It’s Time For Ron Paul to Go Bye-Bye
It’s been a tough few days for Ron Paul, libertarian wetdream and exception to the Republican rule, who has done only one thing well since announcing his candidacy — raising buckets of money on the Internet.
First, everyone’s favorite GOP oddball – that is except within the Republican Party itself – tanked in the Iowa caucus, finishing a distant fifth and besting only Mr. 9/11, who had skipped the state altogether.
Then one of the archeologists digging into Paul’s quixotic background struck a mother lode with the discovery that his campaign newsletters in the early 1990s were filled with bigoted statements.
If that wasn’t a campaign killer, Paul’s finish yesterday in New Hampshire was even worse with him only out-polling Fred Thompson (who is showing signs of rigor mortis), Duncan Hunter (isn’t he the cake mix guy?) and Tom Tancredo (who is no longer in the race).
A particular peeve of mine is national candidates who stand zero chance of being elected but stay in a race. While Paul stands for some things that I agree with in the abstract, he couldn’t get elected dog catcher and knows it.
It’s time for Paul to return all of that money, turn out the lights and go home and lick his wounds.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
46 Responses to “It’s Time For Ron Paul to Go Bye-Bye”
[...] Walter Sobchak wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIt’s been a tough few days for Ron Paul, libertarian wetdream and exception to the Republican rule, who has done only one thing well since announcing his candidacy — raising buckets of money on the Internet. … [...]
[...] Walter Sobchak wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIt’s been a tough few days for Ron Paul, libertarian wetdream and exception to the Republican rule, who has done only one thing well since announcing his candidacy — raising buckets of money on the Internet. … [...]
Those newsletters are not exactly incriminating, and Paul is the only R with the sanity to understand Iraq more deeply than sloganeering. Let him tear a few asses on that side.
He's more dangerous to the R's than Kucinich is to the D's.
I think you are jumping the gun.
Also see Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters
Jilly: Well, that seems to have been a canard.
So, Shaun, what's the real reason you're anti-Paul?
Oh, please. Are you still talking about that newsletter? That is just sad.
Lester Hunt
Who cares if he isn't going to win? He has something to say and running for President gives him a way to spread that message. I don't even like Paul as a candidate, and I disagree with him on a bunch of issues, but it's really refreshing to hear a politican who sincerely believes in what he's saying.
Aside from Paul, would you say the same thing to Kucinich or Richardson or Edwards on the Dem side? Do you think they should all drop out and let Obama and Hillary fight for the nomination. I don't. They represent different aspects of the Democratic party and they definitely add to the debates.
Candidates with nothing to lose and little chance of winning are more likely to press their opponents on issues and call them out on their bs. Guys like Ron Paul force the McCain's and Romney's and Huckabee's to explain and defend their positions which is good for the process and good for the people.
Amanda: exactly.
Cosmo:
I'm not anti-Paul and did note that there are things he stands for with which we can agree. And Amanda makes a good point about him pushing the rest of the field.
Richardson, Thompson and Hunter are dead meat and it's also time for them to turn out the lights because they don't even meet Amanda's test.
Who are you and who cares what you think?
Reagan is turning in his GRAVE! Did you ever wonder why no one has anything bad to say about Ron Paul? Because he's actually a Republican. Their tactic is to say he's unelectable (but they're in the Closet), or to discredit his followers (you know, the one's that have discovered without the Constitution we're not America), or to just not even mention him at all in hopes that he'll go away. But my favorite, are the ones that say the Ron Paul is crazy, or loony, or whatever, because they don't have enough guts to stick up for themselves, and realize if they do that “my mommy state” won't approve. Grow up. Cut your hair. Get a Job, damn hippy! We're sick of paying for your crap! It's no wonder the only writers that ever mention Ron Paul badly, are the one's trying to get a JOB kissing FOX's rear end. Hey, at least then he'd leave mommy's house. Vote Republican, Vote Ron Paul.
If they weren't his, they didn't belong in his campaign newsletters. I get tired of candidates who push responsibility for outrageous statements on former staffers or others when they get called on them. MSNBC had a report on this, and Paul was at the very least aware that those statements were in his newsletters.
I do agree with Amanda, that we are most likely to get honesty from the lower tier candidates who have nothing to lose by coming clean with voters, and think it livens up the election and creates more interest to have a variety of views presented in the debates.
Kritt: in the world of politics, people make deals w backers, supporters, etc., and not all have the resources to vet all their acquaintances. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but if that's the worst he can be smeared with, well, that's pretty damned good.
I just hope the Dems across the country realize what the NH voters did not- that Hill is the only potential Pres loser out of the Big 3. There are Hill haters, and folks like me that just see her for the hack she is. Yes, she's not as oily as Mitt Romney, but she's desperate to be Prez, feels entitled to it like W, and will say or do anything to get it. That is what a hack is.
Wake up people. Please get over the ad hominem attacks. Listen to what the candidates are saying. Look at our economy. Find out what is really going on in Iraq.
1. Candidates are saying they will change our government. How? We spend half of our budget on wars and the results of America's wars. We have government agencies that are not given by the constitution. I don't know of a single candidate that doesn't say they want change and believe in the constitution yet don't want to go against the constitution. The constitution is what makes us American.
2. We are on the verge of an economic break down. We have a dollar that is worth less than Canada's. We are in debt to the tune of $9 trillion. How will a war in Iraq for another 50-100 years help that or expanding government again with national health care?
3.They say the surge in Iraq is working. Do you know how it is working? We are paying people for a cease fire. There are no jobs and tension growing in the south, where we thought things were going good.
America is bad shape. How will we fix it? Listen to each candidate. What are they actually saying. Buzz-words and rhetoric and will they put America on the right path.
I know who I am for based on that. Not for this person because he loves babies or is the right gender or religion. Vote for issues, this isn't American Idol or some beauty pageant.
This is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic where the rights, desires, and views of the minority are protected, taken into account, and accommodated.
In order to do this, you need to hear them speak, not squash their voices.
Occasionally, you will learn that you have been wrong and your life will become better.
I am a Paul supporter, but pretty much agree with Shuan. I just think Shuan is a little early pulling the trigger. I would like to see Paul stick it out through super Tuesday – if only to see if his constituency can be organized into something politically effective post-Paul.
My take: New Hampshire was the high water mark for Paul, for all the reasons Shaun mentions. 8% represents the Libertarian swing vote in the US. Not enough to be a 3rd party that can elect candidates but enough to be a spoiler as a 3rd party. Since we have a highly polarized, roughly balanced partisan electorate, It is also big enough to determine the direction of American politics, if it can be organized to swing as a group between R’s and D’s.
This number is consistent with what David Boaz and Cato determined to be the (small l) libertarian swing vote. The real question is how can these “cats be herded”? If either major party was interested enough in attracting these voters, they could pander to them like any other interest group and potentially win the election as a result. Of course that means they would have to embrace some libertarian policies. Absent that, and absent a candidate to rally around, the organizing principle would have to be something extremely simple, clear, easy to communicate, easily rationalized and proven to keep the country moving in a libertarian (more freedom, more peace, less intervention, smaller government) direction. I have outlined before what that organizing principle could be, the only organizing principle that meets the criteria – Voting for Divided Government. More in the post “Curing Libertarian Electile Dysfunction”
websmith:
I learned that I was wrong after I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. George Bush did not make my life better.
I also agree with Amanda.
As a businessperson I have always valued the colleague who forces me to consider whether doing nothing is better than doing something.
Ron Paul often does this with his pure allegiance to the letter of the constitution.
Yeah, so piece of crap, listen…
All the other candidates are members of The Council On Foreign Relations: Guiliani, thompson, huckabee, McCain, Romney, Obama, hitlary, edwards, kucinich… Only Ron Paul & Mike Gravel are non CFR.
Research the Council On Foreign Relations and you will all be singing a different tune about Ron Paul. Then man stands for what America is supposed to be about. He opposes the evil that has infiltrated our country. Those who do the evil work of the Illuminati know this and they do minipulate the media. Ron Paul should have been given equal amounts of time on everything and he wasn't and there is a reason he wasn't. But, that he didn't get any coverage for all the success he has had is testament that there is another agenda by the MSM who is owned by the CFR by the way. And it should also be said that those do support him are the Americans who are awake and realize the evil hand at work & are trying to take our country back from the agenda of the illuminati. As crazy as I may sound remember this -Truth is stranger then fiction. And the truth about the evil that has infiltrated us is much too severe to face by the average american who has been too dummed down, made fat & stupid to realize anything going on beneath our very noses…
“A particular peeve of mine is national candidates who stand zero chance of being elected but stay in a race. While Paul stands for some things that I agree with in the abstract, he couldn’t get elected dog catcher and knows it.”
Ron Paul is the leader of the new American revolution. Why should he cede control of the national discourse to the enemies of liberty and the law? So long as he keeps bringing up the massive pyramid scheme we call money on national television then he should continue to run. Screw the Presidency – this is a war for our country, for our liberty, for our property, and for our very lives!
Yawn….This is old news long since reported @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
which many of us who have already done our due diligence know. With the amazing bias shown by the mainstream media, and the fact that they tried and couldn't turn it into a major issue is it any wonder that they had to turn to faceless people from pro-neocon internet “magazines”?
Here's my simple opinion on the whole thing. People in the freedom movement (including Ron Paul for the last 30 years) want their message heard. They want to spread the truth about what is going on in this country. As such their tolerance for the opinions of others (which is often not shared by the right, the left, or apparently “the moderates”) sometimes puts them in a situation where they are inadvertently associated with people and things that they don't personally believe. God knows that some of the things said and believed by Patrick Henry (one of the greatest American Patriots!) said were so extreme and inflammatory that he eventually left the country to go back to Britain and then France.
Some of the things used to smear Dr. Paul in yesterday's article are a pure attack on the ideas of those of another school of mind (i.e. individual liberty and the ideals of succession from forces that would control our lives). Others are pointing out the words of someone who is obviously racially skewed by todays standards. However, what I've read of those craptastic writings sounds like something more out of the mouth of a 70's Archie Bunker than someone raised during or after the civil rights movement; the views are completely wrongheaded, but they do have a few specs of “fact” within them.
The writings have been analyzed, they are not Ron Paul's style. Whether or not his newsletter was used to promote the views of a vocal racist minority is irrelevant to today's freedom revolution. The goals of the man today (and consistently in everything he has stood up for in congress) and those in the revolution should be the goals of every American who wants freedom, individual liberty, and a real shot at fixing poverty. Dr. Paul's platforms and credited statements would go farther towards shrinking the racial divide and eliminating poverty and the resultant fighting for table scraps which is at the root of racism. In the eyes of the Revolution everyone should be treated equally and without benefit or malice by the mechanisms of government.
As for Mr. Mullen's statement that Ron Paul should drop out to make room, time, and support for other candidates it will certainly not happen. The American People are waking up, we are paying attention to things that the Establishment does not want us to. With or without Dr. No, we are going to be peacefully pushing for increased liberty and personal responsibility from now until “they” start burning the constitution, then we will be forced to fight with something other than words. Paul has always been a long shot, but as long as his pro-freedom ideals (which are deemed dangerous by so many vested in the welfare-warfare state) spread it doesn't matter to me if in November he immediately starts his 2012 bid for the Presidency. I personally will fund him until he stops putting forth the cause of liberty.
Mr. Mullen,
Why do you think anyone cares what your pet peeves are? Ron Paul is the single best candidate to come down the pike since Abraham Lincoln. If you can't see that then you truly have job fit as a mouthpiece for an organ of mediocrity advocating a policy of sleep to a populace that will deserve the government they get.
Just because you're getting paid not to doesn't mean you shouldn't think a little more before you jump on the 'slam Paul because he can't win' bandwagon. You have freedom of the press for now, but don't look back, something might be gaining on you. Are you going to remain a shill or be forced to work for a living?
Dmac
Big Island
I call out to everyone- do not give up, do not stop. This is not about Ron Paul winning the Presidency. This is about WAKING PEOPLE UP to what is going on around them. We must never quit, we must keep our eye on the prize- the prize is FREEDOM! The press is against us, so this means that it is US that needs to tell them about just who annoints those to the presidency.
Never shut up, never let them tell you that your voice does not matter. NEVER let them tell you that “You cannot win”
WE ALREADY HAVE.
THE FREEDOM TRAIN IS COMING!
Start with the press. They MUST be held accountable for leading and lying us in to this war. we must DEMAND that they sever their ties with the war machine and the corporatocracy. The NEW PRESS MUST RISE UP! OUR VOICES MUST BE HEARD! The MSM is going up in flames, and they smell the smoke.
All:
We're seeing an unhealthy dose here at TMV of what has happened at other blogs where writers do not toe the Ron Paul line:
Ad hominem and personal attacks. While one has to admire the enthusiasm of Paul's supporters, they don't help his supposedly noble cause by screaming that the messenger should be shot.
Quoting Ross Douthat:
“You know, I half-believe Ron Paul when he says that he is not a bigot or a racist or an anti-Semite. I half-believe him in when he says the inflammatory material that James Kirchick has uncovered in years and years of newsletters and pamphlets with his name on them was written by others without his supervision or direct permission. But what I'm nearly sure of is that he doesn't really care that much if some of the people around him are racists – not because he shares their opinions, but because he thinks those opinions aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things.
“This doesn't make Ron Paul a terrible person; it just makes him human. He believes in a constellation of ideas – some of them nutty, but some of them not – that have been shunted to the fringe of American political life. And people who find themselves in that position tend to be far, far more forgiving of their allies' various tics and idiosyncracies and yes, bigotries than would otherwise be the case. It's unfortunate, but it's also human nature: If someone agrees with you and supports you when the whole world seems to be against you, of course you'll be more likely to look past their tendency to suggest that Mossad was behind the 1993 WTC bombing, or their fondness for pre-apartheid South Africa. When you're way out there on the fringe, without any obvious way to reach the mainstream, it's very easy to tell yourself that your dubious friends aren't really all that bad – and that besides, if you ever start finding your way back to the mainstream, it won't be all that hard to jettison them along the way.”
Libertarianism with a “small l” has a lot to teach, and just like your crazy uncle, so does Ron Paul. And it's good that he's in the race and gaining growing-but-still-limited grassroots appeal for the reasons that Amanda stated above. I do, however, think that the Ron Paul in many peoples' minds is far more appealing than the Ron Paul who exists in reality.
The answer to the problems of the current manifestation of the Republican Party is not Ron Paul — it's time in the wilderness to fight it out and reform.
Finally, best part about blog posts criticizing Ron Paul? Watching some of his more strident supporters crawl out of the woodwork and short circuit
Nicely understated Shaun. Probably wasted on certain elements, but a good example nonetheless. I think Paul's has been a useful voice to some degree, and even though he never had a prayer of getting very far (same as Nader) part of the message was worth hearing. That said, many of his supporters do more to sabotage his cause than they do to advance it.
Shaun you must be suffering from Rumsfeld Disease(hereand here). I see the Paulbots are out in force here. Do they have their own version of Megaphone or does the monitor light up the bunker?
Play nice, children! We here at TMV do have a Comments Policy which asks you not to attack our bloggers or each other.
To Dmac – PLEASE don't defame Ron Paul by comparing him to Lincoln who was the George W of his day, the corporations' patsy (in those days it was the railroads) and a warmongerer who rebuked several attempts by The South for a peaceful end to the troubles of that day One such peace commision was led by former US President John Tyler whom Lincoln ignored. Read up on the true history before you defame an honorable man like Ron Paul.
Wow, go away for a few hours, and Abe Lincoln is like Ron Paul or W.
Shaun: You were right to vote for Nader in 2000. I did, and in 96 and 04, He was the best candidate. Period.
Do you really think things would be so great w Gore as Prez? Recall, this was the corporatist, anti-ecology Gore whose boss, in 8 years, had a worse ecological record than Reagan.
And, let's not forget that Ron Paul still doesn't exactly have 'name recognition'. In my very un-scientific estimation, 'who is Ron Paul?' is usually met with either: 'I don't know' or, 'oh, he's that weird guy that wants to be on the gold standard, right?' or something to that effect.
The fact that he's running neck and neck with 'front-runners' like Giuliani is pretty noteworthy. News stories about Ron Paul have gone from around 15,000 (according to Google) to 25,000 in just the last week alone.
There's no such thing as bad press, as the old saying goes. Why on earth would he quit now, not to mention the fact that, unlike some of the 'front-runners' he can actually afford to continue. Ron Paul is not a sound bite guy, nor are his politics. All of this media exposure just guarantees more people will invest the time in learning about what he has to say and why.
And that is exactly what this country needs…people that are paying attention and participating, whether they agree with him or not.
Well, Ron Paul does share politico2's view of Lincoln and the Civil War.
I Like Ron Paul. He has some great ideals and understands how important border control and sovereignty are, but I do question his leadership ability.
Am I the only one who is reminded of 1992 when the Ross Perot “revolution” captured many supporters? He was plain-speaking and at times outrageous. Moral: Many people do not want to hear or know the truth- that's why both political parties spin every event to their advantage.
Paul would only have a chance if most voters in the GOP were against the war. They are not, which is what kept Chuck Hagel from running (who would have made a far stronger candidate, imo) The GOP establishment and their allies in the media will never back Ron Paul. He's enjoying the moment nevertheless.
I'm curious as to how many people posting their opinion of Ron Paul have read not only the article about his newsletter (Which published utter BS in his name for years whether he actually wrote it or not, but his own articles on lewrockwell.com that he has not disowned. Have you read some of the stuff from the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the group whose philosophy Ron Paul agrees with…mostly.
Jim – You discovered LewRockwell, well while much is an acquired taste, all is not over the edge. Its just a poor mans Cato Institute with some paleocons added to the mix. Which Paul articles at LR did you consider on the fringe? And not all columists are fringe libertarians.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sheehan/sheehan-arch…
http://www.strike-the-root.com/archive/avnery.html (link from LR)
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-jimmy… (link from LR)
Rudi,
Not just fringe, but showing more standard conservative Republican fare and hypocrisy than his supporters ever admit. He calls for repeal of the federal gasoline tax when gas goes above $3.00 a gallon. There is no mention of what this would do to infrastructure. He also in the same article blames the lack of refining capacity completely on the government, ignoring the fact that the oil companies purposefully shut down refineries when gas was cheap to help drive up the cost of gas. He lays all blame on the Federal Reserve and the government for the housing bubble, blaming all the actions taken by the mortgage companies and banks on them in multiple articles. Attacking the Federal Reserve is a really big thing with him. So much for personal responsibility. Of course one area he agrees with his fellow Republicans on is that the “death tax” must be eliminated. There are several articles about that one. He is also one of those Republicans who believes in the ability of Congress to strip federal courts of the ability to judge on anything Congress decided was none of their business, effectively neutering one of the three branches of government, supposedly in defense of the Constitution. And while his supporters constantly praise his belief in individual freedom in fact he writes in Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution that since there is no right to privacy states have a right to govern the sex lives of the individual and any other social matters it cares to involve itself in. That last bit really annoys me every time I see a Paulista praising him to the skies for representing freedom. Frankly, LewRockwell is not a taste I want to acquire. Do some more research on them and their “cousins” at http://www.mises.org.
Does this allegiance to the Constitution include his desire to gut the judiciary?
[...] It’s Time For Ron Paul to Go Bye-ByeThe Moderate Voice – If that wasn’t a campaign killer, Paul’s finish yesterday in New Hampshire was even worse with him only outpolling Fred Thompson (who is showing signs of rigor mortis), Duncan Hunter (isn’t he [...]
When you're filling your car with $3 gas and buying some $2.65 a dozen eggs, remember who is running on stopping deficit spending. The war for oil is what caused prices for anything that eats grain to skyrocket. When THOSE prices rise, the fresh fruit seller raises his prices again, now you have some nice $5 a pound grapes in the market. Laugh all you want, it's YOUR money being spent. YOU'RE the one going to pay $250 a week for groceries. Still think Ron Paul sounds like a bad idea? He's the ONLY candidate, Republican or Democrat that is running on reducing your cost of living. Maybe you have plenty money. Me, I'm not so rich.
Inardozi, whatever Ron Paul says or his true believers agree with there is in fact nothing in his proposals that would take care of the problems you mention. Not a thing. Ron Paul knows one particular fringe group version of economics and that is all his patter consists of. If you want to buy into it go ahead, just don't expect any large numbers of people who've read a broader range of opinion to go along.
[...] It’s Time For Ron Paul to Go Bye-ByeThe Moderate Voice – If that wasn’t a campaign killer, Paul’s finish yesterday in New Hampshire was even worse with who is showing signs of rigor mortis), Duncan Hunter (isn’t he the cake mix guy?) and Tom Tancredo [...]
Ron Paul is wrong on immigration, the environment, guns and evolution. He is probably right on drugs. I don't know about his economic solutions; it sounds a bit extreme but worth discussing.
He needs to deal with the racist stuff that went out in his name and also address the reality that race is an issue in the US.
Ron Paul is right about America's war on Terra. He is the only prominent politician challenging US chauvinism and hubris. It is evident that more Americans are thinking – there is a disturbance in the Matrix. Surely that's reason enough for him and his supporters to stay in the race.
Shaun,
With all do respect (zero), you are an idiot who writes in cliches. Ron Paul couldn't get elected dog catcher. He's been elected 10….10…..10 times to the United States House of Representatives…10 TIMES! Paul just took SECOND in Nevada. He's now bested every other Republican candidate at least once except for Mitt Romney. He raised more money than any other R in the 4th quarter. And after 5 primaries you want him gone. Well I don't. I want a chance to vote for him. I think I have that right. Maybe you should read the Constitution…