Joseph Farah Ed. at World Net Daily Giving Paul

[Heath]

This isn't an endorsement but the editor of World Net Daily has narrowed his choices down to Paul and Huckabee (and he has "deeper reservations" re: Huck).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why listen to me?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 30, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern


I have received some interesting e-mails lately regarding my skepticism of all of the men and women running for president this year.
For instance, Mitt Romney supporters, apparently swayed by endorsements or adulation offered up by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, among others, want to know why I am not falling in lockstep with these notable conservatives.

Well, first of all, regular readers of my columns and books will know that I do not consider myself a conservative. I reject the label out of hand. I won't get into this whole discussion here, but feel free to review what I have previously written – over and over again.

Secondly, I have written reams on the shortcomings of Mitt Romney. I've explained specifically why he's a phony and not to be trusted. It's simply wishful thinking to believe that a smart, good-looking, ambitious multimillionaire suddenly and earnestly changed positions on every issue under the sun in time for the 2008 presidential election. Paul had his Damascus Road experience, but I am deeply suspect of Romney's Washington Road experience.

Thirdly, ask yourself who was right in 2000? Did not all of the above well-intentioned friends of mine all swoon over George W. Bush? Did they not tell you he was the next Ronald Reagan? And what did I say?

(Column continues below)



In case you forgot, I warned you that Bush was dangerous – that electing leaders like him had the potential to destroy the Republican Party. I told you he was a phony "conservative."

I warned you in the primary season in 2000, and I warned you again in the general election.

Let us concede, at least, that I have differed with these illustrious men and women of the media before. And I think my independent position in previous elections has been vindicated by history.

So when I tell you Romney is a phony – and certainly no conservative – I can say I speak from experience. I can say I have a track record of accurately forecasting bad presidents. I can say I have a track record of seeing through campaign rhetoric even when many around me seemingly cannot.

And that goes for John McCain, too. I warned you about him way back in 2000 when he ran the first time. I put him in the same category as Bush, though I certainly think he has the potential to be far worse – even dangerous, because of his temperament.

Where does that leave us?

Again, it leaves us without many exciting choices for president in 2008.

Obviously, I am not going to support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or Michael Bloomberg.

But there are two men left in the race that deserve further scrutiny and consideration. Neither is perfect. Neither was my first choice. But if you insist on playing the lesser of evils game, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee should be considered.

My reservations about Paul are twofold: He's wrong about the external threats we face as a nation. He believes we brought them all on ourselves. He believes they will disappear if we retreat. He's just plain wrong about that. He also has no experience in governing and leading. It's easy to sit in the House of Representatives and vote correctly, which he has done, most of the time, for many years. Turning around the federal monster single-handedly is another story.

My reservations about Huckabee run deeper: His record as governor of Arkansas was not good at all – tax increases, welcoming illegal aliens with open arms, pardons for killers, corruption. He's still enamored of the powerful elite and courts New World Order types as advisers. And while correcting a number of positions from the past, he still seems to think government is part of the solution, not part of the problem, as Ronald Reagan understood.

But that's where we are today.

That's a little insight into my political soul.

Now do you understand why I don't run with the pack?

[nullvalu]

Cool. I know him & Michael Savage are "sorta" friends. Maybe this'll push Savage to reconsider Paul.

[Feelgood]

Nahhh Savage is too much of a zionist. His stance on Israel alone will keep him from ever considering RP.

[nate895]

Nahhh Savage is too much of a zionist. His stance on Israel alone will keep him from ever considering RP.

I love Israel, I just pray for her and I don't want the US Government's help.

[Computer]

Who cares? Is that the creepy guy with the mustache who's kinda swarthy?

[WilliamC]

Ron Paul needs to talk to Joseph Farrah one on one.

edit: sent HQ a suggestion to this effect.

[RJB]

Wow that's a bit of a concession.

Savage is odd, I don't know if he's just a good entertainer and playing emotions or if he's really emotional when he goes all over the place politically. Savage has said that we should cut off foreign aid to all countries, including Isreal. But with Savage, you never know...

[nate895]

Who cares? Is that the creepy guy with the mustache who's kinda swarthy?

He influences conservatives, and his vote counts too, so it's a positive if he endorses, though not the worst thing to happen if he doesn't.

[Thumper]

I think the "lesser of two evils" thing is lame as well as his reservations about RP. These pundits that have all of the answers to our problems... how come they never run for office?

[Fyretrohl]

And, his biggest gripe is wrong on Dr Pauls message. Dr Paul needs to unequivocally state his position on getting the terrorists. He needs to put a real plan out there. These folks believe that Iraq and Afghanastan have ANYTHING to do with the threat of terrorism and they are wrong. But, they just see being against the wars, coming home, and no real proposals for getting Osama.

[LEK]

Farah said:
He's wrong about the external threats we face as a nation. He believes we brought them all on ourselves. He believes they will disappear if we retreat.

I like Farah but he has wrongly quoted Dr. Paul on this one.
Dr. Paul did not say we brought these attacks on ourselves - he said our FOREIGN POLICY has ignited the retalitory angst in a culture that is defined by the honor of retaliation and revenge.

Here's his stance - who can argue with it?

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/wa...oreign-policy/

He also doesn't relegate a withdrawl to a retreat - instead admit we made a mistake and get our troops home where they belong.

[LEK]

He also has no experience in governing and leading. It's easy to sit in the House of Representatives and vote correctly, which he has done, most of the time, for many years. Turning around the federal monster single-handedly is another story.

Abraham Lincoln was in the House of Representatives before being elected president – during this time he gave his famous “House Divided” speech as well as his famous debates with Stephen Douglas. He vocally opposed the Mexican War and slavery.

Sound kind of like someone else we know?

[The Only Woj]

when will they learn. the enemy won't disappear if they leave, but they won't have the advantage of claiming occupation to rally their supporters and recruit new people. the Iraq Sunnis joined with Al Qaeda not because they liked them, but because they disliked the US more. they're not all joining Al Qaeda because of Al Qaeda ideology, they're joining because they're committed to fight the occupation. leaving would force moderate Muslims to confront Al Qaeda rather than tolerate them.

Plus, do you really think any of the dictators are willing to give in to Al Qaeda's wishes of a Islamic Law rule? Hell no. And will the Shiites side with them? Hell no.

[literatim]

Abraham Lincoln was in the House of Representatives before being elected president – during this time he gave his famous “House Divided” speech as well as his famous debates with Stephen Douglas. He vocally opposed the Mexican War and slavery.

Sound kind of like someone else we know?

Why would you try to compare Lincoln to Ron Paul? You do know that Lincoln isn't looked upon as some great hero by many here?

[jblosser]

What I sent him:

Today you wrote:

"My reservations about Paul are twofold: He's wrong about the external
threats we face as a nation. He believes we brought them all on ourselves.
He believes they will disappear if we retreat."

With all due respect, sir, this is simply not a true report of Ron's
beliefs or claims. He knows there are people that want to kill us. He
knows they can be a threat. He voted to go into Afghanistan, and he
continues to propose and vote for legislation that will actually target al
Qaeda and bring them to justice. Whether one agrees with the alternative
methods he proposes or not, they make it clear he believes there is a
threat we should respond to with force.

Yes, he believes we are making the situation worse by what we are doing
right now, as we have so many times before. There is nothing new here --
actions have always had consequences. It is hard to say he's wrong about
foreign policy when we created the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, Saddam
Hussein, etc. History should teach us by now that we aren't doing this
correctly.

But of course we still have to defend ourselves against these threats,
regardless of their rationality or our past. Ron Paul's argument is not
that we should surrender or that they will go away entirely. His argument
is that we must find a way to defend this country that does not run us into
bankruptcy and eternal debt slavery to Communist China and others. We must
find another approach to defense that does not require us to maintain a
worldwide empire we can not afford, and does not require us to send our
military, our national guard, and even our BORDER PATROL away from our own
shores!

I'm sure you know this, but according to US Comptroller General David
Walker, head of the GAO, the chief threat to our national security in the
forseeable future is explicitly not radical Islam, it is our national debt
and crippling economic situation. Ret. Gen. William Odom, director of the
NSA under Reagan, has said the same. Ron Paul understands both of these
threats, and is the only one who is working to find a way to combat both.
We must defend this country from all threats. We cannot sustain a defense
against terrorism or anything else by borrowing trillions of dollars from
the Chinese.

Ronald Reagan said Ron Paul is one of the strongest advocates of our
defense in the Congress. That has not changed. Ron Paul is in fact the
ONLY CANDIDATE talking about a strong defense that can be maintained into
our children's future. The rest apparently are happy to ignore the future
and make us economic slaves to our Communist and Terrorist enemies. We
beat the Soviets economically, now the Middle East and Chinese are doing it
to us, and we are walking right into it.

I support Ron Paul because I do not want my children standing in a Chinese
bread line when they are 25.

[WilliamC]

Send HQ a suggestion that they get someone to follow up on this.