All of that may be true. It may well be the case that some or many of the people bashing Ron Paul do so in the ways you describe. But my point was only that it is not true of all of Ron Paul’s critics. At least some of us do not “take him seriously” for reasons that have nothing to do with his views about the war.

Maybe, just maybe it is time for comments around here to start dealing with what people who are actually around here think and not from projections about what FoxNews or Michelle Malkin thinks. At a minimum, doing so would decrease the level of rancor that inevitably results when people who are not Michelle Malkin and who are not from FoxNews keep getting treated as if they were accountable for statements that those other people allegedly made.

In short, if you libertarians are so big on individualism, maybe you should start treating your interlocutors as individuals. You have often asked to be treated as an exception to the common assumption that everyone who opposed the Iraq war was from “the left”. Well, this is the same thing back at you. Just as it is true that not all Iraq war opponents come from “the left” it is also true that not all Ron Paul critics come from “vociferously” pro-war perspectives.

So are you willing to make the same kind of concession to individual differences of approach that you yourself ask for?

If one visits Captain’s Quarters or Pajamas Media or Michelle Malkin’s Blog or listens to Fox New’s Sean Hannity, Karl Caermon, or John Gibson, the one common thread is that Ron Paul is criticized as being an isolationist who claims that America invited the 9/11 attacks.

Much of the rest of the criticisim comes either from partisan Democrats who will never vote for Ron Paul simply because he has an “R” after his name or from hard core progressives who don’t like his smaller government stance (big surprise there).

Ron Paul’s paleolibertarian views transcend the left-right spectrum. He is fiercely critical of both the Republican and Democratic leadership. In other words, when people say he’s a danger, they’re right. He’s a danger to those who are in power. And a number of the people attacking him now are either fierce Republican partisans or fierce Democratic partisans who have no consistent views of their own and are simply uncomfortable with the idea of a maverick who makes their convenient left-versus-right soundbytes obsolete.

Have you watched either of the Republican Debates sponsored by Fox News? Have you not noticed how Fox News moderators have distorted or mocked his positions both during and after the debate. No other GOP candidate has faced similar treatment from Fox News.

Pro-choice, pro-gun control Rudy Giuliani gets a pass from Sean Hannity, but Ron Paul, who’s more in the mold of a Robert Taft Republican is treated as a pariah.

If taking a consistent stand in favor of smaller government (as Ron Paul does) is an extremist position, then perhaps Republicans should stop advertising themselves as being for smaller government.

A number of conservatives and Republicans criticizing Ron Paul claim they are for free markets and smaller government, but they’re all to willing to compromise on these ideal when it’s convenient.

Republicans spoke out against runaway government spending when Democrats controlled the White House. Why not when a Republican controlls the White House?

Republicans (including Bush) spoke out against nation-building when Democrats controlled the White House. Why not when a Republican controlls the White House?

Also, with the exeption of Jim Satterfield, I urge you to check out the blogs of some of the people who are criticizing Ron Paul. These are the same people who have vociferously defended the Iraq War from the very beginning.

The reason that Ron Paul isn’t taken serious is because his views are constantly and blatantly misrepresented by pro-war pundits.

The vast majority of people I know who don’t take Ron Paul seriously do so because of his views on issues other than the war.

There are other important issues than the war, you know. It seems important to frequently remind some people of that. And what I find comical is the way that many of Ron Paul’s supporters focus on the war and try desperately to shove his other stuff under whatever rug-type covering is available.

Why Isn’t Paul Taken More Seriously?

Michael,

Is the answer really that difficult?

The reason that Ron Paul isn’t taken serious is because his views are constantly and blatantly misrepresented by pro-war pundits. Fox News is among the worst offenders.

Who can forget the May debate in which pro-Bush hacks Wendell Goler, Karl Cameron, and Sean Hannity outright distorted Ron Paul’s foreign policy position? Or what about John Gibson claiming that Ron Paul blamed 9/11 on the government?

Maybe we ought to take a look at some of the pro-war bloggers that TMV regularly links to. You guys might think the world of Captain’s Quarters, but Captain Ed was quick to join in the Ron Paul-bashing and distort his position.

Captain Ed on May 22, 2007:

I have watched with some amusement as centrist, liberal and uncategorizable blogs attempt to herald Ron Paul as a reasonable conservative, especially after his statement in the last debate that claimed that American foreign policy invited the 9/11 attacks. That blame-America, 18th-century isolationist thinking appeals to a large subset of the voting population, and for the past week we have been treated to an avalanche of paeans to Ron Paul in the blogosphere.

1. Ron Paul NEVER said America invited the 9/11 attacks. Wendell Goler of Fox News used the word invited, and Giuliani–being the 9/11 exploiter that he is–was quick to pounce on Ron Paul and pretend that Paul had said something that he had not.

2. I find it comical how often war supporters toss around the word isolationist, as if anyone who is the least bit anti-war is something to be scorned. I guess in Captain Ed’s views, the George Washington must have been an isolationist.

3. It’s funny how conservatives like Captain Ed constantly criticize progressives for wanting bigger government and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Yet when Ron Paul, who is more sympathetic to smaller government and a strict interpretation of the Constitution as anybody in Congress, bothers to stand up for his views, conservatives like Captain Ed are the first to criticize him.

It’s simple. The Republican Party claims to support fiscal conservativism and strict Constitutionalism. Ron Paul has called them on their bull. Meanwhile, having long been a critic of the policies espoused by the Democratic Party, he isn’t making too many friends among partisan Democrats as well.

Ron Paul defies his party and the left-versus-right political spectrum. War supporters know they can’t tag him as a leftist as they love to do to any left-of-center opponent of the war, and this enrages them. So they simply distort his views and deride him as some right-wing lunatic.

His solutions do seem radical, but so do the Bush administration’s policies, that limit our liberty.

Libertarianism is simply the mirror image of the insanity of communism.

I believe Ron Paul is the closest available match to my attitudes about the role of the Federal government. I want local and state governments to hold more of the authority and responsibility currently assumed by our Federal government. I want the Federal government to be limited by the constitution. I don’t think it is so much that libertarians want no governance, but that we don’t think power and control should be held so far away from individuals and families. I don’t see that as the mirror image of communism.

Once Ron paul has been booted out of the GOP and ridiculed beyond redemption by the Neocon owned media, just put Mr Paul on an aeroplane over to England for me would you! We could do with his services over here in our own totalitarian nanny state.

Thankyou very much

And God bless Ron paul

Saying that we are going to go back to slavery after Ron Paul eliminates all these government programs is total socialist BS. Ron Paul says we should not see people as groups but as individuals.

However, Simon, lets take your point about the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, which are perfectly valid. Firstly, I doubt that a President Paul would seek to interfere with those acts – from a practical there are greater things that he would try to do. However, the Civil Rights Act does violate property rights and really should have formed the basis of a constitutional amendment.

Second, I think Paul would agree with the position that if there is a “moral exigency”, the constitution should be used to lawfully authorize government to do something about it i.e. declare war.

Third, with your point about Paul’s interpretation of the constitution to limit state powers as mildly offensive – thats not only his point of view but also the founders and those who believe in the rule of law.

Although I disagree with your points, thank you for posting something more than just vitriol.

Ron Paul had won the text message poll after the debate at 33% For some mysterious reason they changed him to 2nd place the next day.

lurxst,
Check the date on the second link—you’re looking at the results from South Carolina. I made the same mistake. It’s misleading. Search Google for “new hampshire debate fox poll results” or anything like it, and you get sent to what looks like New Hampshire’s. So where are the results? They remain unpublished by Fox News from what I can gather. But you can see them in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us9DAkxkQuA

Frankly, I don’t care if Ron Paul can’t accomplish everything he wants since congress wouldn’t go along. Somehow that doesn’t mitigate the fact that anyone who can seriously want to do the thing that he wants is highly delusional and completely ignorant of how anything works in the real modern world. It also doesn’t help that he doesn’t believe in individual rights that the majority can destroy on a whim if they think it’s good social policy. At least as long as the state does it instead of the federal government.

Sounds…… great.

Maybe he should just shut down the Government. Worked great last time.

To quote from his earlier post:

If you love the “mainstream” so much I hope you will be the first in line to get “your papers”, the national ID Card and wave the new North American Union Flag when the USA and the Constitution become irrelevant.

And David is wrong because someone who doesn’t believe in the mission of an agency or who is simply dismissive of the role of the federal government in virtually anything in the real world can just put people in who share his philosophy and won’t do the job they are supposedly there to do. In the current administration it meant putting in people for the sake of their connection to the Republican party. Remember, Brownie did a heck of a job.

Ron Paul does not believe in small government, he believes in minuscule government for a very large and complex nation that exists in a complex world. To call that attitude (shared by his supporters) foolhardy is an understatement. While he doesn’t believe in the federal government limiting individual rights in the name of religion he has no problem with individual states doing so. Libertarianism is simply the mirror image of the insanity of communism.

Ron Paul is a reactionary. He wants to bring us back to the 18th century. What he fails to realize was that the United States was a backwater hick nation then with 1/3 of it’s population enslaved. Not really very appealing to me.

Cutting taxes is great. How does Ron Paul propose to cut the commensurate spending? Does he plan to eliminate SS? Medicare? The military? Because those 3 programs represent 75% of our spending.

All you have to know in order to realize why he’s not taken seriously is to read what his supporters have posted here.

And David is completely and utterly wrong because in the real world a President who is as much of an extremist as Ron Paul can do a world of damage by himself just with executive power.

Huh? Sir would you care to elaborate your points?

Also Ron Paul has stated time and time again that he would not abuse executive powers. He would even repeal many of the current draconian executive orders on the books as he knows they are unconstitutional.

So where is your argument? Are you just on the “Paul is nuts” bandwagon that is about to fall off a very steep cliff when Ron Paul announces the millions he has raised in small donations (from the people and the military) this quarter thrusting hims ahead of many of the current candidates?

“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a
scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When
his cause succeeds, however, the timid join
him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.”
- Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935