Rage, Ron Paul and Repackaging

I’ve had a feeling of rage building up inside of me the last several days, and I’ve been trying to put my finger on it.

Y’know, I think I have. Before I attempt to explain it, here’s the latest from the Dr. Ron Paul Campaign:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign is out with a new ad today featuring former patients of Paul, who as an OB-GYN has delivered more than 4,000 babies.

The 60-second Web video features Laura Mays and three other former patients of Paul’s medical practice in Brazoria County, Texas. They attest to Paul’s character as a doctor and as a politician.

“Some people need to have a good word said about them,” Mays says. “Ron is the sort of person that, his life is his good word.”

Kara Gore, another former patient, says Paul “not only protects unborn life, but he also walks through journeys with women.”

The ad is an attempt to highlight Paul’s opposition to abortion, a position that is often overshadowed by his libertarian-style views on monetary and foreign policy.

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said in a statement that the ad “is a clear case of credible subject matter serving as its own convincing message.”

Nothing like a fresh coat of whitewash to repackage a worn-out, old structure.

According to Warner Todd Houston, in an article published by the Canadian Free Press,  even Sherwin Williams doesn’t have enough whitewash to cover Herr Docktor’s issues:

Last year Ron Paul said that the CIA perpetrated a coup over the United States. “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. They’re in businesses, in drug businesses.” That fits in as just another part of the wacky world of Ron Paul that has spanned decades of denigrating blacks, assigning all sorts of crazy conspiracies to the US government, and above all hatred for Israel. It is a disgusting sin that this man is a political candidate for anything much less for the GOP nomination for President of the United States.

A lot of the credit for exposing the worst of Paul’s outrages belongs to James Kirchick who in 2008 wrote a short piece for The New Republic detailing what he found in an archive of Ron Paul’s racist newsletters.

Also back in 2008, then Fox News host John Gibson had a must hear interview with Kirchick asking why so many white supremacists and racists were in such slavish support of Ron Paul when he ran for president in 2008.

Aside from his racist newsletters, Kirchick notes that in 1994, Paul predicted a “holocaust” against South African whites and then advocated for a separate white state in South Africa. Kirchick also says Paul seemed to support the same thing in America.

This week Kirchick wrote a follow up piece on Paul’s 1970s era newsletters that is much more informative than his 2008 piece. In the piece published by The Weekly Standard Kirchick gives a lot more examples of the sort of racist nonsense these newsletters disgorged onto subscribers.

Paul defends himself against the contents of his newsletters by claiming that he never much bothered to read what was being published under his name by his various publishing firms and projects. He then claims not to have supported the racism and off the wall conspiracy theories contained in them.

Kirchick sums his latest piece up with this:

Paul’s more mainstream supporters have always explained away his popularity with 9/11 “Truthers” as an unfortunate consequence of his altruistic, if at times naive, libertarian ethos: The man just loves freedom so much that he’s loath to turn away backers who may think differently from him. To anyone who bothers to look into Ron Paul’s record, that claim is simply not credible.

…What it reveals to me is the utter shame that Ron Paul is thought to be a worthy candidate in any GOP primary for any position whatever. I tend to see that his fan base of racists, Jew haters, and conspiracy nuts don’t tend to vote for the most part and in talking to many of his ardent — and cultic — supporters over the last few years I see people that do not fit in at all with the rest of the GOP. In fact, in talking to his supporters I find few of them have any knowledge at all of politics outside of “Doctor Paul’s” take on it. They see the whole world through the Paul prism and aren’t well informed otherwise. I also feel that most of them will just fade away once Paul himself finally goes away in 2012 (Paul announced that he won’t run for reelection to his House seat, so unless he wins the White House his political career seems to be over).

To which Reagan Conservatives across the nation would say:  Hallelujah!

I guess my rage is two fold.

Part 1 concerns the following news from rasmussenreports.com:

The new Rasmussen Reports survey of Iowa caucus participants shows Romney on top with 25% of the vote followed by Paul at 20% and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 17%. Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, both at 10%, are the only other candidates in double-digits. Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann earns six percent (6%), former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman four percent (4%), while one percent (1%) prefer some other candidate and eight percent (8%) are not sure.

20%?  Has somebody been injecting the  Iowa corn with tequila or have y’all been smoking the husks?

Do you folks in Iowa not recognize a cranky old isolationist nutjob when you see one?

The second part of my rage has to do with the infiltration of strident, tin foil hat-wearing, Mom’s basement-dwelling, Ron Paul followers into mainstream Conservative websites’ comment sections, where they immediately attempt to treat the site like the ballot box at CPAC, in an attempt to convey a false -bravado powered representation of their Paulian worship, antisemitism, name-calling, and foreign policy naivete as somehow representing the views of the majority of Americans.

Yes, you Paulbots have a right to your opinions, but not to point of accomplishing the written equivalency of stuffing the ballot box at CPAC.

While I believe that Ron Paul has about as much chance of becoming president as Lindsey Lohan does of sobering up,  if some of you are having second thoughts about Ron Paul, remember what President Ronald Wilson Reagan said:

We can not play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent.

Share
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Rage, Ron Paul and Repackaging

  1. I am Sparticus says:

    Way to go!
    Too many of us are guilty of treating Uncle Paul just like the name suggests; a polite, semi-senile, sort of out of touch uncle to whom any voice of contempt or ridicule would be met with a look or word of the same from Aunt (insert name here).
    That the OWS gang is hanging on his every word should be cause enough for alarm.
    The day will soon come when folks will have to start speaking their mind without reservation. This entire post is one helluva start.

    I’d vote for “almost” every Republican canidate for POTUS 2012. I’d even vote for the sad sack Mittens if I had to. God forgive me if it comes to that….

    I would NOT vote for Ron Paul under ANY circumstances. He’s a dangerous man, & in my opinion would plunge the entire globe into chaos. Just the chance that he’d follow thru on some of his hairbrained ideas would cause a host of allies to cut and run.

    I’m a Winston Churchill fan. All are invited to read his “Sinews of Peace” address & take a moment to grasp the thought behind his argument. Now think of Ron Paul.
    I could almost gag at the thought of him “leading” the free world.

    Someone has to come up with a polite way to tell his followers that he’s a jackwagon nutjob. Any suggestions?

    • I am Sparticus says:

      You truly are naive if you think the current turmoil in the Middle East was caused by a CIA action in 1953. There’s no reason to even discuss it further.

      Aside from the purposeful slanting of every position stated, it was a well balanced presentation.

      Music was nice, production above average, & the message is why every reasoned, informed adult in this country will never vote for Ron Paul.

      It’s as if you want to take Ockham’s razor and slit our collective throats. Foolish by any standard, and the days of ignoring that great placating caricature of Zanytown are over.
      I hope that’s clear enough.

      Go Allen! Lets get this guy out of here & save our country.

  2. support the troops says:

    You are so right about Ron being wrong on foreign policy.

    Check out this video, it’s just pathetic. I’ll take my foreign policy advice from the troops.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhxJ1XUGLR0&feature=youtu.be

    • I am Sparticus says:

      Lol! Ditto above Paulbot.
      You believe that 70% of our troops support Ron Paul?

      Take your pick: Shame on you, you lying deceiving bastard, or
      Get your head out of the sand….

      • support the troops says:

        Did the video say that? Or did the video say that Ron Paul gets more donations from active duty military than all the other candidates put combined? Try to disprove that.

        As per your above comment on the other posts video, hmmm… Did you watch that video? I know 13 minutes is a long time for one to spend pondering our foreign policy, but c’mon… Was it the experts in the video that you didn’t like, or the facts? I know Chalmers Johnson is known to be quite the kook! Same thing with Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin laden Unit. Man, that guy probably doesn’t know squat!

        Also, the video didn’t say that the turmoil in the middle east is being caused by one thing we did in 1953, rather, it discusses blowback I suggest you read up on blowback before you enter the cage again…

        so is this how neo cons argue? Completely change what someone says and then argue against whatever they just made up for them? That’s not easy to see through.

        It is fun to watch someone lose composure, because it also means they lost the debate. well done What did that take you; one, maybe two sentences?

        • support the troops says:

          ####all the other candidates put combined?

        • I am Sparticus says:

          Seeing your reply, I put you in the “Lying Decieving” catagory.
          One by one? The entire thrust of the segment was to give the impression that “the troops” (all one of him) support Ron Paul. That’s “lying, decieving.”

          Two: Yes, watched the entire video, & the entire conclusion was forgone.
          Thought for the Day: “The power of a free press lies in what it chooses NOT to report on any given day.” If given FEW enough “facts” I could make Whistler’s Mother dress like Little Bo Peep. You rely on 13 minutes of propaganda as your “proof”, & have the gall to say I “lost” a “debate”?
          There’s no debating Ron Paul is a wack magnet.

          Three: Blowback. I understand Blowback. Forget about blowback, you mention a cage…. you seem to be here to bow at the alter of yourself. I’ll have no part in that.

          • support the troops says:

            The entire thrust of the segment was to give the impression that “the troops” (all one of him) support Ron Paul. That’s “lying, decieving.”

            No it wasn’t, watch it again. It’s about how he gets more donations from active duty military. Any thoughts on that? Or is that just the same 20 paulbots running around pretending to be the troops. They probably also raised the 4million dollars he raised in three days last week. Just the 20 of them…. LOL. Are you starting to feel silly? *pats you on the head*

            Ron Paul gets more donations from active duty military than all the other candidates combined. Why is that?

            13 minutes of propaganda is my “proof” ?? What? Who said that? Did I say this 13 minutes of video is my proof? You wouldn’t know the truth if slapped you in the face. But I understand, this is a religious thing. I get it, I don’t want to challenge your religious beliefs. It would be rude of me to interject with reason and history to refute your spirituality. I apologize for that.

            Blowback – you clearly do not understand it. That is okay, you have time. I suggest google and books

  3. I am Sparticus says:

    Did you know that “Whistler’s Mother” was signed with a butterfly on the upper left? How peculiar. We should get our military out of (fill in the blank). News of the day…..

    You seem to get the concept of condescension. So do I. That will not help this discussion. You will never, ever get me to even consider Ron Paul as someone other than a crackpot & I will announce it at every turn. How’s that for dedication.

    Have at it. We can each have our say. Democracy….or is it a Republic? Fire at will. I’m done. …for now.

    • support the troops says:

      Yes, there we go! What a winner. A true leader, and so well spoken! Neo Conservatism at its finest. Well done

  4. I am Sparticus says:

    Sorry, not done. I hate to bring it up, but your writing remind me of Wee Willie Winkler. No?

    OK. Now done.

    • support the troops says:

      no clue who that is or what you are talking about. Do you? This is my first day here, probably my last. depending on how the neo cons behave

  5. I am Sparticus says:

    Yes I do know what I’m talking about. Anybody else think this is Wee Willie? Are there other topics to which you might expound trooper? I’m interested in your thoughts, other than the Paulbot stuff. Perhaps you could enlighten us.