View Full Version : The Neocon case against Ron Paul

06-14-2007, 10:59 PM
Wow, I'm not even sure this "professional blogger" is worth the effort, but here it is nonetheless:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_conservative_case_against _ron_paul&ns=JohnHawkins&dt=06/15/2007&page=full&comments=true

Choice excerpts (my comments in parenthesis):

In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President.

(Really shows you how brainwashed these people have become. Being conservative is adhering to the party line, no questions asked.)

Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy

A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating:

Ron Paul is an isolationist

Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attacks on America

Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attacks on America: In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on American with this comment about 9/11,
"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda.

This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for that matter.

Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans.

(Yes, America is not about liberty... I wonder where you liberal fools got that impression?)

Edit: Oh by the way... the author also writes a weekly column for Townhall.com and consults for the Duncan Hunter campaign. Gee no conflict of interest there at ALL.

06-15-2007, 12:03 AM
My Response:

Conflict of interest much?

So, why should we see this as anything other than a lame hit piece written by a "professional blogger" with an obvious conflict of interest?

I note at the bottom: Mr. Hawkins ... also writes a weekly column for Townhall.com and consults for the Duncan Hunter campaign.

A campaign, I should point out, that has, present professional blogger excluded, virtually no online support, and consistently brings in 1% in those handy scientific polls. Even the "single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party" is pulling in 2% and 3%, depending on the scientific poll (see: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm).

And you're right, Ron Paul is no conservative -- that is if your definition of conservative is voting for whatever it is President or party leadership wants, no questions asked. Or if you think conservative means passing 4 trillion dollar drug entitlement packages, doubling the size of the Dept of Education, building 100 million dollar bridges to nowhere in Alaska, handing out 200 billion dollars for Katrina, subsidizing corn farmers with ridiculous ethanol bills that account for at least a good 30 cents per gallon during the summer, and rubber stamping the indefinite detaining of any person, including US citizens, who are determined by the government to be an "unlawful enemy combatant" (MCA act).

That is what our champions of the "Contract with America" party have given us the last few years, and if thats small, limited government conservatism to you, then, heh, ok.

But I have another term for them. Tax-cutting Democrats. All modern Republicans, have betrayed their small government and fiscal responsibility roots-- all except one: Ron Paul.

06-15-2007, 12:05 AM
It's being covered here too.


06-15-2007, 12:07 AM
Doh, I really should just post the general forum. :P