[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

‘Weak little man’: Mark Hamill blasted online after mocking Donald Trump’s bandaged ear

MSNBC host melts down over Biden being asked about his rhetoric, shouts real threat is 'right-wing' extremism

Local counter-sniper team was inside building where Trump shooter climbed on the roof and opened fire: sources

Official describes the moment a Butler officer confronted the Trump shooter

Jesse Watters: Don’t buy this excuse from the Secret Service

"BlackRock's Next Plans Will SHOCK THE WORLD" - Whitney Webb's LATEST LARRY FINK EXPOSE

"The Trump Shooter Didn't Act Alone" Sniper Dallas Alexander Reveals |

Do Not Let the Show They're Putting Up at the White House Break Your Heart - It's a Tactic"

"This Is The Final Straw": Musk Announces SpaceX Moving From CA To Texas After Newsom Passes Anti-Parent Gender Law

This Is Why I Regret Voting For Joe Biden In 2020: Latina Business Owner

Many Substances Used For Food Processing Are Never Listed On Ingredient Labels

Palestinians raped and tortured in Israeli detention, says prisoners group

Israel strikes five schools in week of massacres

"Ordered My First MAGA Hat": Closet Trump Supporters Are Coming Out Of Woodwork After Failed Assassination Attempt

WHY? USSS Director Che@tle Admits To Replacing Trumps Permanent Detail With Temporary Agents For Butler Rally

Allstate seeks 34% rate hike for California homeowners; State Farm threatens to exit without price increases.

15 Signs American Families Are Flat Broke

Why the Replace Biden campaign likely came to an end on Saturday: they no longer believe it even matters

Eviction filings surge up to 46% in Sunbelt cities

Rubio Exposes Democrat Welfare Scheme Taxpayers Can't Believe This Is Going On

‘Sloping roof’ used by assassin was too dangerous for our agents, says Secret Service chief

Sen. Menendez [Dimmycrat] found guilty on all counts in corruption trial

He's Baaack!

‘TONE IS CHANGING’: O’Leary says Trump’s VP pick could trigger shift among biz leaders

Biden Finally Gives RFK Jr. Secret Service Protection

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle Focused on Hiring Women, Boosting Diversity

Russian Army Takes Out Another Ukrainian Train Loaded With Military Equipment

Army anti-terror briefing lists pro-life Christians as 'TERRORISTS'

Escobar: The Yemen-Russia Riddle

Three Time Deported Illegal Alien Charged in Arson Fire, Killed Mother and Two Children Sleeping In Home


Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Is Ron Paul the last relevant Republican in Washington?
Source: Examiner.com
URL Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-19718-Bos ... evant-Republican-in-Washington
Published: Aug 13, 2009
Author: Thomas Eddlem
Post Date: 2009-08-14 09:24:22 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 544
Comments: 50

The question sounds facetious, since Texas Congressman Ron Paul failed to make any traction among GOP primary voters last year.

Throughout the 2008 presidential primaries, Rep. Paul railed against the Federal Reserve Bank and the coming economic crash. And all the other GOP candidates seemed to look at him like he had just crawled out of the grassy knoll. So did most voters, except for a coterie of highly-motivated and mostly young primary voters he organized. Then economic reality happened, and the establishment GOP's economic model crashed along with the party's election hopes. Everything changed.

Ron Paul's “rEVOLution” (revolution with “love” spelled backwards) has been the sole bright light among GOP organizing efforts since Obama's election. In a party marred by the awkward resignation of Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin from the Alaska governorship and a variety of sexual scandals (David Vitter, John Ensign, Mark Sanford, etc), Ron Paul alone has unified the GOP around an overwhelmingly popular proposal: Auditing the Federal Reserve. His bill (H.R. 1207) has every Republican House member, a score of senators and – according to a July Rasmussen poll – three quarters of the American people backing it. He even has significant bipartisan support: More than a third of the Democrats in the House also cosponsor the bill, which is the reason why two-thirds of the entire Democrat-dominated House is currently cosponsoring the legislation.

On the health care debate, Rep. Paul seems the perfect candidate to give the GOP an authoritative spokesman to oppose Obama's expensive health care agenda. Dr. Paul is a medical doctor, an obstetrician who has delivered more than 4,000 babies.

Meanwhile, the Ron Paul revolution appears to be flowering politically. Consider the following:

Web Organization: The Ron Paul “rEVOLution” movement created more than a dozen highly trafficked websites, including DailyPaul.com, LewRockwell.com, RonPaul.com, in addition to Dr. Paul's official CampaignForLiberty.com. These websites have kept the revolutionaries active and on-task since the letdown of the election.

Tea Parties: From those websites and the election year Meetups emerged the nucleus of the “Tea Party” rallies that exploded nationwide this year. Although the “Tea Party” movement was a larger, organic uprising than simply the result of a single presidential candidacy, most of the original rallies were first organized by Ron Paul supporters. More importantly, precious few of the Tea Party attendees were actively identifying themselves with other national Republican leaders. Ron Paul revolutionaries have helped to keep the tea parties non-partisan, targeting not just Democrats, but also left-leaning Republicans like Iowa's Senator Chuck Grassley, who has been working with Obama to extend federal controls over health care.

Increasingly Powerful PAC: Dr. Paul's Liberty PAC funded nine winning congressional candidates in 2008, including freshman California Rep. Tom McClintock – one of the few new GOP congressmen the party saw elected in 2008. But most of the $25 million that Dr. Paul raised in 2008 went toward his presidential campaign. Look for the Texas Republican to use the astonishing fundraising prowess he demonstrated during the 2008 presidential campaign to expand his assistance to libertarian-leaning Republicans in congressional mid-term elections next year.

He should have plenty of revolutionary candidates to fund. The Ron Paul Revolution has also created an informal slate of congressional candidates nationwide. And the political field was cleared in recent weeks for a couple of his key supporters in prospective U.S. Senate campaigns.

Rand Paul, Ron Paul’s son and fellow medical doctor (ophthalmologist), announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate in Kentucky this month. Days earlier, incumbent Republican Jim Bunning bowed out of a reelection contest.

Peter Schiff, an economic advisor to the Ron Paul campaign who became a YouTube sensation after forecasting the current recession with astonishing precision, is considering a race for U.S. Senate in Connecticut against politically-troubled incumbent Christopher Dodd. Dodd was already considered a vulnerable candidate after receiving a mortgage from sub-prime lender Countrywide, and was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer. The ailment may make it difficult for him to wage an aggressive campaign. The Senate Ethics Committee cleared Dodd of ethics violations on August 7, but the committee criticized Dodd because “the committee does believe that you should have exercised more vigilance in your dealings with Countrywide in order to avoid the appearance that you were receiving preferential treatment based on your status as a senator.” Schiff hasn’t even announced his candidacy officially and he has already raised over $750,000, more than either of his two would-be GOP primary opponents.

The Ron Paul revolution also includes a number of lesser-known candidates and candidates who face uphill electoral battles, like Gulf War veteran and anti-war activist Adam Kokesh. Kokesh is running in New Mexico's heavily Democratic third congressional district. But even Kokesh has earned some rather impressive internet fundraising numbers, which may help make him a serious contender.

In a July Gallup poll, Americans ranked the Federal Reserve lowest among a battery of nine federal agencies – even lower than the IRS. Thus, it’s not surprising Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has hired a political lobbyist and has begun a nationwide public relations tour to stop Dr. Paul's legislative juggernaut. Dr. Paul is planning a public relations offensive against the Federal Reserve Bank of his own, having authored a follow-up to his April 2008 New York Times best-selling book Revolution: A Manifesto. His latest book, End the Fed, is already selling well at Amazon.com – even though it isn't even slated to be published until September 16. The contention of End the Fed is that the current economic crisis was largely a creation of the Federal Reserve's efforts to suppress interest rates earlier in the decade, creating the housing boom as well as its subsequent bust. Considering the Fed's polling numbers, that should be an easy sell.

Ron Paul and his dedicated followers may have been the tail of the GOP dog during the 2008 campaign, but so far this year the tail has been wagging the dog.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 34.

#1. To: Hayek Fan (#0)

Ron Paul never met an Islamist extremist he didn't want to bend over and drop his pants for.

Ron Paul: "Oh do me, Abdul. Harder. Faster."

longnose gar  posted on  2009-08-14   9:26:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: longnose gar (#1)

Ron Paul never met an Islamist extremist he didn't want to bend over and drop his pants for.

Riiight. That is why he ran out of the hotel room when Bruno was trying to seduce him yelling "This guy is queer as blazes!" You probably would joined the party.

His position regarding the middle east is simple and in line with the Founding Fathers: Leave them the hell alone. Stop giving money to both Israel AND its enemies. On an equal footing, with no outside help, who would come out on top? Ny bet is Israel.

You don't listen very well when he speaks.

echo5sierra  posted on  2009-08-14   9:34:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: echo5sierra, longnose gar (#6)

Riiight. That is why he ran out of the hotel room when Bruno was trying to seduce him yelling "This guy is queer as blazes!" You probably would joined the party.

His position regarding the middle east is simple and in line with the Founding Fathers: Leave them the hell alone. Stop giving money to both Israel AND its enemies. On an equal footing, with no outside help, who would come out on top? Ny bet is Israel.

You don't listen very well when he speaks.

I disagree. Longnose gar listens very well and he doesn't like what he hears. You see, longnose gar is a big government republicrat. The bigger the government, the better the government, that's his motto, which is why he is so infatuated with George W. Bush, and why he continues to be a (poor) mouthpiece for the establishment Republicrat Party.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2009-08-14   9:39:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Hayek Fan (#7)

Longnose gar listens very well and he doesn't like what he hears.

Like when Dr. Islam says its America's fault a bunch of sand niggers flew planes into the WTCs?

longnose gar  posted on  2009-08-14   9:44:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: longnose gar (#9)

Like when Dr. Islam says its America's fault a bunch of sand niggers flew planes into the WTCs?

Of course you are a liar because Ron Paul never said that.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2009-08-14   11:27:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Hayek Fan (#25)

Maybe you should listen to Dr. Islam starting at about 1:45 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0&feature=related

longnose gar  posted on  2009-08-14   11:33:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: longnose gar (#27)

Maybe you should listen to Dr. Islam starting at about 1:45 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0&feature=related

Here's his exact words, starting at 1:45:

Ron Paul: "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attacked up because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for ten years. We've been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right, we don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics; so right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican, we're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us."

Establishment shill/government buttlicker: "Are you suggesting that we invited the 9/11 attacks sir?"

Ron Paul: "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. They are delighted that we are over there because Osama Bin laden has said I am glad you are over on our sand because we can target you so much easier. They've already now since that time killed thirty four hundred of our men and I don't think it was necessary.

Blood dancer Ghouliani: "May I comment on that? That's an extraordinary statement as someone who lived through the attack of September 11th, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've ever heard that before and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

Establishment shill/government buttlicker: "Congressman?"

Ron Paul: "I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blow back. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes there was blow back. The reactions to that was the taking of our hostages. And that persists and if we ignore that we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we are rich and free, they come and attack us because we are over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign counties were doing that to us?"

Nope. I don't hear anywhere where Ron Paul has stated that its America's fault a bunch of sand niggers flew planes into the WTCs. What I do hear is a statist/big government Republicrat trying to twist Ron Paul's meaning in order to score political points. What I do hear Ron Paul saying is that that actions have consequences and that you can't bully the world and then pretend to be shocked when the world strikes back.

Of course as a fellow Ghouliani blood dancer who enjoys rolling around in the blood of the American soldier while wrapping yourself in the flag, the idea that others will hold us accountable for our actions in ways we do not like is an affront. Too bad blood dancer, too bad. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction and no amount of neocon tap dancing can change that.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2009-08-14   12:05:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Hayek Fan (#28)

I don't hear anywhere where Ron Paul has stated that its America's fault a bunch of sand niggers flew planes into the WTCs.

Dr. Islam:

Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attacked up because we've been over there.

longnose gar  posted on  2009-08-14   12:09:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: longnose gar (#29)

Dr. Islam:

Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attacked up because we've been over there.

You are like a pitiful Jehovah's Witness or Armstrongian who takes one sentence out of multiple paragraphs in a biblical chapter and tries to use that sentence to prove their their twisted views of the world and their God. LOL!

Dance, blood dancer, dance! There's still more American blood to be spilled!

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2009-08-14   12:15:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Hayek Fan (#30)

It's not merely one statement. It's his whole attitude

____

http://afk.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx?mode=post&g=62e31d0c-9338-4b8d-8638-7042ac083cc0

...Then September 11, 2001 hit. My boss, Ron Paul, all of a sudden changed dramatically. Whereas before he was a reasonable non-interventionist, he was now rabidly so.

I must say that Ron always knew how to play the game before 2001. He always campaigned as a die-in-the-wool rock-ribbed Conservative Republican. Coming from the Libertarian Party there was always suspicions about him on this. So, he went the extra mile within the District to allay such concerns.

He also campaigned as a "Bush Republican." I recall two specific events when Ron publicly backed Bush for President, quite enthusiastically; Once during a big GOP dinner in Wharton, and another time during a Bush for President fundraising in Corpus Christi. He also had Bush's photo on the wall at our District Office in Freeport.

I should also note that I personally spoke with Karl Rove twice in 1996. After Ron won the GOP Nomination, mainline Republicans were unsure as to how to treat him. We reached out to the Bush people. After my conversations with Rove, he put out the word to key Houston-area, Austin and Victoria Republicans to back Ron Paul. All of a sudden like a tidal wave all the GOPers came on board our Campaign.

Though privately, Ron leaned non-intervenionist, publicly he was always Pro-Troops, Pro-Veterans, Pro-Defense and quite Patriotic, particularly in his Campaign style.

He made extra sure to attend as many Veteran's events as possible. And when he couldn't go, he would always send me, as the only Vet on staff to represent him. He always made it quite clear that I was to emphasize "my views on foreign policy" more so than his non-interventionist views at such events. And I did.

But after Sept. 11, things changed. He became morose. He became bitter, and quite pessimistic.

I had to literally beg him to support the vote authorizing the President to send Troops to Afghanistan. I actually threatened to resign if he did not vote that way. And another key District Staffer, practically threatened to resign, as well. At the last minute Ron voted in favor of the Authorization. I suspected he only did it, cause he knew if he hadn't he would cause the Republicans in the District to oppose him, and he wouldn't win reelection.

But 9/11 served as a wake up call for me. I started questioning how it is that I could work for such a man.

Before it was always just a fun-loving disagreement; debating in the car from event to event to pass the time.

Now, I saw he was quite serious, and cared even less for how others, even constituents took his views on foreign policy.

Ron and I grew apart. I served as his Travel Aide less and less in 2002/03.

Finally one day in the Summer of 2003, he called on me to accompany him to an event in Victoria. He was acting quite strange in the car. He kept prodding me on foreign policy. I knew he was trying to get me to debate the War in Iraq with him. But I kept my cool the whole trip.

Finally, when we reached Victoria, I made a slight comeback, that I didn't think his particular view on the War was correct. He jumped out of the car and lunged at me. Poking his finger into my chest, he looked me in the eye and said, "I will have nobody working for me on my staff who supports the War in Iraq, even you." I'd only seen this look on Ron maybe once or twice in all my 12 years working for him. He was clearly quite angry with me.

I knew he was trying to provoke me so that he could have justification to fire me. But I kept my cool.

For 6 months after than we didn't speak.

Finally, Chief of Staff Tom Lizardo suggested that Ron and I not talking to each other was not helpful to the "atmosphere" in the District offices. I offered to my friend Tom to resign. We discussed a date, two months out, and a compensation package and I agreed.

I've been asked by others if my former boss is an Anti-Semite. My answer is an emphatic NO. I am half Jewish. I am familiar with Anti-Semites. Ron is not one of them.

But I would say he's very insensitive to issues concerning Israel and for other concerns of Jewish Americans.

Houston Jews were always suspicious of Ron Paul. But Ron could always point to me as his "Jewish Staffer." He would even send me to Synagogues in the District and to Jewish events. But I do remember one time, when a group of Houston Jewish Young Republicans wanted to lobby the Congressman on some issues. I begged Ron to meet with them. He was very hesitant. He finally agreed. But the meeting turned out to be a disaster. The Jewish YRs came all the way from Houston, and all Ron did was berate them in our District Office about how the Israel Lobby was too powerful in Washington, and other issues. He also got defensive when the Jewish YRs expressed concern over Palestinian violence against Israel.

I ran down the hallway after the meeting chasing the group, and apologized profusely to them.

After 9/11 Ron also became much more upfront in his anti-Israel views. He'd even criticize Israel in public speeches which would make me cringe.

Ron Paul and I agree on about 95% of all domestic issues. We disagree on a myriad of foreign policy and defense issues. Still, he was my boss. He was paying me, so I was obligated to toe the line.

This is not why I think less of him today.

Rather, what concerns me most was the fact that for many years he played both sides of the aisle. In the very Conservative South Texas CD, he was always Mr. Red, White, and Blue. If he couldn't make a Veterans event, he made damn sure that his one Vet on staff could go, even if it was just 8 VFW guys meeting for a couple hours 3 hours drive away. Ron was very careful to portray himself in the District as Pro-Troops, and even Pro-Defense.

But after 9/11 and most especially after the War in Iraq, he played up his non-interventionist side to a national audience. This while still keeping the facade of Pro-Troops/Pro-Defense in the District. As late as last year I got a constituent mailing from RP with 4 pages of nothing but Patriotic/Pro-Troops/Pro-Veterans information from the Congressional office. I suspect the reason why RP has gone south on foreign policy for the national audience is simple: To gain more dollars from a National fundraising base, and to gain more National media attention from Liberal media sources.

In closing let me just say, that I don't believe his views represent the views of Congressional District 14 any more. The District, which I live in, is quite considerably more Conservative of foreign policy/defense issues than Ron Paul.

longnose gar  posted on  2009-08-14   12:43:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: longnose gar (#31)

You can post as many articles as you want and I will agree with Ron Paul. You, like many other Americans, have this belief that the United States has the right to do anything it wants anywhere in the world, regardless of the results our actions have on the peoples of these other countries. You believe that anyone who does not agree with this is anti-American and a liberal. You believe anyone who points out the illogical fallacy of your thinking is an anti-American liberal.

I disagree.

Though privately, Ron leaned non-intervenionist, publicly he was always Pro-Troops, Pro-Veterans, Pro-Defense and quite Patriotic, particularly in his Campaign style.

Ensuring that our soldiers are not killed in meaningless conflicts like Panama, GW1, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan IS being Pro-Troops, Pro-Veterans, Pro-Defense and quite Patriotic. Wanting to send them to these places in order to further party or personal politics is not.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2009-08-14   13:08:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 34.

        There are no replies to Comment # 34.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 34.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]