Ron Paul: The Republican Right-Wingers Love to Hate

|10.8.07 @ 10:42PM|#

I think this is a good basis for a new campaign strategy.

Ron Paul '08: Republicans friggin hate me.

Fluffy|10.8.07 @ 10:43PM|#

Considering the human trash that makes up the Republican blogosphere in 2007, the hatred is a badge of honor. It sucks that Ron has to share the glory with a douchebag like McCain.

SIV|10.8.07 @ 10:46PM|#

I thought Fred Phelps was a registered Democrat Civil Rights attorney-certainly not a "Right Winger". I learned that on H&R!

|10.8.07 @ 10:52PM|#

Right wing bloggers are generally folks who can't make it as journalists. A more meaningful poll would be to ask right wing journalists; I would like to know if Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter like Ron Paul.

SIV|10.8.07 @ 10:52PM|#

David Duke ran as a Democrat and a Populist as well as as a Republican and had affiliations with a National Socialist Party.

I'd say that he is no "Right Winger" either.

|10.8.07 @ 10:53PM|#

And the funny thing is, he's at true Republican, a paleconservative, Robert Taft/Barry Goldwater(without the warhawk), Ronald Reagan. If he supported the war, they'd be singing a different tune. But nooo, he is anti-war, therefore he's a democrat leftist RINO! haha, it cracks me up.

ace|10.8.07 @ 10:59PM|#

I would like to know if Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter like Ron Paul.

are you serious? two points: 1) can you really not guess what they'd say? they're despicable civil liberties-hating neocons. 2) why do you give a shit? they're idiots.

Fluffy|10.8.07 @ 11:04PM|#

Yeah, Malkin's work on the history of the Japanese internment was despicable. It really disqualifies her from having a credible opinion on any other US political subject, essentially forever.

And Coulter is just a political drag queen sideshow freak act.

|10.8.07 @ 11:07PM|#

Ron Paul continues to win internet polls!

Good, those guys are irrelevant, anyway...

Briggs|10.8.07 @ 11:14PM|#

Haha...

Right wing blogger = Commie anonymously making dough of people he/she hates

|10.8.07 @ 11:16PM|#

The poll shows that Paul was picked by
23 Bloggers out of 225!

-Does that mean 202 Right Wing Bloggers are pro-Paul?

John|10.8.07 @ 11:19PM|#

The top (bottom?) two are basically there because of their opposition to the war. I'm kinda surprised Chuck Hagel is only eighth.

ace|10.8.07 @ 11:20PM|#

it's worth noting that coulter is high up on both lists, favorites and least favorites, so unsurprisingly, not all these bloggers are fans of jingoism and oppression.

|10.8.07 @ 11:20PM|#

This "poll" has only 45 voters. Hardly important news! What about the GOP Straw Polls? Ron Paul has won 14 out of 30 and placed in the top three in no less than 24 of them! See: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/ and http://www.redpills.org/?p=370. It is without precedent in US politics that a candidate could win so many straw polls and yet STILL be considered a "long shot" by the media. THAT is a real story!

|10.8.07 @ 11:23PM|#

Ace & Fluffy hit the nail on the head.

I love how you two put it so eloquently.

Mad Max|10.8.07 @ 11:34PM|#

It seems that neither Edward or the guy Domberg has put in an appearance, so I shall have to fill in for them.

Here goes:

You poor, pathetic libertarians, Ron Paul is doomed, doomed, and nobody can save him . . . not even you, Buck Rogers, mwahahahahaha!

|10.9.07 @ 12:00AM|#

"I'd say that he is no "Right Winger" either."

SIV, I think I speak for many a former conservative when I say, WTF do you think is "right wing" or "conservative?" Because it strikes me that you've read about as much Burke or Kirk as I have read Klingon theology...Reading the Rifleman does not a conservative make my friend....I mean, really, you pontificate on conservatism and why it is so close to libertarianism, so please, inform us as to what conservatism is all about.

|10.9.07 @ 12:12AM|#

These are not "right-wingers" they are neo-con, Eastern establishment scum of the earth.
Go Ron Paul! I want my country back.

|10.9.07 @ 12:21AM|#

joe,

Here here!

|10.9.07 @ 12:29AM|#

"I thought Fred Phelps was a registered Democrat Civil Rights attorney-certainly not a "Right Winger"."

This shows you how desperate ol' SIV is. How many left wingers do you know who hate, really hate, homosexuals like Fred Phelps does? Now how many right wingers?
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

According to Singularly Idiotic Voice there is no difference between GOP and Dems on gay rights. Yeah, no difference...
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Those darned facts!!!

rho|10.9.07 @ 12:38AM|#

RightWingNews.com is a fair barometer for the warblogger constituency. That tells you, more or less, everything you need to know.

"Once up on a time, we loved big-government solutions. Then Muslims flew bombs into buildings. We still love big-government solutions, but now we have an excuse that the folks back home will buy."

|10.9.07 @ 12:39AM|#

What can you say about someone like SIV?

On the one hand he claims to be a libertarian. On the other hand he seems to go into fits if anyone suggest a Democrat would ever, in any circumstance, be preferable to a Republican...

Methinks he's one of these many GOPers who just wants to keep the libertarians voting the "right way."

SIV, if you are really a libertarian, and not just a GOPer, please name the areas in which the Democratic Party is preferable to the GOP.

Or do you think Democrats were a devil race created by a big headed scientist on the island of Patmos?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub

Guy Montag|10.9.07 @ 12:43AM|#

How was a National Socialist like Pat Buchanan included in anything "Right wing"? Because he accepts the premise of the corporation or something?

Apparently Noam Chomsky made the entry rules.

Jenny|10.9.07 @ 12:47AM|#

www.TrueWorldHistory.info

|10.9.07 @ 1:14AM|#

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Gandhi

Phase 3: Profit

|10.9.07 @ 1:37AM|#

RightWingNews.com is a creature of John Hawkins, whose name and face are familiar to those hardy souls who slog through reading the good, the bad and the ugly at Townhall.com.

There is strong competition for this distinction, but I nominate John Hawkins as Townhall's Worst Columnist.

Here is a relevant sample column.
There is also this column.
While he is campaigning for Duncan Hunter, I haven't seen a hit piece on Giuliani from him.

Edward|10.9.07 @ 1:46AM|#

Has Ron Paul ever adequately explained how those deeply offensive racist comments showed up over his name in his newsletter? Why was David Duke exluded? Why are neo-Nazis so very fond of Ron Paul?

|10.9.07 @ 2:01AM|#

Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are both anti-war. Apparently too many of these bloggers have foolishly aligned their ideology so it's congruent with support of the Iraq war and the administration's hyper-interventionist Mideast foreign policy. That's too bad cuz it's not really conservative but it is really a political loser.

Ron Paul's excellent pro-free enterprise/limited government voting record makes most of the other GOP candidates look like rinos.

Asharak|10.9.07 @ 2:18AM|#

Moonbattery.com is a clear case of ironic projection. I also noticed that for people who hate homosexuals, the site's creator and its regular commenters sure are obsessed with anal sex.

It's also so over-the-top and inconsistent that I suspect it's a parody site, albeit one that actual lumpenconservatives are falling for.

Asharak|10.9.07 @ 2:20AM|#

What can you say about someone like SIV?

On the one hand he claims to be a libertarian. On the other hand he seems to go into fits if anyone suggest a Democrat would ever, in any circumstance, be preferable to a Republican...

Methinks he's one of these many GOPers who just wants to keep the libertarians voting the "right way."

SIV's not so bad, really.

I think that more accurately describes Guy Montag.

|10.9.07 @ 2:20AM|#

Edward:

Why are neo-Nazis so very fond of Ron Paul?

Care to substantiate that, Edward? Or are you being dishonest? And even if you can, is that the best you can throw against Dr Paul? Guilt by association? Very weak. I'm a Ron Paul Republican and your opposition heartens me.

Asharak|10.9.07 @ 2:32AM|#

Care to substantiate that, Edward? Or are you being dishonest? And even if you can, is that the best you can throw against Dr Paul? Guilt by association? Very weak. I'm a Ron Paul Republican and your opposition heartens me.

I don't think Paul is a Nazi myself, but I still find some of his political positions to be pretty kooky. But then they're no more kooky than a lot of the things the rest of the Republican candidates are supporting.

Ray|10.9.07 @ 2:42AM|#

"Has Ron Paul ever adequately explained how those deeply offensive racist comments showed up over his name in his newsletter?"

Where have you been Edward? That's old news, a cheap attempt to libel the guy
Ron Paul explained it a number of times that he never wrote that stuff. He wasn't able to always edit the newsletter, so other people did it without his consent.
Anybody who actually read it could tell right away that it wasn't his writing style.

"Why are neo-Nazis so very fond of Ron Paul?"

You're way out there now Edward, where the hell do you get this stuff?

Robert|10.9.07 @ 2:42AM|#

It is without precedent in US politics that a candidate could win so many straw polls and yet STILL be considered a "long shot" by the media.

Ideas on why they think so?

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|10.9.07 @ 2:44AM|#

Can't we just allow the facists to run the republican party and move all of the real conservatives into a new party?

Ray|10.9.07 @ 2:45AM|#

"I don't think Paul is a Nazi myself, but I still find some of his political positions to be pretty kooky. But then they're no more kooky than a lot of the things the rest of the Republican candidates are supporting."

Asharak, would you care to spit it out and explain what "pretty kooky" means to you.

Anonymo the Anonymous|10.9.07 @ 2:56AM|#

You're way out there now Edward, where the hell do you get this stuff?

Don't recognize your commenting name so you might not be aware that Edward is a well-known troll here whose sole purpose is to make derogatory comments whenever Paul is mentioned. There is absolutely no need to respond to him -- your reasonable arguments will get you nowhere.

|10.9.07 @ 3:11AM|#

Ray,

I doubt that the average reasonoid libertarian is thrilled with Paul's stance on immigration and his seeming paranoia about foreigners. See the NAFTA superhighway bit on his page on his "American Independence and Sovereignty" for a decent example.

Obviously the reason he is labeled "crazy" by mainstream Republicans is because he wants to end the Iraq war immediately, which is totally absurd. And while he is absolutely correct about the war, probably more so than anyone running in any party, I don't think he is any sort of libertarian dream candidate.

Asharak|10.9.07 @ 3:18AM|#

Asharak, would you care to spit it out and explain what "pretty kooky" means to you.

Well, there's the "gold standard" stuff, for one. I also think his views on immigration are a bit paranoid and he supports a rather statist approach to immigration reform which is inconsistent with usual anti-Big Government stance.

Cactus|10.9.07 @ 3:19AM|#

pgt You're right. It is John Hawkins after all. His opinion pieces read like something an eight grader would scribble. I'd be ashamed to be posting them as something worthy of intellectual discourse. It isn't like the Right doesn't have some swinging dick heavy hitters with some intellect that can go out and defend a position but John Hawkins has all the intellectual throw weight of a bottle rocket. He's a fucking pathetic neocon sycophant.

Asharak|10.9.07 @ 3:31AM|#

I doubt that the average reasonoid libertarian is thrilled with Paul's stance on immigration and his seeming paranoia about foreigners. See the NAFTA superhighway bit on his page on his "American Independence and Sovereignty" for a decent example.

I saw that, too. I don't even agree with NAFTA or the NAU myself, but the belief that both are actually going to unite the U.S., Canada and Mexico into one big nation seems baseless and silly to me.

Moneygrubbing Lunatic|10.9.07 @ 3:38AM|#

Well, switching to a deflationary currency with the national debt as high as it is strikes me as unwise. Picking gold as said currency is kooky.

If Mr. Paul were talking about a molybdenum standard or something, I would merely call it a bad idea given our debt. But most of the value of gold is purely psychological. If it were only valued for its practical use (like
molybdenum) the price would dramatically drop; it's a good non-corroding electrical conductor, and not much else in the era of stainless steel.

/////ANDRE|10.9.07 @ 4:31AM|#

"molybdenum standard"...

I Like It!
I can just hear Bush trying to pronounce it.

Mad Max|10.9.07 @ 4:56AM|#

Molly Bend 'Em . . . I think I knew a girl of that name once. Or maybe that was just her stage name.

|10.9.07 @ 5:59AM|#

Whoever runs that "moonbattery" site must eat paint chips for breakfast.

|10.9.07 @ 6:27AM|#

So he frightens them?

Good, good.

|10.9.07 @ 7:12AM|#

Doesn't matter anyway because right wing bloggers are just a couple of 15 year olds spamming the internet trying to combat the 2 15 year olds donating $5.1 million in 3Q.

I quess i'm a freak of nature and should hate myself for being a right-wing Ron Paul supporter.

I think I'll go spam myself about Ron Paul then blog about how obnoxious my support is to the other 15 year old.

|10.9.07 @ 7:57AM|#

Ron Paul wants to end taxes and the 1st taxes he attempts to concour:
The long term capitol gains...which Bush reduced from 20% and 18 months to 15% and 12 months. Ok...Who does this help save money? The average worker with a 401k or IRA....saves $0.00 but the wealthy making millions is stocks...doesn't pay taxes. Same with no tax on SS. Most poor will never make enough for SS to be taxed...but he wants to remove the tax for the wealthy...so of course the terrible government program will fail and the poor with have nothing. This man likes to say he stands for the people...but he is like every other republican and thinks the rich will provide for the poor better by becomming richer...while the government still taxes the poor.

Jason Mitchell|10.9.07 @ 8:19AM|#

I think that 70% of Americans don't like Republicans right now, so who really cares. I'm a military veteran and have been a Republican since I could vote, and if there is no room for a guy who wants to repeal the income tax, fight for Republican values for 30+ years and supported Reagan in 1976, then there is no room in the party for me. Having a foreign policy that is rooted in reality should not make you a "fringe" candidate, saying that you support a preemptive nuclear war should get you thrown out of Washington. What has our country come to????

http://thunderjones.blogspot.com/2007/06/preemptive-nuclear-war.html

|10.9.07 @ 8:28AM|#

Ron Paul does have a great deal of support on Stormfront which is a neo-Nazi website.

Of course, the reason why they support him is that he wants to end Federal Affirmative Action, and because he is opposed to the Federal Reserve.

The reason why they like the affirmative action policy is obvious; no more special perq's for "race enemies".

The latter is because they view it as him being against the modern banking system which they feel to be controlled by the Joooos.

This does not discredit Ron Paul; Alot of racists have embraced libertarianism once they saw the state apparatus used "against them". In the days of Jim Crow these guys had no truck with the idea of Freedom of Association until suddenly the laws went from mandating segregation to forbidding it.

Charleston Voice|10.9.07 @ 8:42AM|#

Lookee here at who owns your neo-con presidential candidate. Bankers and lawyers, that's who!:

Giuliani
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009908&cycle=2008

Romney
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000286&cycle=2008

|10.9.07 @ 8:50AM|#

Did you see this from Charleston Voice's link?

Bracewell & Giuliani $91,100

I'm not sure, but I think I've seen that name and number associated together once before... could he be a more blatant asshat?

|10.9.07 @ 10:09AM|#

The GOP NEONAZIs hate Ron Paul that is one more reason to VOTE FOR RON PAUL !

Leland Thomas Faegre|10.9.07 @ 10:10AM|#

Asharak | October 9, 2007, 3:31am | #

I doubt that the average reasonoid libertarian is thrilled with Paul's stance on immigration and his seeming paranoia about foreigners. See the NAFTA superhighway bit on his page on his "American Independence and Sovereignty" for a decent example.

I saw that, too. I don't even agree with NAFTA or the NAU myself, but the belief that both are actually going to unite the U.S., Canada and Mexico into one big nation seems baseless and silly to me.

The European Union began as a three nation trade zone. Surely you can extrapolate in [English and Spanish] how that formula is applicable in this hemispheric instance...

|10.9.07 @ 10:15AM|#

"Why are neo-Nazis so very fond of Ron Paul?"

Why are Iranian mullahs so fond of Mitt Romney?

Why are Anarchist so fond of Rudy Guliani?

Why are black seperatists so fond of Barack Obama.

Why are abortion providers so fond of Hillary Clinton?

Oh, I'm sorry. I though this was an ignorant bullshit contest. Never mind.

|10.9.07 @ 10:16AM|#

Skip,

If I understood your post correctly, you were claiming that Ron Paul was an enemy of the poor because he wants to do away with Social Security., since Social Security taxes are paid by the rich.

This is not actually correct. The Social Security tax is regressive. That means that a person with low income pays a larger percentage of their income to the tax than someone with a high income.

Repealing social security taxes today would give all low income workers an effective 6.5 % pay raise. It would also provide an immediate 6% cost cut to employers by eliminating their share of the tax. This drop in the cost of labor would translate into increased demand, resulting in increased competition for laborers causing a rise in wages until once again demand matched supply. The end result would be a long term additional 4 - 6% rise in wages.

So repealing Social Security frees the poor wage earner from his or her largest tax burden, in effect increasing their discretionary income by 6% in the short term and between 10% - 12% in the long term.

Even the capital gains tax and dividend taxes hurt the poor. They encourage accounting fiddles of the type Enron engaged in. Who suffered more from the Enron-type accounting swindles? I'll give you a hint; it wasn't the rich investors...

|10.9.07 @ 10:22AM|#

But tarran, don't you know that people are too stupid to take care of themselves? They'd probably spend their money at McDonalds and Wal-Mart instead of giving it to the government to use wisely and justly now. And they'd have to eat cat food when they're old!

VM|10.9.07 @ 10:36AM|#

Frisky grandmas prefer Wiskas

I want med'care
subsidized
cat food cat food
please provide...

Jim Lippard|10.9.07 @ 11:10AM|#

Ron Paul's kooky with claims such as that the U.S. is a Christian nation because U.S. Constitution is "replete with references to God" (there's only one, where the date of signing is referred to as the "year of our Lord"), his opposition to free trade agreements, his desire to remove birthright citizenship from the Constitution (presumably by repealing that part of the 14th Amendment), his stance on immigration, his advocacy of the gold standard, his paranoia about the UN taking away our guns, the creation of a North American Union, and the U.S. dollar being replaced by the amero, and his allowing wacky racist and anti-Semitic statements to be published under his name in the Ron Paul Political Report and not immediately issuing published retractions ("95% of the black males in [D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," confusing the mostly evangelical Christian Israel lobby with the government of Israel: "by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government")...

Asharak|10.9.07 @ 12:14PM|#

Ron Paul's kooky with claims such as that the U.S. is a Christian nation because U.S. Constitution is "replete with references to God" (there's only one, where the date of signing is referred to as the "year of our Lord"), his opposition to free trade agreements, his desire to remove birthright citizenship from the Constitution (presumably by repealing that part of the 14th Amendment), his stance on immigration, his advocacy of the gold standard, his paranoia about the UN taking away our guns, the creation of a North American Union, and the U.S. dollar being replaced by the amero, and his allowing wacky racist and anti-Semitic statements to be published under his name in the Ron Paul Political Report and not immediately issuing published retractions ("95% of the black males in [D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," confusing the mostly evangelical Christian Israel lobby with the government of Israel: "by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government")...

I don't see anything nutty about opposing "free" trade agreements and still attacking him for the newsletter thing is unfair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#Newsletter_article_controversy).

Everything else is nutty, though.

LarryA|10.9.07 @ 12:17PM|#

his paranoia about the UN taking away our guns,

You're not paranoid if they're really out to get you.

UN 2006 Conference: "Wherever arms flow, violence follows." United Nations Messenger of Peace, Award-winning Actor and Producer Michael Douglas.

Ray|10.9.07 @ 12:39PM|#

Trolls, Trolls Trolls...

Anybody that thinks that a fiat paper money system based on debt is better than a commodity money system based on gold is kooky or just plain ignorant of monetary systems and history.

Being against a commodity based monetary system is like saying "I like my money losing purchasing power every day, and I like the idea of the FED printing as much money as they want so the government can spend and spend on wars and welfare."

|10.9.07 @ 1:02PM|#

Asharak:

I don't think Paul is a Nazi myself

What a bold conclusion!

but I still find some of his political positions to be pretty kooky. But then they're no more kooky than a lot of the things the rest of the Republican candidates are supporting.

You've got that name calling thing down pretty well, Asharak.

Asharak|10.9.07 @ 2:13PM|#

You've got that name calling thing down pretty well, Asharak.

Yeah, God forbid that St. Paul is criticized for anything.

Asharak|10.9.07 @ 2:23PM|#

Trolls, Trolls Trolls...

Anybody that thinks that a fiat paper money system based on debt is better than a commodity money system based on gold is kooky or just plain ignorant of monetary systems and history.

Being against a commodity based monetary system is like saying "I like my money losing purchasing power every day, and I like the idea of the FED printing as much money as they want so the government can spend and spend on wars and welfare."

Moneygrubbing Lunatic merely said it was unwise to switch to the gold standard when the national debt is already high. How is that trolling?

Asharak|10.9.07 @ 2:30PM|#

I don't know who's worse or more irrational: the Paul-haters who get pissed off when he's praised for being right on certain issues or the Paulistas who get pissed off whenever he's criticized.

Edward|10.9.07 @ 2:48PM|#

Check out David Duke's support for Ron Paul at Duke's official web site:

http://www.davidduke.net/general/register-republican-by-october-12th-or-you-cant-vote-for-ron-paul_2877.html

|10.9.07 @ 6:32PM|#

Check out David Duke's support for Ron Paul at Duke's official web site:

So what? That obviously doesn't imply that Ron Paul is a racist. Note that some socialist and commie parties backed FDR.…no wait, bad example!

Ray|10.9.07 @ 7:17PM|#

"Moneygrubbing Lunatic merely said it was unwise to switch to the gold standard when the national debt is already high. How is that trolling?"

So when is a good time to switch? After the whole fiat system collapses? That is your only alternative.
If you understand how the current system works, as you pay off the debt, you are destroying money that is in circulation since that money was created by the debt. They won't pay off any of the national debt because if they do the contraction would lead to a depression. So they keep rolling over the debt in an attempt to delay the inevitable collapse of the fiat money system for some unfortunate future generation to deal with.

Guy Montag|10.9.07 @ 10:27PM|#

So what? That obviously doesn't imply that Ron Paul is a racist.

Quite excellent. I am certainly not a RP supporter and I have never seen a stick of evidence that he is racist in the slightest.

There are plenty of other things to criticise hom of and, in jest, I pick on the following that he has gathered, but racism is certainly not one of them.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements