Nov. 17, 2007
Don't Believe The Ron Paul Hype
National Review Online: GOP Long-Shot Highly Admired By His Fans, But Has Inconsistent Principles
-
Republican presidential hopeful, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, talks to The Associated Press during an interview at Nashua High School South, in Nashua N.H. on Wednesday November 7, 2007. (AP)
-
Play CBS Video Video Paul On Funding Campaign Bob Schieffer talks with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul about how he became a serious contender for the presidency by raising $4 million in one day via the Internet.
-
Video Paul: American Empire Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul talks with Bob Schieffer about how he believes the U.S. has built an empire overseas that is weakening the nation's security and economy.
-
Video Internet Helps Underdogs GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul raised over $4 million in one day through the internet. Jeff Greenfield talks with Katie Couric about how the internet helps fringe candidates.
-
Interactive The Money Race See the latest campaign finance tallies from Obama and McCain.
-
In-Depth 2008 Presidential Hopefuls Profiles and the latest news on the Democrats and Republicans running for the White House.
Memo to: Ron Paul supporters
Subject: Your e-mails
Okay, enough is enough. Like every other journalist in America, and who knows, maybe the world or even the universe, I’ve been deluged with your letters and e-mails. So I’ve done as you asked and taken a closer look at your candidate. Here is what I’ve found:
1. Ron Paul is inconsistent. Though he calls himself a man of principle and is apparently admired as such by his ardent fans, his principles seem somewhat elastic. He rails against the Bush administration for its supposed assault on civil liberties, yet when he was asked at one of the debates whether Scooter Libby deserved a pardon, he said no. “He doesn’t deserve one because he was instrumental in leading the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn’t need to be in.” Notice that he didn’t say it was because Libby was guilty of committing a crime. No, because Libby argued for a policy with which Paul disagreed, he deserved to serve time in prison. Ron Paul, the libertarian, who presumably values liberty above all, is willing to deprive someone else of his because of a policy disagreement?
2. Ron Paul is historically challenged. He argues that by embracing isolationism, he fits within a Republican tradition stretching back to Eisenhower “who stopped the Korean War” and including Nixon “who stopped the war in Vietnam.” Let’s recap. Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against China. It was the Eisenhower administration that had a hand in toppling Iran’s Mohammad Mossedegh (an intervention that Paul has elsewhere cited as causing the United States grief 25 years later when the Islamists took power). Eisenhower also intervened in Guatemala, Cuba (planning for the Bay of Pigs began during his tenure) and Lebanon.
Nixon, an isolationist? Most observers, whatever they may make of detente with the U.S.S.R. and the opening to China, agree that Nixon was an emphatic internationalist. For the record, he intervened in many countries including Chile, Peru and Cambodia. And he saved Israel by resupplying her during the Yom Kippur war. Neither his successes nor failures grew out of a Paulesque policy of “minding our own business.”
3. Ron Paul is unserious. Suggesting that you will eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office is ridiculous. These are bumper stickers, not serious reform proposals.
4. Ron Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists. As syndicated radio host Michael Medved has pointed out, Ron Paul’s newspaper column was carried by the American Free Press (a parent publication of the Hitler-praising Barnes Review). Paul may not have been aware of this. But though invited by Medved to disavow any connection, Paul has so far failed to respond.
Paul has appeared on the Alex Jones radio program not once, not twice, but three times. Jones is the sort who believes that black helicopters are coming to impose a police state on America. He is quite concerned about the Bohemian Grove, the Bilderbergers, the federal election system (it’s rigged, of course) and so on. Naturally, he believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Ron Paul has even appeared in a Jones film, "Endgame," the point of which is apparently that the Bilderbergers are plotting to control the world. They’ve already got Europe (through the European Union) and now are on the verge of securing America by means of a North American union that would unite Mexico, the United States and Canada.
Even if Paul says nothing insane in this film, his appearance alone calls his judgment into question. I have not seen "Endgame," but I have heard a tape of Paul on the Jones program just after the 2006 election. Jones asked the congressman whether the victory for the Democrats wasn’t a “rejection of neo-fascist imperialism.” Paul replied, “Yeah ... This was a healthy election as far as I’m concerned.”
Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of a number of racist, neo-Nazi and conspiracist Web sites. While Paul cannot be held accountable for the views of cranks and kooks, he can disavow their support and return their checks. He received $500 from Don Black, the proprietor of Stormfront.org and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. He has not yet returned it.
Moreover, Paul seems to be playing a sly game with his conspiracy-minded fans. He does not explicitly endorse the crazier theories out there, but he hints at dark forces in the U.S. government threatening our liberties, he inveighs against the “neo-cons” (shorthand for Jews in some circles), and he gives aid and comfort to the paranoid by appearing on their favorite radio shows.
No, Ron Paul is not my candidate. Not for president. He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians.
By Mona Charen
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.
 | America's Premier Site for Conservative News, Analysis, and Opinion. |
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 7
- next
See all 123 Commentshttp://www.creators.com/write/opinion/mona-charen.html
2. He only said that the Republicans Nixon and Eisenhower "were elected to end the wars" meaning that that was their platform. Why do I have to elucidate everything for this moron Cheren.
3. He jestfully said he''d immediately eliminate these agencies when jabbed by a condescending FOX News *** clown. When asked by a journalist with gravitas he said "I understand it will be a difficult long phased process supported by American people."
4. I wonder how many kooks support the other candidates. Anyway conspiracy theories are interesting, and entertaining. What would America be like without them. It would be full of people who got in line, shut their mouths, and id what they are told. I bet you''d love that Mrs. Cheren, you wench you.
1) Elastic principles? Please, he has more principles in one nose hair then you have brains in your whole cranium. Why should he explicitly say "no, he''s guilty of committing a crime." That''s OVERSTATING THE OBVIOUS you slimy hag. Sure, Ron Paul is that myopic to not pardon someone on mere policy disagreement. Are you from Mars Mrs. Sharon I mean Cheren.
Good journalism, good journalism%u2026 where are you? (Overheard while America is searching under their couches and in the garage for a fair and researched article) So you took a closer look at Dr. Paul? In doing so you proved to any good researcher, that you did not listen to what Ron Paul said specifically about Scooter Libby, you don%u2019t understand the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism, it is highly possible that you have never read the constitution nor the specific roles of the IRS, CIA, and other government agencies in comparison to what they have been doing, and have attacked the English language to insinuate false claims, and discourage critical thinking.
1. (You attacked his principles) What I think Ron Paul was really saying about Scooter Libby, is that he should be arrested for treason. If you take an oath to tell the truth in court Ms. Charen and it is proven that you have lied, that is called perjury and is a criminally punishable offense. If you take an oath to uphold The Constitution for the united states of America and it is proven that you have not upheld that oath, shouldn%u2019t that also be a criminally punishable offense? If not, then where or how can there be any accountability?
- Was Mr. Black''s contribution in any way illegal?
"He does not explicitly endorse the crazier theories out there, but he hints at dark forces in the U.S. government threatening our liberties, he inveighs against the %u201Cneo-cons%u201D (shorthand for Jews in some circles), and he gives aid and comfort to the paranoid by appearing on their favorite radio shows."
- At this point the government can declare anyone an enemy combatant, throw you in jail and keep you from everyone for an indefinite period. I don''t remember that being in the Constitution anywhere.
- As far as what "neo-con" means, there are so many conflicting definitions I doubt there is one with which all agree. For what it''s worth I think Dr. Paul was grouping those in President Bush''s administration who pushed for the invasion of Iraq. This list would include Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Mideast advisors John Hannah and David Wurmser; Robert Joseph and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. Also included were Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith and his aide William Luti, Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, and global issues assistant Paula Dobriansky at the State Department.
His Scooter Libby remark must be linked with Paul''s assertion - many times- that Libby broke the law.
Paul''s reference to past republican administrations wasn''t that they are a model for foreign policy but rather that to point out that elements of non-interventionist policy have been in place.
Finally, Paul is not an isolationist. Indeed, as he has said many, many times, he is the opposite. Please read what he says and listen to his speeches! Non-intervention and isolationism are NOT the same thing.
Finally, don''t label all of Dr. Paul''s supporters as kooks etc. The vast majority of us are just average citizens. All campaigns attract folks that think differently. As Dr. Paul says, diversity is a strength.
Scared of him, sounds like to me.
Yes, we all know the NRO is a neo-con rag and that dear Mona is usually pushing their rightist slime line. That''s no excuse for netwits to fill up the comments section arguing about a "candidate" of your own creation. Before you take the "success" of your creation too seriously, remember Howard Dean.
Posted by ebinrock at 10:49 PM : Nov 18, 2007-----------------------Excellent points, not to mention correct too! The leaders have violated the 9th. Amendment to the Constitution which says,......The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people...........This means in modern day American that it is unconstitutional (against the law of the land) to twist the meanings of our rights by some pet interpretation to diminish/confiscate the other rights a citizen has. The founding fathers were not confused about their authorship of the Constitution they gave us,........not even a little bit!
So Mona Charen, if Ron Paul is not your president, which of the other candidates will be your dictator? Because that is what we are definitely moving towards. Protect this republic!
4. %u201CRon Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists.%u201D Define %u201Ccozy%u201D. Ron Paul cannot possibly know each of the thousands (maybe millions) of supporters out there personally. Define %u201Ckooks%u201D. I know I%u2019m not one. Conspiracy theorists? Well, you may not agree with everything they say or anything they say, but you have to admit, with all the secret government we have in Washington (and internationally), can you really blame them for thinking there are conspiracies? And in a way, they want what everyone in America wants %u2013 freedom and respect for the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
3. Yes, Ron Paul is serious about small government, just as serious as he was when he sponsored the bills in Congress that would have done the same (e.g., H.J. Res. 23, 110th Congress). And they are more than bumper stickers. The U.S. Constitution only authorized the federal government to do maybe a dozen things related only to (1) protecting this soil, and (2) protecting our individual rights as citizens. The hundreds (or possibly thousands) of agencies and programs out there have slowly crept up over the last 200+ years, all in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution wasn%u2019t even afforded the respect of amendment to implement these things; they were just done.
2. As I recall, Ron Paul merely stated what earlier Republicans'' POSITIONS were on foreign policy and conservative spending. Now whether they carried these positions out when elected is a whole other matter, which makes them all liars. Paul even cited Bush in 2000 PROMISING a more humble foreign policy (I saw the actual video of the 2000 debate), with no more nation building, etc., yet look at what we have today under his administration.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 7
- next
See all 123 Comments