PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul: The Real "Rock Star" of the Right




Green Mountain Boy
09-14-2007, 03:16 PM
Ron Paul: The Real "Rock Star" of the Right
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-guttman/ron-paul-the-real-rock_b_64479.html?view=print

Who would believe that the candidate generating buzz and excitement on the 2008 Republican presidential campaign trail is a seventy-two year old medical doctor from a small town in Texas?

Who would believe that a libertarian who is calling for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from not only Iraq but from all of the Middle East has a large following among younger voters?

Who would believe that a man calling for a return to the gold standard and who favors no entangling alliances would be raising a good deal of money on the Internet?

Is Congressman Ron Paul surprised by his new popularity?

When I asked him that question before he spoke to a crowd of nearly 200 people at my Center on Politics and Foreign Relations at Johns Hopkins SAIS on September 12th, he replied, "I am a little bit surprised by my popularity. I was skeptical about running for president at first."

Why do people drive five hours to hear him speak as they did for his speech at Johns Hopkins and why do people hand him books on the gold standard to autograph?

Congressman Paul says, "Young people like my non-intervention policy and they like my personal liberty views as well."

The native of Pittsburgh who served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s told me "I am not a pacifist".

But, he is a believer in non-intervention by America abroad. "Intervention is not beneficial to us," he said in our interview.

Rep. Paul is a strong believer in "a return to constitutional principles" and wouldn't ever go to war unless Congress voted a declaration of war in the future.

The Texas Congressman speaks his mind and has great faith in his views. In addition to his anti-war views it seems as if he is developing a strong group of supporters who see him as honest and true to his principles.

Some of his views make sense and some of them seem to be nonsense. His assertion that "If we hadn't had troops in the Middle East for the last 50 years terrorists wouldn't have attacked us on 9-11" is a preposterous statement.

He also had some suggestions for arming civilians to capture Bin Laden that seemed a bit unusual to say the least.

Rep. Paul is causing a stir in the 2008 presidential race and he is raising money. His chances of winning the Republican nomination are nil but perhaps with his strong and vocal group of supporters he might run as an Independent candidate in 2008 although he says he will not.

His old-fashioned views which he says are "Old, Old Right positions of the 1950s" are attracting a crowd of supporters that run the spectrum from liberal Democrats to anti-war Independents to people who just like his honesty and anti-intervention views.

As he says, "You don't have to be warmongers to be conservative".

He may not be an enigma. He may not be your average Republican candidate for president. He may not be saying anything that is particularly new or radical.

But, Congressman Paul is certainly adding some needed excitement to the 2008 presidential race. In my last column I said Americans are looking for excitement in their presidential candidates. To his many hardcore supporters the Texas doctor is providing that excitement.

I was astonished at the intensity of his supporters in our audience. I was amazed at their lengthy emails to me saying what a breath of fresh air he is in the presidential race.

So more power to the honest, anti-war, anti-intervention, pro-gold standard, pro-Constitution candidate from Texas who states, "It is not my responsibility as president to attack other countries".

He has struck a nerve and has found support among some voters looking for answers to our problems. He seems like a gentleman who, speaks sense and also nonsense, while attempting to solve the problems of our day.

Congressman Paul is certainly interesting, entertaining and a student of history. I look forward to following his comments along the campaign trail.

Spike Kojima
09-14-2007, 03:23 PM
Some of his views make sense and some of them seem to be nonsense. His assertion that "If we hadn't had troops in the Middle East for the last 50 years terrorists wouldn't have attacked us on 9-11" is a preposterous statement.

?
I find this statement pretty concise.

BrianH
09-14-2007, 03:23 PM
Seems to be another of several recent stories that make the main story the supporters rather than Ron Paul. I guess they seem more interesting to sensation hungry news readers than a 72 year old doctor from Texas. I guess it's OK. All news is good news.

mwkaufman
09-14-2007, 03:23 PM
Some of his views make sense and some of them seem to be nonsense. His assertion that "If we hadn't had troops in the Middle East for the last 50 years terrorists wouldn't have attacked us on 9-11" is a preposterous statement.

He also had some suggestions for arming civilians to capture Bin Laden that seemed a bit unusual to say the least.

Rep. Paul is causing a stir in the 2008 presidential race and he is raising money. His chances of winning the Republican nomination are nil but perhaps with his strong and vocal group of supporters he might run as an Independent candidate in 2008 although he says he will not.

A lot of the article was pretty solid, but I'm sure a lot of other Paulites will get right on these silly statements.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-14-2007, 03:26 PM
are libertarians paleoliberals?

nullvalu
09-14-2007, 03:30 PM
At least the author used the little "l" libertarian.. it was like 85% good, with 15% complete horsecrap.

Hurricane Bruiser
09-14-2007, 03:31 PM
Sounds like this guy needs a history lesson on the middle east. Other than that, it boosts name recognition.

ronpaulitician
09-14-2007, 03:34 PM
it was like 85% good, with 15% complete horsecrap.
Works for me.

drednot
09-14-2007, 03:47 PM
are libertarians paleoliberals?

We are neoliberal paleoconservatives.

:D

JosephTheLibertarian
09-14-2007, 03:49 PM
We are neoliberal paleoconservatives.

:D

no, I checked on wiki.

"Yet another usage of the term with some currency on blogs, Internet discussion groups, etc. in the United States is as a term is roughly interchangeable with libertarianism, also called classical liberalism by some of its adherents. [5]

This last may be related to the use of the term by Alexander Rüstow, to describe ardent laissez-faire liberals like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Rüstow himself was a German Ordoliberal (neoliberal)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoliberalism

drednot
09-14-2007, 04:16 PM
no, I checked on wiki.

"Yet another usage of the term with some currency on blogs, Internet discussion groups, etc. in the United States is as a term is roughly interchangeable with libertarianism, also called classical liberalism by some of its adherents. [5]

This last may be related to the use of the term by Alexander Rüstow, to describe ardent laissez-faire liberals like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Rüstow himself was a German Ordoliberal (neoliberal)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoliberalism

Awesome!

So I am a neoliberal paleoliberal but not a liberal.

This also from wikipedia:

"Neoliberalism refers to a political movement that espouses economic liberalism as a means of promoting economic development and securing political liberty. The movement is sometimes described as an effort to revert to the economic policies of the 18th and 19th centuries classical liberalism.[1] Strictly in the context of English-language usage the term is an abbreviation of "neoclassical liberalism", since in other languages liberalism has more or less retained its classical meaning."

JosephTheLibertarian
09-14-2007, 04:17 PM
lol... we're a lot of things, I suppose

Scribbler de Stebbing
09-14-2007, 04:42 PM
Some of his views make sense and some of them seem to be nonsense. His assertion that "If we hadn't had troops in the Middle East for the last 50 years terrorists wouldn't have attacked us on 9-11" is a preposterous statement.

Preposterous indeed. Because . . . because . . . um, if we hadn't had troops there, they would have attacked us sooner. That's right. We're just lucky that we kept our thumb on them for as long as we did.

Duckman
09-14-2007, 05:55 PM
are libertarians paleoliberals?

Well, since the ideas of freedom and liberty were definitely liberal in 1776, I'd say probably yes.