” and “nannyism.” Really?! Just what has Mr. McCain done to distance himself from his bosom buddies, Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy? Nothing. What has he done to establish himself as an opponent of uncontrolled illegal immigration? Nothing. What has he done to establish himself as a champion of United States sovereignty? Nothing.

Ron Paul has stood on his principles for decades. McCain, running behind among the “me-too’s” favored by the elites, should now be thankful for the length of the campaign season to have afforded him “time [for] people to forget how angry they were at him” for his consistent betrayals of Republican principles, by Ms. Rubin’s reckoning.

Should Mr. McCain be elected, how many minutes would it take for him to betray those principles again? Why should anyone expect him to be anything but another GW Bush? Will he stand for sovereignty and small government, or will he sign off on more such abominations as his campaign finance and education travesties? Will he take up the banner of Social Security reform, or run from the issue like a scalded cat when the Democrats launch on him for whispering that maybe something needs to be done?

Well, given the depth of Mr. McCain’s alleged principles, I don’t think it takes much memory strain to predict the answers to those questions.

I am among those who value the principles that Ron Paul stands for, and admire him for standing against those who would sell the loyal base another bill of goods. I’m disgusted by Ms. Rubin’s cynical counsel to dupe the electorate yet again.

She calls for McCain to “elevate the debate and call for a wiser calculus in decision making.” By “wiser calculus,” I presume she means a calculus determined by the elites, using smoke and mirrors to hoodwink the principled base again. After all, it’s the wisdom of our vaunted elites that justifies them in ruling us against our wills and principles for our own good, isn’t it? It wouldn’t be anything so cynical as their own interest in forwarding the interests of their multi-national, border busting corporations, would it?

John McCain has a long history. To my way of thinking, it reeks, and I will not be taken in by his adoption of Ms. Rubin’s oily unguents. It’s my hope that Mr. Paul’s supporters can take the long view and stick to their guns as he has until the elites are made to realize and account for the fact that not all the electorate is composed of idiots who can be taken in by such courses as Ms. Rubin lays out for Mr. McCain.
Mark Fallert
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Re: Larry Thornberry’s Rasmussen and Rudy:

What Huckaboom?
(Da Doo Ron Ron)

He used to preach on Sundays, he’s the man from Hope.
A Huckaboom, boom, a Huckaboom!
He wants to be the President, he ain’t no dope.
A Huckaboom, boom, a Huckaboom!

Yeah, he’s the man from Hope.
Hey, he ain’t no dope.
Still, he’s not the Pope.
A Huckaboom, boom, a Huckaboom!

All the other candidates are having fits.
A Huckaboom, boom, a Huckaboom!
Especially in Iowa, which once was Mitt’s.
A Huckaboom, boom, a Huckaboom!

Yeah, they’re having fits.
Iowa once was Mitt’s.
McCain is still a pain, and Rudy’s in the pits.
A Huckaboom, boom, a Huckaboom!

A Huckaboom, boom, a Huckaboom!
A Huckaboom, boom, a Huckaboom!

But, out on the horizon is a man named Fred.
A Huckaboom, boom, a Huckaboom!
He’s the one from Tennessee they said was dead.
A Huckaboom, boom, a Huckaboom!

Yeah, a man named Fred.
They all said was dead.
When he gets ahead, he’ll turn their faces red.
What Huckaboom, boom, what Huckaboom?

What Huckaboom, boom, what Huckaboom?
What Huckaboom, boom, what Huckaboom?
Mike Showalter
Austin, Texas

I don’t trust the polls, I don’t trust believe any of the mainstream media, I don’t believe politicians all that much. All this chatter about Huckabee is just that: chatter and media buzz. Huckabee seems glib, and that makes for good television, which television types really like. It makes their job easier, as if it’s that difficult now?

Huckaboom? No. It’s a bunchacrap!
P. Aaron Jones

America will be the loser if Mike Huckabee is the Republican nominee for President. While he is a marginally better choice than Hillary, Obama or Edwards (the Democrat’s midget wannabes) he is not the best choice for the GOP considering his tax and spend record, his embracing the Democrat’s immigration policy, a wife reminiscent of another Arkansas Governor’s first lady and his Clintonesque ethical challenges. Mike Huckabee’s name anywhere on the 2008 GOP ticket would be a disaster waiting to happen. Surely with the Democrats ready to nominate a shrew, neophyte buffoon or ambulance chaser the Republicans can do better than their moral version of Bill Clinton or Huey Long.
Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina

As a teenager in the mid-1970s I heard my government teacher confidently state that it was unlikely that any more state governors would be elected to the Presidency, and that it was even less likely a Southerner could be elected. Since that time, two southern governors have occupied the highest office in the land. One was the least competent (although certainly the most self-righteous). The second, although displaying some political craftiness, was easily the least ethical to occupy that office. Each of them also professed the Baptist faith. All of this makes me wonder if Governor Huckabee also has an ugly daughter. Regardless, he’ll not have my vote.
Mark K. Zunk
Indianapolis, Indiana

If Thompson does not get his act together and show some promise, Rudy will get my vote. I am very put off by his overlooking illegals in his city and his gun control, but I do think he will protect America.
Elaine Kyle

Re: James Bowman’s Atonement:

You are a wonderful writer.

I believe you attribute artifice and “trickeration” to what is really a very profound plot twist by a gifted artist; I am a 70-year-old conservative who is not ashamed to admit that true wrongs do happen in life and the desire to escape and rationalize our poor decisions can result in a scenario as depicted in Atonement.

Wonderful writer though you may be, I believe your critique is wrong in this case.
David Freedberg
New York, New York

Re: Jay D. Homnick’s I Beg Mr. Vick’s Pardon:

Poor Mr. Vick!

He’s a victim because, among other things, he was the recipient of that oxymoronic “athletic” scholarship and while required to work for the University in order to get a degree he was not educated when he received it. The poor guy did not know that the only people who have a right to kill dogs are employees of the SPCA and Police Officers. He should have went into a more respectable pursuit, like fighting chickens. (see below)

He also appears to have been unaware that the wife of the owner of his team, the Atlanta Falcons, is a rabid (pun intended) member and financial supporter of PETA.

He could have been guided into more acceptable forms of sporting animal slaughter such as the killing of racing Greyhounds which have shown no promise of winning, or even the slaughter of Thoroughbred Horses for (ironically) the dog food industry, after they are determined to have no future in the so called “Sport of Kings.”

When I was growing up there was a local businessman who had a thriving sideline raising fighting chickens which were locally very popular with the “movers and shakers” who ran our county politics. His business was by our ball field. He let the hens run loose and when the sun set it was entertaining to see the birds fly up into the trees to roost. The roosters stayed caged until they were delivered to their destinations which were usually owned by some wealthy professional men. This kind of “sport” was still going on around here until the 1990s. Poor Michael! Wrong place, wrong time, wrong companions, wrong connections, wrong “sport.”
Bob Keiser

Re: Quin Hillyer’s Fred Ain’t Dead:

It seems to me that Fred’s problem now is that the media, almost the entire pundit class, and the plurality of the so called “experts” have decided that Fred is, indeed, dead, so regardless of what he does, it will be discounted, if it is reported at all. Fred is NOT going to change his game plan, his mode of operating, and the “experts” and assorted pundits, along with the media have already pronounced that game plan a losing one. They are not now likely to admit error – to admit that they could possibly be wrong. The problem is that Fred can’t get traction if the media either ignores him or keeps reporting, in detail, exactly why he will never get any traction doing it the way that he is doing it.

This is not to say that I don’t believe that Fred has made some mistakes in his campaign. I believe that he was slow to ramp up his campaign organization. I also think that writing off New Hampshire was a mistake. His principles would go very well in this state. I believe that, with the proper effort, he could have come in second, close behind Romney, a neighbor. I believe that New Hampshire was a better fit for him than Iowa, and come some little time later.

I do believe that, as folks start taking a longer and harder look at Huckabee, and perhaps deciding that he is not the one after all, Fred Thompson is the most natural beneficiary. Fred is right on the border and immigration. He is right on pro-life. He is right on the 2nd Amendment. He is 100% better than Huckabee on foreign policy. He understands the intelligence business and the problems that our Intel agencies have. He is right on the need to downsize government. He is right on taxes.

It is hard to catch lightening in a bottle. I hope he has not squandered his opportunity to at least try. I believe that I could feel reasonably comfortable with Fred in the Oval Office and Romney ensconced in the VPOTUS residence.
Ken Shreve

Being a Tenn. Republican I love Fred Thompson, but have been totally disappointed in his campaign so far. I keep thinking that something good will happen and his numbers will take off and he will be our next President. I think he is the one who could solidly beat the Democrats in 2008.

He is our best man for the job and, Mr. Hillyer, I hope you are right! Go Fred!
J. Sherrill

Sign Up to receive Our Latest Updates! Register

Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link:

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!