Ron Paul and Republicans
I was planning on watching the Republican debate last night, but I couldn’t. For some odd reason, my DirectTV receiver would not pick up Fox News. Seriously. I could watch any channel except that one. When I changed the channel to Fox News, the Receiver shut off (insert Conspiracy theory here). Weird. However, I did catch Fox’s Review of themselves. Reading that, Ron Paul really looked good — and everyone else on the stage hated him.
Check this great line out:
Let’s put it in perspective. We have five small speedboats attacking the U.S. Navy with a Destroyer? They could take care of those speedboats in about five seconds. And here we’re ready to start World War III over this?
How about that? Everyone else is all upset. It was a US Navy DESTROYER. It’s highly likely that if all the speedboats attacked at once that there wouldn’t even be a scratch in the paint on the ship. Indeed, everyone else IS blowing this out of proportion. Why? Perhaps a lot of people are looking for reasons to keep US soldiers deployed all around the world.
How about this zinger:
He thinks we should be there for a 100 years if necessary. How can he commit the young people of this world, five more generations, to be in Iraq as necessary.
Who is “He?” Every other Republican and Democrat candidate. Seriously. They honestly want the US to be the world’s bully — and not a one of them care about the effects of that, none. They all, except Paul, believe the US is the biggest and most powerful in the world, and that we can literally do anything we want to anyone on the planet without any consequences. Now that’s hubris.
The article ends with this quote from Paul:
You’re saying now that we have to continue borrowing more money from China to finance this empire we can’t afford. Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf, who is a military dictator who overthrew an elected government, and then we go to war, we lose all these lives, promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean what’s going on here? And you’re saying (I am) not appealing to Republicans?
It doesn’t say how anyone else responded to that. I’d love to hear anyone in Washington defend borrowing $10 million from China to give to Musharraf. They can’t. But all the other candidate will continue to do so because none is truly for even a little change.
So why all the hatred for Paul? Because he WOULD change things — a lot. Chuck Baldwin has a good article up about why there really is so much hatred for Paul. If you, good reader, don’t like Paul, please do read it and see if you see yourself. If your only reason for hating Paul is his supporters, read what Paul has said over and over again:
I can’t tell people what to do, but I’ve abandoned those viewpoints [9-11 truthers]. I don’t believe that, and that’s the only thing that is important. And so I don’t endorse anything they [lunatic supporters, racists, etc.] say. But the only thing I have control over is what I believe and what I say.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Possibly similar posts - Republican Debate - More On Ron Paul - Ron Paul: Electable? - The Hatred of McDonald’s - NC Primary Election Results
In all honesty, I watched the debates and Ron Paul made a lot of 10 point comments, but he also took some comments out of context and on one comment he was “busted” by Wallace as it was as if he didn’t hear what the previous commenter had said. I still think Ron Paul has made many viable points, but I will never agree with him on his point about Israel. I don’t think the US pulling completely out of negotiations will result in the Israelis and Arab nations just “working it all out”. Israel has always been a friendly nation to the US, probabably because American Jewish people almost all have family that have migrated there, but none the less, there have been many of those Arab nations who flat out want Israel wiped out! It’s not about the land since Israel is a very small piece of real estate, it is about the hate that seems to be part and parcel with Islam and Arabic culture. If America can learn diplomacy and maintain it’s friendships with other nations, fine. But if we are the big power in the world, we do have some responsibility to the few friends we have “out there”. I agree with Ron Paul in many ways, but then he goes “way out there” with the isolationist deplomacy thing. I don’t think he answered the “truther” question that well either. I think he should have made note of the fact that there was plenty of solid evidence out there that the “theory is in fact wrong” and he has turned away from it as a result.
He has influence over these “misguided people” and it was an opportunity to use his influence to help do away with one of the many lies that people are buying into. It was a missed opportunity to shine from my viewpoint. Yes, you can’t make up peoples minds for them, but he blew off any responsibility to make a strong stand for the truth on that. JMHO. And then there is the way Ron Paul “delivers when he speaks”.
He sounds like a “hurt little boy” and is prone to sounding whiney. I was very disappointed because I saw way too much emotion and he was visably overwhelmed with it when he responded to attacks. That cuts into one’s credibility in a debate. John McCain, who I can’t stand, was under the gun more than once from the other candidates and he scores high marks in his rebuttles because he didn’t show that he was emotionally shaken by the comments, he just addressed them in stride without missing a beat.
Romney was much like Paul… he showed irritation when answering attacks and kicked out negatives on the individual he was rebutting. When it was done, I was really wishing Ron Paul had someone really good behind him to help him with his speaking skills and delivery. I think he would have done much better if he had that advantage. I agreed with him about 80%, but I felt more strongly toward Fred Thompson to be honest. Now I will spend the rest of the day processing “how the body english and tone of voice” changed the message for me internally. The biggest problem I have is I would like to see a candidate with Ron’s ideals (small government, controlled spending, and stay out of world affairs as far as not policing the world goes… but also see a man who has a “don’t tread on this nation” attitude. We live in a world climate where many evil people are watching and waiting and hoping we put an anti-war whimp in the White House! You know, someone they can push and shove and they will do “nothing”. I am almost sorry I even watched the debates to be honest. Just sharing my thoughts and will love hearing yours.
I bet you can find more things to disagree with every other candidate. I know I can.
As for Israel, do you think they cannot handle themselves? They have, again and again, WITHOUT US intervention, defended themselves. They have nuclear weapons. I am quite confident that no harm will come to them.
As for his voice, well, if all you want is someone who looks presidential, I guess Romney’s your guy. Unfortunately, I think for very many people today, they honestly are more concerned with looks than with actual values.
You are probably right about Israel. I think most of what we know about fighting terrorism has come from them.
It bother’s me that I know Ron Pauls “personna” does affect how people percieve him. I do wish people would shake off the “somebody has to look and sound presidential” idea. I mean there was nothing “presidential” about James Madison!!! John Adams had a personality that was abrasive to even his friends, a personality flatliner if you will. I do admit, most of what Ron Paul had to say, I agreed with. And Mitt Romney is a waste. I’d have more confidence in a used car salesman!!!! You are right, Ron Paul does have the true values of a conservative.
I think perhaps, as I heard on a radio show the other day, that positions do not matter any more in elections. Instead, the presidential campaign is nothing more than a huge popularity contest — Star Search on steroids. It’s more about who looks the best and who acts the best — no matter what they actually stand for.
Don’t believe me? What does Obama stand for? He’s a total empty suit. He states no positions, platforms, or proposals — but he’s winning.
That’s a scary thought too. Obama, who is offended by a flag lapel pin that all his peers wear and chose during to campaign to discontinue wearing it and who has been captured on film “not putting his hand on his heart during the National Anthem”… and they want to put this man in the White House when evidence shows he hates America! And then there is that church of his that you blogged about. I really don’t know what America is thinking when they hold these foul people in high regard.
They aren’t thinking. That’s the point. Ideas have no place in today’s politics. None.
Ron Paul is the only candidate to come along running for any office in my adult life that I can really get excited about.
I pray that if (it looks like more accurately - when) he doesn’t get the nomination, he’ll do what Reagan did and run again in four years.
He’s said he won’t run as an independent, but I know a lot are hoping he will do that. I think if he runs again in four years, he’ll get even more support — unless the people still complain that he’s not good-looking enough.
The down side is that in four years, he may just be too old. I think he’s in his early seventies now.
I tell you, I have lots of hope and I really am an optimist — but at the same time, I’m a realist. I think ideas are lost in politics today. It does not matter what one stands for — to win you just have to look the best.
As for age, he’s 73 now. So, for 2012 he’d be 77, ending his term at age 81. He would be, by FAR, the oldest president. Reagan was 69 when he won and 77 when he finished his terms.