Just What The Doctor Ordered?

12/21/2011

I want to preface this by stating the obvious: I am not a Ron Paul supporter. I am, however, a supporter of former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Now that I got my disclaimer out of the way I want to make comments about the Iowa Caucuses.

Over the past few weeks poll after poll have been taken in Iowa. For a while, Gingrich had a hefty lead there, but now it appears that Congressman Paul has surged to a top tier status in the Hawkeye state, even passing Romney and Gingrich in one poll. But how can this phenomenon be explained? Is it because Dr. Paul did so well in the last debates? (By most accounts, Paul came off as nutty at best.) Is it because Dr. Paul wants to end the Federal Reserve as we know it? (The common voter could care less about The Fed and probably doesn't even know it's role in the economy.) Is it because Dr. Paul has bold fresh ideas like letting Iran peacefully coexist while developing a nuclear weapon? (Yeah, that should endear him to Iowa voters.) Or is it because Dr. Paul continues to rant that the Founding Fathers would be in favor of his foreign policy? (The Founding Fathers were hardly isolationists...Thomas Jefferson was the first President to send US forces to a foreign country when he send the Navy to modern-day Libya to attack the Barbary Pirates. James Madison tried to invade Canada and he annexed parts of Western Florida that were under Spanish rule.) Paul's meteoric rise has absolutely nothing to do with his ideas, but can on the other hand be accounted for due to the onslaught of negative advertising that the Congressman has done at the expense of Speaker Gingrich, inparticular an TV ad called "Serial Hypocrisy" that is being shown more often in Iowa than a Ron Popeil knife commercial.

Congressman Paul should be ashamed of the tactics used in order to grasp at a nomination that he will in no way shape or form EVER get, though he is despirately trying to convince the voters of Iowa that he is the only true Conservative voice in this race by any means possible, especially disregarding President Reagan's 11th Commandment that "thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." Instead, Congressman Paul has chose to run a campaign of slash and burn that would make General Sherman blush. It's completely understandable that Congressman Paul doesn't remember a great deal about President Reagan, though, as when the President needed his vote, Paul left him standing at the alter in favor of leaving the GOP and becoming the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988.

Let me remind all voters about some quotes that can be atributed to Congressman Paul:

The Houston Chronicle reported on May 23, 1996 that:

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

..."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," Paul said.

...He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

(Dr. Paul claims a ghostwriter did this for him in his newsletters....Even so, the man signed off on them.)

Paul once said about Abe Lincoln:

"I don’t think he was one of our greatest presidents. I mean, he was determined to fight a bloody civil war, which many have argued could have been avoided. For 1/100 the cost of the war, plus 600 thousand lives, enough money would have been available to buy up all the slaves and free them. So, I don’t see that is a good part of our history. Besides, the Civil War was to prove that we had a very, very strong centralized federal government and that’s what it did. It rejected the notion that states were a sovereign nation." (Source: Rightwingnews.com )

On the 40th Anniversary of The Civil Rights Act, Paul said on the House floor:

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife." (Source Lewrockwell.com)

These quotes certainly don't sound like someone who should be a nominee of our party do they? (They certainly don't to me and I know that I will be incurring the wrath of his supporters, which I have given an open forum.) Now I know that on the surface you might be thinking I'm breaking Reagan's Commandment myself. I'm really not as I don't consider Congressman Paul a member of the GOP. I doubt you will either if he runs as a third party candidate which will certainly guarantee another four years of King Barry I.

Comments

Michael

12/21/2011 10:32

I have to agree with Ron Paul's statements on Abe Lincoln and on the civil rights act... they are true!

Yvonne Cousar link

12/21/2011 11:08

I believe that Congressman's surge in Iowa may also have been caused by some strategic ballot stuffing at the straw polls by some of his most ardent supporters.

Spencer

12/21/2011 11:15

I agree with his statements on the Civil Rights Act and Lincoln. I love that you don't mention anything about Newt Gingrich supporting the death penalty for people that bring marijuana (a plant that has never killed a single person) into the country, when he himself smoked marijuana. Gingrich is ridiculous. We don't have the money right now to occupy any nation other than our own.

Bill Knowles

12/21/2011 11:21

I was just reminded of the fact that Congressman Paul didn't endorse McCain in 2008....He instead endorsed Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin....Yeah...Dr. Paul is a bastion of Republicanism....

Robert M. Simon

12/21/2011 17:28

Yes,McCain was a GREAT CONSERVATIVE(rolls eyes)....

Diogenes

12/21/2011 17:55

Ron Paul has said he would consider a VP spot on the ticket of a candidate if he found substantial agreement with his positions. Not blindly endorsing someone of dramatically different positions is a sign of character, rather than blindly following the herd.

Laura

12/21/2011 11:38

"...buy up all the slaves..."???

Who would have worked the fields? Plantation owners would have simply pocketed the money, called Abe a *fool*, purchased more slaves, and the Civil War would still have needed to be fought.

RP is completely out of touch with reality.

TSHayes

12/21/2011 13:17

@Spencer - let's not forget Gingrich impeaching Clinton for lying about an affair while he himself was having an affair.

Perhaps, Mr. Knowles, you might get a better grasp of history and political positions:

1) Uh, Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist who routinely quotes George Washington's warning about getting involved in the internal affairs of other countries. Thanks for using Jefferson, but there are other Founding Fathers.

2) Paying for slaves is EXACTLY how Great Britian ended slavery - without a costly Civil War that continues to create enmity 150 years later. Laura, you are completely out of touch with history.

Crime statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Poor, poor widdle Gingwich. Somebody did a mean ol' commercial and his supporters don't like it 'cause it's working. Boo hoo.

zaq001

12/22/2011 23:27

Let's get the facts correct...the charges arose from an investigation by Independent Counsel Ken Starr. Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater, Starr, with the approval of United States Attorney General Janet Reno, conducted a wide ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Bill Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. In the course of the investigation, Linda Tripp provided Starr with taped phone conversations in which Monica Lewinsky, a former White House Intern, discussed having oral sex with Clinton. At the deposition, the judge ordered a precise legal definition of the term "sexual relations"[2] that Clinton claims to have construed to mean only vaginal intercourse. A much-quoted statement from Clinton's grand jury testimony showed him questioning the precise use of the word "is." Contending that his statement that "there's nothing going on between us" had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned, Clinton said, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement".[3] Starr obtained further evidence of inappropriate behaviour by seizing the computer hard drive and email records of Monica Lewinsky. Based on his conflicting testimony, Starr concluded that Clinton had committed perjury. Starr submitted his findings to Congress in a lengthy document (the so-called Starr Report), and simultaneously posted the report on the internet, replete with lurid descriptions of encounters between Clinton and Lewinsky.

Marie

12/21/2011 15:38

If we had indeed "bought up all the slaves," we'd have just created a big market for slaves. The South would have simply imported more, and sold them to the North, ad infinitum.

We'd have had to have a war to stop them for importing and using human beings as cattle, anyway.

Robert M. Simon

12/21/2011 17:36

Read your history!America is the only country that fought a war to end human slavery.Other countries ended it peacefully and legally,often because it became economically inefficient.Hopefully,you would be consistent and call for a Civil War II to end human abortion in America since it makes Black Slavery look humane.Paul is correct.

mike

12/21/2011 16:00

Reagan did not run in 1988. Ron Paul left George Herbert Walker Bush at the altar not Reagan. And having read Ron Paul's 1988 resignation letter from the GOP I agree with every word. Ron Paul was one of the original 5 Congressmen that supported Reagan in 1976. He was supporting Reagan when George Herbert Walker Bush was calling Reagan's program "Voodoo Economics." Do you remember that smear campaign. I guess Bush didn't follow the 11th commandment. The Reagan second term was Bush's first term. Ron Paul did not leave the GOP in 1988. The GOP left him and all other principled conservatives to follow Bush's "compassionate conservatism." You remember that subtle slam at Reagan? I respect Ron Paul even more after reading his resignation letter and I gained a new perspective on what went wrong in the Reagan years and how they finally left us with the catastrophe of Bush 1 and 2.

RR Kesselring

12/21/2011 16:39

"Congressman Paul should be ashamed of the tactics used in order to grasp at a nomination that he will in no way shape or form EVER get, though he is despirately trying to convince the voters of Iowa that he is the only true Conservative voice in this race by any means possible, especially disregarding President Reagan's 11th Commandment that 'thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.'"

And what, pray tell, is your litany of 'questions' meant for, if they're not purely intended to impugn Ron Paul? Holier-than-thou went out when Gingrich left as speaker. No surprise he's your pick.

No surprise, either, to see you repeating that 'Paul will never get the nomination' tripe. Suddenly, that's the mantra of you scared party hacks, because the real polls have to come out or the pollsters will look bad come the actual vote, and you got nothing left. Having spouted "He's crazy! He's old! He's against national defense!" until your blue stripes show, you have zero ammo against the only candidate who's stuck to his principles 100%. Keep spouting that 'he can't win' b.s., because it only makes Paul activists more active, and will make it more embarrassing for the RNC establishment when he wins in Iowa...and New Hampshire...and...takes at the very least enough delegates to step to the podium before the convention and make his case. If not him this time, his son the next. Tea Partiers won't accept or cast a vote for your fake conservatives ever again.

Americans are tired of business as usual in Washington on both sides of the aisle, and the only "new" idea--observing the plain language of the old Constitution--is coming from Ron Paul.

Bud Grennan

12/21/2011 16:52

Why should Ron Paul be ashamed of telling the truth? The add "Serial Hypocrisy" is not as much an attack add as it is a recap of Newt himself and the media stir that resulted. It's all Newt.

For someone who would support Newt Gingrich as a so called "true" conservative. And say "I don't consider Congressman Paul a member of the GOP" makes me wonder if we are living in some weird parallel universe. Any conservative person with the ability to think objectively who knows Newts history knows that Gingrich is no conservative. You insult the intelligence of voters of the very party you profess to have such loyalty to by saying "The common voter could care less about The Fed and probably doesn't even know it's role in the economy."... I am a Republican voter. I am a successful 25 year veteran business owner. I do understand the Feds role in the economy and It is one of many reasons I support Ron Paul.

How do people like you and Newt Gingrich figure you represent the GOP? The republican voters will determine who represents the conservative party. You opinion is one thing, but it's a far stretch for you to consider that you represent the party as a whole. Ron Paul’s conservatism has not drifted away from the Republican platform. On the contrary, the current GOP establishment has. If the polls indicate Republican voters are returning to the classic values of the late 20th century, for me that is a good thing… Ron Paul never left them.
-
Bud Grennan

Robert M. Simon

12/21/2011 17:26

The author is not very well-versed in recent American electoral history.Rinos do not win(Ford,Dole and Mccain) and when they do,they NEVER reduce spending and only placesit for the next far-left demonrat creep.If Newt or Mitt(and not Paul) get the nomination,be ready for Obama 2.Paul(contrary to the 'wisdom" of the Professional pols)has a better chance of connecting with larger numbers of independents,young people,minorities and disillusioned Democrats than either Romney or Gingrich.The thought that those two clowns could engenerate excitement is laughable.

Diogenes

12/21/2011 17:49

I'm sorry your feelings were hurt when your candidate slid due to the public being reminded of his record. Ron Paul's ad merely exposed Newt's flip-flopping and anti-Republican positions over his years in government and lobbying (historical consultant for Freddie Mac, my arse). Apparently we read different accounts of how Paul did in the debate. This is America, opinions can and do vary.

While it was true for many years that the common voter didn't care about the Federal Reserve, now that we are watching the dollar follow the Euro toward collapse, many voters do care. My 73 year old mother called recently to ask what I knew about the Fed as her friends are starting to talk about it.

Many voters agree with Ron Paul that the hype about Iran POSSIBLY developing a nuke seems very much akin to the hype about Iraq's WMDs and we're tired of endless wars we don't belong in.

You have subscribed to the mainstream disinformation of mislabeling Ron Paul as isolationist. Ron Paul is non-interventionist and there is a big difference. North Korea is isolationist (discourages trade and travel with other nations) while Switzerland is non-interventionist (avoids war unless attacked or under imminent threat of being attacked).

Maybe Jefferson had a split personality because he said:

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none," at his First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

"This I hope will be the age of experiments in government, and that their basis will be founded in principles of honesty, not of mere force."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1796

"War is not the best engine for us to resort to; nature has given us one in our commerce, which if properly managed, will be a better instrument for obliging the interested nations of Europe to treat us with justice."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Pickney, May 29, 1797

Your assertion that Ron Paul's rise is not due to his ideas is your opinion because you don't wish to accept that he is damaged by his own record. It is nevertheless false.

Ron Paul did not sign off on the newsletters. To the contrary, while he did not write them, he has admitted to failing to monitor their content while he was busy practicing medicine. He regrets not monitoring them more closely and has learned from it. And, since they were published nearly 20 years ago, and nothing he has personally ever said, done or written before or since would be indicative of racism, they have been vetted in every campaign since then - and dismissed.
From the campaign four years ago: http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134-naacp-president-ron-paul-is-not-a-racist.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhv3paNz6U&sns=em

It was not Ronald Reagan that Ron Paul stepped away from, but the party - when it strayed from its long held values. The two Rons remained friends.

I thought the same thing you do when I first heard he was against the Civil Rights Act. But I had known him long enough to go find out in his own words why he took that position. Ron Paul is all about individual rights. He VERY strongly believes that every individual should be regarded on their own merits and race just doesn't come into it. He has said he would have gladly marched with Dr. King. But the Civil Rights Act, in his opinion, is unconstitutional because it affords rights to GROUPS of people but the Constitution supports only the rights of individuals - ALL individuals. He says that when you reward (or punish) a group of people, it denies the supreme value of the individuals in and out of that group. He says he is pleased with the progress we've made on civil rights, but he thinks that progress has been made IN SPITE of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) rather than because of it. The reason he believes that is that the CRA resulted in quotas and affirmative action, which fostered resentment among groups protected and groups harmed by the quotas and affirmative action and thus hindered progress on civil rights.

Raymond.

12/22/2011 10:23

Bill Evelyn link

12/22/2011 12:20

Bill Knowles wrote this piece in We are Politics and I just could not allow some mis statements go un answered.

Bill writes: “Is it because Dr. Paul did so well in the last debates? (By most accounts, Paul came off as nutty at best.) Only in the world of We Are Politics is someone who is speaking of peace, limited Constitutional government, and sound money referred to as a nut.”

Bill writes; “Is it because Dr. Paul wants to end the Federal Reserve as we know it? (The common voter could care less aboutThe Fed and probably doesn't even know it's role in the economy.) This disparages the common voter. Voters care about bailouts and inflation. They realize the federal reserve is at fault.

Bill writes; “Is it because Dr. Paul has bold fresh ideas like letting Iran peacefully coexist while developing a nuclear weapon? (Yeah, that should endear him to Iowa voters.) Iran is the only nation in that part of the world that has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It refused to allow inspections after the disasterous war started by Iraq, because it does not want to portray weaknesses to its neighbors. Iran or Persia has not attacked anyone since the Xerxes marched on the Greece in the second Greek War in 483 BC.

Bill writes; “Or is it because Dr. Paul continues to rant that the Founding Fathers would be in favor of his foreign policy? (The Founding Fathers were hardly isolationists...Thomas Jefferson was the first President to send US forces to a foreign country when he send the Navy to modern-day Libya to attack the Barbary Pirates. On May 10, 1801 The Pasha of Libya declared war on the United States after we refused to make blood payments for our captured sailors and ships. James Madison tried to invade Canada and he annexed parts of Western Florida that were under Spanish rule.)” Congress declared war upon Great Britain. Every excursion into Canada was met with defeat. The Americans surrendered at Mackinac Island and were forced to evacuate Detroit. In Flordia President Madison ordered General Jackson to stop the supply shipments to the Creek Indians fighting on the Southern frontier. Yes the Founding Fathers would be in favor of Dr. Paul's foreign policy, because there is no one supplying our enemies within the borders of the United States.

Bill writes: “Paul's meteoric rise has absolutely nothing to do with his ideas, but can on the other hand be accounted for due to the onslaught of negative advertising that the Congressman has done at the expense of Speaker Gingrich, in particular a TV ad called "Serial Hypocrisy" that is being shown more often in Iowa than a Ron Popeil knife commercial.” Paul garnered his hardcore base in 2008 before Newt Gingrich entered the race. Paul is not rising because Gingrich is falling in popularity, Gingrich is falling in popularity because he belittled Mitt Romney is a very left wing class envy way.

The final portion of his post claims Dr. Paul is a racist. Ridiculous!

zaq001

12/22/2011 23:30

Actually, I find that Bill is correct. Ron Paul is nutty....especially on the foreign policy side.

Bud Grennan

12/26/2011 02:10

Do you care to give your reasons for agreement? Other than "Ron Paul is nutty". It would be nice if you base your opinion on critical thought, rather than something so vague.

Your vote is a very very important thing to waste. If you disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy you awe it to the soldiers to listen to why they support it. Take a moment to look deeper.

Here is some material:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhxJ1XUGLR0&feature=player_embedded

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/soldiers-choice/?hp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I8NhRPo0WAo

http://www.youtube.com/user/HonestPresident2012#p/a/u/2/FYxPkKGeVKI

Jeremy D. Adams

12/23/2011 10:12

How come you are chastising Paul for breaking Reagan's "11th commandment" when Newt Gingrich actively campaigned against Dr. Paul running for Congress?

Bill Knowles

12/23/2011 10:20

Jeremy, I have no idea what and how Gingrich campaigned for Paul's opponent but I think it was an endorsement of him not a slam against Paul.

Just What The Doctor Ordered?

Comments

Leave a Reply

Archives

Categories