Although my main issue with Ron Paul was that I believe he’s dead wrong on the war and foreign policy, some of my concerns about Ron Paul were the type of people he attracts. Fringe lunatics of the type that are attracted to the John Birch Society, which like Paul, is excellent in theory but is difficult to associate with as a practical matter. If JBS members restricted themselves to what JBS promotes (and I don’t agree with them 100% but certainly do on issues like immigration and the UN) then there would be no problem. Instead, as a JBS member I found myself surrounded by people who bought into bizarre conspiracy theories and feared the Joooos more than jihadists.
As for Ron Paul, in addition to his loose association with the Loose Change crowd, he’s also uncomfortably concerned with some mythical Jewish conspiracy, and made statements I can only categorize as racist.
- “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.
- “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,”
- “Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.”
- “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
This is the kind of thing that I used to hear from my aunt’s (now former) husband who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. You can go read these quotes in more context at CQ and Flopping Aces, but honestly, this is atrocious. He defended, then disavowed these statements:
In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” Paul says that item ended up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”
But even what he disavows – if the people he voluntarily associated with could write such things – then he’s not just associated with lunatics in the sense that they are passively following him. He’s actively leading. Many people criticize affirmative action without delving into such racist language; there’s so much there to criticize that it can be done on the merits and without getting personal. And his failure to disavow statements like this in a timely fashion, at best displays an astounding lack of common sense and political savvy. If a non-scandal like “macaca” can take out a candidate, surely these statements will as well.
We’re all fringe lunatics to someone. Pick which fringe lunatics you like best or dislike least and do something.
You’re pointing out all the things you heard about Ron Paul that you disagree with, but you’re not pointing out anyone with anything better to offer.
If you want to influence people give them some hope by supporting someone.
The Mises Institute is a bunch of fringe lunatics to the Keynsian economists who are leading our country down the primrose path. They support Ron Paul.
OK. Fred Thompson, so far anyway. But I disagree that we’re all fringe lunatics to someone, in the sense that the “someone” is a person whose opinion I’d necessarily take seriously. All opinions are not equal. For example, if a Truther called me a fringe lunatic, I’d give that no weight whatsoever. My “Uncle Klukker” (see above for KKK reference if you need an explanation…) thought I was a total fruitcake politically. I call that a compliment.
jjr, nobody’s perfect.
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think Ron Paul is the devil or the absolute worst candidate. I think he’s sincere, and I think he’s right on several issues. But I also think he’s dead wrong on what is arguably the most important issue, he’s attracting people I find it prudent to avoid, and he’s shown astoundingly bad judgement by letting these comments, if he isn’t the one who made them, be made on his behalf in his newsletter by his friends/associates/employees or whoever actually wrote them. They went out in his name and he didn’t retract them. That makes him foolish. Foolish, too, for associating with people who think nothing’s wrong with having those opinions and expressing them to begin with.
As far as I’m concerned, that far outweighs his good points – just like McCain’s amnesty position far outweighs his good points on the budget.
Laura, I think I have a better understanding of your position.
As far as the association part, I am not swayed. A lot of people will find some part of Ron Paul’s ideas interesting. As far as the newsletter comments, it seems at worse he can be faulted for not controlling his name some time ago.
As far as Ron Paul’s opinion on the war, I think I understand you better. But I might have missed something. I’d like to understand this better and maybe find ground where we agree.
I assume you favor staying at war. I assume you have an opinion as to why we are at war and what the goals of the war are. Would you mind sharing?
This is not an idle question.
I have heard many answers and for some folks more than one apply: We went to war to find WMD. We went to war to take down Saddam Hossain. We are at war to get control of oil. (That one is tied to parts of recent war funding bills.) We are at war to wipe out Islam. (This is very popular on the Internet.) We are at war to make sure Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq are dead or have fled. We are at war in Iraq to fight terrorism. I know there are variations of opinion on any one of these and I did not intend to misstate any of these. Perhaps your understanding of why we are at war is not listed. Why do you think we are at war?
(I don’t think we have a reason, but I’m open minded, I think.)
If we can’t say why we are at war, that creates an undue hardship for the troops. I understand the discipline of military obedience even under confusing conditions. Yet we can back them up by making the situation less confusing. If the US be at war, let’s be clear about policy objectives (or performance objectives for open-ended war). We don’t want folks to harm with anything less.
Is that something we can agree on?
even if you don’t agree w/ ron on everything – surely we can agree that he is brave and honorable to stand up against the neo-conservatives who are pro-war at any cost. If you are concerned about our aggressive foreign policy of “empire building”, “policing the world”, “pre-emptive strike” and going to war without declaring war (WWII was the last time we declared war as the constitution says we should) think about how many people needlessly die when we don’t declare war – yet we go over in North Korea, and Vietnam. If you stand against this dangerous direction you should support Ron Paul – even if you don’t vote for him (but please do–and you may need to register as a republican to do so – find out for your state) but even if you don’t, we should support the truth on the left and the right – so that we all move closer to rational foreign policy. yeah, i’m a total nerd, i know. good night.
Dar – I don’t want to duke it out over how and why we got into Iraq in the first place. Not only does everyone seem to have their own opinion on this, they also have their own facts. Suffice it to say that I was satisfied by the list of reasons that are on the legislation Congress passed authorizing military action.
Now that we are there, I favor staying and winning for two reasons. 1) Whether or not al Qaeda was there before, it’s beyond dispute that they are there now. Al Qaeda is certainly one enemy we should all be able to agree on. 2) Iran is waging a proxy war against us, and openly building nuclear weapons. If we do end up in a military conflict with Iran, our being established in Iraq will have enormous strategic value. That’s why Iran is sending men and materiel into Iraq to kill our troops now; they may be lunatics but they aren’t stupid – they see the strategic value of it [getting us out of Iraq].
What would winning look like? It would look like a stable, self-governing Iraq which is capable of checking Iran if necessary. This is an achievable goal, because even though it is majority Shia, Iraqi Shia are far more secular than Iranian Shia. Although given recent videos that are making the rounds, Iranians are getting pretty fed up with the Taliban-like regulations as well and some pushback is occurring.
Aaron – I do NOT agree that he is brave for “stand[ing] up against the neo-conservatives.” Being “brave” is not a requirement to voice your opinion in this country. Cowards manage it every day – there are no real repercussions in America for voicing the most outlandish and hateful opinons under the sun. If you need proof, take a look at the Truthers and at the KKK. Jeez… why do you have to dramatize it? Hate Bush and the “neocons” all you want, but you ought to at least have the decency to acknowledge that you’re in no danger for it. People in China and in Russia have to be brave to voice contrary opinions, but you certainly don’t around here – unless you’re so sensitive that you can’t take criticism from other people voicing their opinions.
Ron Paul is the most principled man I have ever know.
He is a true christian. He believes in the Constitution
of the United States of America. He doesn’t believe
it’s proper to kill babies or anyone else for that matter,
He doesn’t cut back room deals. He can’t be bought and paid for by lobbiest.
He is inteligent, humble yet strong
What more could we ask for.
Add “traffic-bait” to your list, Flo.
Everything you listed might be true, but that doesn’t help the fact that he’s dead wrong on the war.
Assuming I understand your position:
1 War should be declared against Iraq with the goal of making sure al Qaeda leaders are dead or have fled.
2 War should be declared against Iran with the goal of removing or destroying all nuclear research, power and manufacturing facilities as well as any product of those facilities.
I think such declarations can only be legally made by congress. Is that a point of agreement?
I think congress should regain control of declaring war, and then declare any wars needed (if any). Is that a point of agreement?
The Constitution has been shredded to the point that a declaration of war by Congress, while desirable, is evidently unnecessary. I’d like to start walking that back, but it’s going to take decades, and frankly right now I think we have bigger fish to fry. Many people make the argument that Lincoln abused the crap out of the Constitution during the Civil War – and yet, some time subsequent to that war we got back on track.
So to answer your questions… Bush and Congress have made a lot of mistakes, and will continue to. I would prefer they legally declared war, but then, against what country? The *governments* of Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. do not officially support terrorism as a matter of policy. This is a lot more complex than it was in WWI and WWII.
At this point we have tens of thousands of jihadis that are often, but not always, associated with al Qaeda. Home grown terrorists are increasing as well – reference the 7/7 bombings and the recent survey of Muslims in the US – 26% think suicide bombing is acceptable. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that al Qaeda is the one and only enemy. The enemy is scattered in many countries, and defined by their ideology, not nationality or race. We’ve never fought under these circumstances. (Also take note of the fact that Iran has basically been at war with us since 1979.) And our nominal ally, Saudi Arabia, has funded and exported the enemy for decades.
The enemy continues to fight us and successfully recruit because they think they have a reasonable chance of winning. We need to convince them that’s not true. They are advancing all over the west in the cultural battlefield under the guise of multiculturalism – although other religions are not as “equal” as Islam. How do you fight an ideology? That’s new territory, but I’m guessing we marginalize it as much as possible; kill them the minute they take up arms, punish them for inciting and funding violence, mock and deride them for the abuse and inequality they advocate and practice.
There are a lot of things we should be doing that we are not, including finding ways to force Saudi Arabia to stop funding Wahabbism, and Pakistan to stop protecting the enemy. The recent attempts to destablize Iran are an excellent idea; if we can force a regime change without actual combat that is to everyone’s benefit, including the people of Iran who are chafing under the draconian laws of the mullahs.
Look at countries which have not fought it much or effectively, like the Netherlands, Denmark, and to a point, France, and I think we’d agree that we wouldn’t want to live there. So we need to figure this out.
I believe we should stay in Iraq until -
- al Qaeda leaders and the vast majority of followers are dead.
- Iraq is able to secure it’s borders and defend itself against Iran.
and we should –
- use political pressure as much as possible to try to force a regime change in Iran.
- find some way to destroy what nuclear capabilities Iran does have, even if it means military action – airstrikes, etc.
Other items on the to do list –
- stop any kind of financial aid or trade with countries that support terror in any way. If that means gas prices triple because we won’t deal with Saudi anymore, so be it. Under those conditions we’ll find fuel alternatives pretty fast.
- stop kowtowing to Islam in any way. It is not owed respect, any more than Christianity or Buddhism is.
- take the position and sell the public on the idea that we have a culture that may be imperfect, but is well worth defending. It is far better than the culture we are fighting.
These things are ideas for a start, by far not comprehensive. We should be doing a lot more.
Added: this article is very good, regarding the semantics and thinking about the “war on terrorism.”
‘Corruption, meet your ass.’ -Ron Paul
I myself am not a Ron Paul supporter, I’m just looking for anything that can really substantiate the claims that he’s a bigot in case I want to use that information in discussions with peers.
You seem to be fairly well-spoken, but my problem with what you’ve written here is that you have no sources cited, nothing at all that can prove you’re not making things up. How can I take what you say as fact? For all I know, everything here is a complete fabrication. Let me know when you have some VERIFIABLE information on here, and I’ll take you more seriously.
Alissa, as I wrote in the post, “Instead, as a JBS member I found myself surrounded by people who bought into bizarre conspiracy theories and feared the Joooos more than jihadists.” I’m talking about my personal experiences, and I’ve posted before on how Ron Paul was viewed by the chapter I was a member of. I AM the source. Take my word for it, or don’t. But there is ample proof in his own newsletters, linked all over the place, just Google it, of his views.