Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The Harper Gambit: Effective Majority for Conservatives | Main | Enough, Mother »

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

The Ron Paul Problem

We have a problem here.

Of course, many of you know it already.  But, I think the time has come to make it official: Ron Paul’s campaign for the Presidency now presents a serious challenge to those who love liberty and seek its preservation against the Islamist assault on our civilization.  It is no longer sufficient to simply dismiss those who support him as a motley collection of nuts and morons. It’s not that I deny that many of them are – it’s just that nuts and morons get to vote too.

It is fashionable for conservatives to dismiss Ron Paul, citing his flat poll numbers – just a few percentage points in most polls.  I believe this to be a mistake – not only are national polls worthless in assessing the results of individual primaries, but they also fail to consider support that polls – especially polls partisan primary polling – might fail to pick up.  While there’s absolutely zero chance that Paul is going to win the Republican nomination, there is a very high probability that he will be able to raise enough money to remain in the race and get enough votes to continue to receive media coverage.  Worse still, it is entirely possible that he will win a sufficient number of delegates to cause trouble during the Republican National Convention (even, say, thirty could be a serious annoyance and disruption) and that he will go on to run as a third party candidate.  There is also, if Senator Clinton secures the Democratic nomination early, the possibility that the internet-savvy leftist nutroots might organize in order to give Paul the illusion of more support.

Of all opposing forces, fifth columnists are the hardest to defeat.  And that is what makes Ron Paul such a serious threat – because he is nominally a “Republican” he gets to go up on stage with the serious candidates for the Republican nomination and to spew his garbage all over the stage.

(It goes on and on and on at my blog.  As you might have surmised, I really, really, really don't like Ron Paul). 

Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on October 3, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54f044c9d8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Ron Paul Problem:

Comments

There's only one proper response to this.

"Wimp."

When are people going to wake up and realize that Fundamentalist Islam is pathetic?

Posted by: Nathan Pannbacker | 2007-10-05 11:40:03 AM


About the comment above, there are 9/11 truthers supporting every candidate out there. Ron Paul simply respects their concerns and acknowledges them.

The very, very best thing about Ron Paul is that he doesn't care what you think about him. He knows who he is and has held firm to (and voted) his belief in the constitution for 10 terms, never being swayed by special interests or polls or public opinion. He doesn't tailor his message to what he thinks people want to hear.

Can you say that about Romney or Guiliani? No.

Posted by: Diane | 2007-10-05 12:05:46 PM


>"Speller, you are implying that the insurgents in Iraq need to 'get past' the US troops there before they can get to the homeland. That is not true."
Posted by: nzer | 5-Oct-07 2:21:56 AM

Only in you feverish dreams.

>Suspected '100 million dollar al-Qaeda financier' netted in Iraq
1 day ago

BAGHDAD (AFP) — Iraqi and US forces have detained a man they believe received 100 million dollars this summer from Al-Qaeda sympathisers to hand out for "terrorist" operations in Iraq, the US military said Thursday.

"The 100 million was what our intelligence reports indicate he has received spanning several months this year," US military spokesman Sam Hymas told AFP. "That is all the unclassified information I can give you."

This is one the Sword got. Imagine, if you can with such poor reasoning as you have, that this man was using that $100 million to finance Al-Qaeda operations in the homeland.

If all you have is a Shield the risks are higher for the homeland. It is better to fight them over there which limits their operational capability over here.

As it stands, one day one or more will get past the Shield, it is inevitable, and then we'll not only be using more Sword against them, we'll be looking for the traitors in our midst with a vengeance.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-05 12:07:15 PM


Hey Speller, how about this novel solution?

Stop all immigration, and cut the multicultural crap in our nations. Hence foreign terrorists can't come here, and we can easily concentrate on the locals terrorists. And without foreign entanglements, muslim terrorists wouldn't give a rat's ass about us. Their hatred of us almost entirely is due to Israel and US troops in their nations. It might take 5-10 years for them to fully respond, but when they realize we no longer give a rat's ass about their inner squabbles and are no longer squandering our hard earned money to Israel and their supporters, anti-Americanism will die off.

Anyways, I can only suspect that Speller is a typical Israel Firster. Screw Canada or America if it gets in the way of having our sons die for Israel right??

Posted by: William Smith | 2007-10-05 12:16:37 PM


So, Willy, I guess that you missed that the London Tube bombers were born in England then?
Or maybe you missed that the 9/11 Terrorists were all foreigners and none of them were immigrants?

Pssst... your anti-Semitism is showing. I didn't say anything about Israel and Israel has nothing to do with Afghanistan, which is where the 9/11 Terrorists trained.
(by the way, Afghanistan is not in the Middle East it's in Central Asia)

Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-05 12:38:04 PM


The guy they caught funding "terrorist operations in Iraq" was, not surprisingly, in Iraq. But what if he wanted to target somewhere inside the US... why would he and his money need to have anything to do with Iraq? He could do it from any place he liked.
The US presence in Iraq is not preventing any attack on US soil.

Posted by: nzer | 2007-10-05 1:20:35 PM


Well, if it wasn't for the open border pushers that many neo-conservatives support, those bombers wouldn't even have been born in England. Yet at this moment tons of people from arab nations are moving in. And tons of La Raza mexicans are moving into the USA, making huge parts of Texas and California no-go zones for native born english speakers (having just visited Orange County, I've seen it first hand). And I am not against taking action AGAINST domestic terrorists - whether of muslim ethnic stock or white or whatever ancestry.

We don't invade, they have less impetus to invade? Get that? What people of your ilk seek is perpetual war with people that would rather have nothing to do with us. We are not going to be colonize the world and make everyone like us...especially with differential birth rates like they are. The Iraq war has created hundreds of thousands of refugees - guess where they are headed? Yes, the west. Sweden has just taken in tens of thousands...and Malmo, troubled as it is, is now even more inundated with foreign people that dislike the west. Less war, less foreigners here? Get it Spelly?

And lastly, I don't care if Israel defends herself. I just don't want my nation and my culture doing it. OK? And looking at the donor lists of pro-war positions in the States, and the neocons themselves, it is obvious that the Israeli lobby led the US into Iraq, and wants to do it again in Iran. With AMERICAN LIVES and AMERICAN MONEY.

Posted by: William Smith | 2007-10-05 1:20:55 PM


Whoever wrote this needs to read Armed Maddhouse- The truth is your brainwashed and uninformed....

Everything Ron Paul says is true and he is incapable of lying to us!

Wake up this once great Nation is being averaged into world communism!

WAKE UP!!!!!!! You think you know everything????? You know nothing!!!!!

All NeoCons need to be rounded up like alkida!

Posted by: paul revere II | 2007-10-05 4:26:32 PM


"Everything Ron Paul says is true and he is incapable of lying to us1"

The words of a cultist par excellence.

"All NeoCons need to be rounded up like alkida!"

Since "neocon" is a term many of these nuts use as a euphemism for "Jooooooos", we can peek behind that mask once again as to see their "final solution" for their perceived enemies.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-05 4:30:51 PM


Ahh yes...attacking neocons makes one an anti-semite...good one...

I'm against most muslims against they way they make women 2nd class. Doesn't make me anti-muslim (at least in any evil way). I'm also against most jews in their support of Israel (and many other policies too). Does being against those policies make me an anti-semite? In the eyes of those that don't like dissent it does. I think the best recourse is for people not to even care if they are called one. It seems an anti-semite is someone that zionists don't like, as opposed to someone that doesn't like jews.

And obc, paul revere II is on your side and was being sarcastic. He thinks us Ron Paul supporters are all cult like. I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything (I'm probably more pro-choice than pro-life), he is ethical and the closest person to my traditional right wing views in most areas. And he would try his best to make the US government work for AMERICANS, not big business elites, minority special interests, or ISRAEL.

Posted by: William Smith | 2007-10-05 5:27:03 PM


Will Smith's last remarks proves my point once again.

Pauloids are cultists - end of discussion.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-05 5:31:08 PM


And neo-cons are 5th collumnists who serve the interests of either big business or Israel. I like how they also hold back the fact that the most prominent leaders of the neo-con movement were jewish communists early on (Krystol comes to mind). Alas, with neo-cons, the truth is never relevent.

Case Closed.

Posted by: William Smith | 2007-10-05 7:37:27 PM


Ron Paul might not be the best candidate but he certainly is going to be the exact person USA needs for the moment.

I would prefer Arnold S. the governor of California, but he ain't available!

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-10-05 8:22:07 PM


OBC,
What's the deal with Soros and Communism? Ron Paul is being financed by us awake American's. The commie thing? Nixon had more to do with turning us socialist than anyone prior to the Federal Reserve Act voters in the Senate. Have you ever read the "Communist Manifesto? A centralized bank is key to creating socialism which is exactly one of the entities Ron Paul would like to disassemble. You, the writer of this article and Yoshi are three of the best examples of the triumph of too much television and the effects to the rotted brain. I know truth sucks to hear and see, but you're going to have to face this truth: Ron Paul is a major force and whatever you've been trying to do to smear and belittle him has failed. People are fed up with lies and corruption and tearing families apart fighting wars (in our name, by the way) that when we see some semblance of integrity and honesty, not just posturing and hyperbole, we fervently stand up for it and fight for it.
Also, enough with the "Democracy" talk, we aren't and never will be a Democracy. America was and always will be a "Democratic Republic", look it up while you look up Dr. Paul.

Posted by: Duane | 2007-10-05 11:43:44 PM


Oh and one more thing "OBC", enough with the Jew shit. Jack ass.

Posted by: Duane | 2007-10-05 11:48:07 PM


I'm glad you're afraid. I hope he scares you into a country where spineless peoples opinions don't have to be substantiated by facts or even valid opinions. I can tell you're from Kalifornia. You're thinking lacks substance.

Posted by: Aaron | 2007-10-06 8:54:09 AM


"enough with the Jew shit."

AHA! I knew you'd finally get those two words together. Your true feelings are exposed once again.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-06 9:18:14 AM


"Jew shit". Says it all.

Posted by: atric | 2007-10-06 4:19:46 PM


You can see these fools are all moonbats. They are fighting this battle on the fields of Canada. Their talking points guy is as clueless as they are, directing them to a foreign web page.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-06 4:52:48 PM


"America was and always will be a "Democratic Republic"

Wrong again, Camel breath. America is a representative republic - but I don't expect you to be accurate.

Like you said - LOOK IT UP!

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-06 4:58:52 PM


. . . and it takes an educated Canadian to tell a moonbat American what kind of government the US has!

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-06 5:30:47 PM


I find it interesting that these Left-ards think it is OK to physically attack Cons(People) anyway?

Strange how liberalism in the 60's was about the right to speak freely and rights for all people, but the people that call themselves Liberal today seem to want to gas the Conservatives Et al. because they "dont want to agree" with them; or attack Israel because they "dont agree". They want to take all of our rights away the their liberal elders fought for. In essence I wonder if the leaders of the liberal movement back then would have thought they would become the so called Conservatives they protested against. What I find strange is that it is VERY obvious, yet they dont realize their own hate speech, their own disdain for others, their sickly and cowardly unjustified attacks on people have made them into prejudiced bigots and tyrants. Like the Nazi's, and all other tyrants, they seem to be able to "justify" this attacking of people. Sad, and for shame. Its amazing that the liberal "hate" is so pronounced as to blind them from this reality.

Posted by: Sean Whelan | 2007-10-06 6:01:43 PM


Sean ~

When the socialists, led by Bernie Sanders, tried to wrest City Hall away from a conservative administration in Burlington, Vermont in the 1980's, they lambasted the previous government for holding secret meetings to pass city by-laws. They demanded "sunshine" meetings where the public could attend.

As soon as the socialists took power, they "forgot" their campaign promises - and held their OWN secret meetings.

Today, Bernie Sanders is the Independent (Progressive) Senator from Vermont.

That's how Leftoids operate - complain about inconsistencies in the system, then exploit them to their own advantage when they get into power.

That's why the hag Shrillery is so dangerous. She is a known liar who - once elected - will do whatever she wants, regardless of what she promised in the campaign.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-06 7:02:45 PM


I gave Ron Paul 200 dollars and registered Republican so I can vote for him in the primary. I can vote to put IRS agents in the unemployment line. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: gao xia en | 2007-10-06 8:12:39 PM


There's a sucker born every minute.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-06 8:16:27 PM


Ron Paul is the Champion of the Constitution.
Rudy McRompson are left of center socilist-lite.
Huckabee is a nice guy who is getting home-schooled by Paul in the debates.
Hillary is Stalin in drag.

Take your pick.

Posted by: tom davis | 2007-10-07 1:19:33 PM


Droning away once again. YAWN!

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-07 1:33:55 PM


This is a pretty good summation of Pon Raul:

"Lack of practical principles will stall Ron Paul's progress"

Dr. Ron Paul is a presidential candidate of absolutes -- sort of.

The Texas congressman is described as principled (to a fault sometimes, his colleagues and admirers say) and a staunch constitutionalist. Unlike most of his associates in politics who've mastered the art of babbling their way around questions, you can ask him what he thinks on an issue and he'll usually answer it directly.

That was the impression I got after the Republican, but Libertarian-leaning, presidential candidate stopped by The News' editorial board for a visit. There was little fanfare surrounding his arrival. He came quietly with his national campaign manager and a few other local folks, but they sat quietly by.

There were no glossy brochures, and he didn't sport any gimmicky buttons extolling the virtues of President Paul. He wore a muted blue blazer with a white shirt and grayish blue tie. His congressional member lapel pin was the only accoutrement that set him apart from any one else who might have been wandering through The News lobby that day.

He stopped by on his way to a Republican function on Mackinac Island, the only candidate to do so. Perhaps that's because he has to work harder than most. He's been pegged as a third-party candidate, even though he's not.

Whatever the label, one is starting to stick: formidable fundraiser.

Paul has raised a reported $5 million in the last three months, with the majority of it coming from his Internet army. Everett Shannon of Burtchville has reached into the piggybank for Paul, according to the "recent donor" feature that scrolls names across Paul's presidential Web site.

When questioned as to what all the grassroots interest and Internet-driven donations mean for his campaign, Paul smiled and said: "It means we'll stay in this race, and I guess we'll have to hire a few more people."

He seems almost annoyed by that necessity, but nobody running for president is without ego. Paul's got it too, but he's more grounded than most of his competitors.

"It doesn't matter how many people are in this race for president," he says about what sets him apart from other Republicans. "They're all for the war."

Paul is not. He'd withdrawal troops from Iraq today. Just pull them out because he says that's how we got in. It's a message that resonates with college liberals, independents and others who are disenfranchised from candidates on both sides of the majority party aisle.

But it's not entirely realistic. Sure it might be possible, but even the top Democratic Party candidates aren't willing to commit to leaving Iraq. Try getting that idea through Congress.

Similarly, he'd run into obstacles in his free-market crusade for health care. He rightly says the first dollar spent into health care should come from the consumer and that the government should get out of the business. Three cheers for that idea, but the trend is moving dangerously in the opposite direction.

He supports secure borders, stronger property rights, the enforcement of existing immigration laws and lower taxes. Hard to argue with those notions either, but he doesn't have much guidance for how he'd make things happen if elected president.

And though he talks often about small government, his nearly 20 years in office have endeared him to those controls, too.

When asked who would determine citizenship if birthright citizenship were abolished, as he proposes, he said government could figure it out. That's a frightening suggestion that would be about as legitimate as having a group of monkeys throw darts at birth certificates at the state fair.

Every candidate has an issue or two that trips them up and perhaps this is Paul's. It's a fringe subject, but it's symptomatic of what ails his campaign, in my mind. Idealism doesn't always mesh with realism, and Paul had a hard time explaining how he'd put his platform into practice.

That's a serious issue. If Ron Paul is to be considered a legitimate contender during the next few months, he'll need to get beyond principle and put some action into his plan.

(Manny Lopez is a Detroit News editorial writer whose online column is published Sunday.)

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-07 2:10:09 PM


I'm very excited to be voting for the first time in the 2008 election to

<>

I'm donating my birthday money to the Paul campaign. I'm convincing my friends to vote for him. LOL @ anti-Paulites.

BTW President Paul, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, wouldn't have to get anything passed through congress to remove troops from Iraq and from secret bases all around the world.

Posted by: Amwidkle | 2007-10-07 3:50:34 PM


Pon Raul is a wet dream for many of his followers. When they awaken, they will be even angrier than they are now. Pity they won't go for some professional help.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-07 4:08:22 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.