Topic: Ron Paul
Conservative Heavyweights Stick Up for Ron Paul Huckabee can have Chuck Norris and Giuliani can have Pat Robertson. I'll vote with Pat Buchanan, John McLaughlin, Vic Gold, and Barry Goldwater.by Grizzle Griz
(Centrist)
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Conservative John McLaughlin ended 2007 with two last words for Iowa and New Hampshire: "Ron Paul". McLaughlin is an intellectual heavyweight and a conservative whose television show has attracted the "sharpest minds, best sources, and hardest talk" for the last 25 years. Through it all, McLaughlin has proven capable of going toe-to-toe with any pundit, anywhere, anytime. Between the Christmas and New Year episodes of McLaughlin Group, the Ron Paul theme dominated the discussion. McLaughlin had already named Paul the "most distinguished" in an early Republican debate, but the accolades flowed like milk and honey in the last two episodes, culminating in McLaughlin’s naming of Ron Paul as "Person of the Year" for "injecting the presidential campaign with a dose of truth serum". Wow.
Conservative Pat Buchanan promotes Paul’s platform all over the pundit circuit (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Buchanan was New Hampshire’s 1996 Republican nominee and he has held fast to original Constitutionalism in spite of the Party’s outright abandonment of it. While other Republicans freely float over to the big government, liberal side of the political waters, Pat Buchanan has been an ideological anchor for the Party. So much so that when the Party strays too far off course, Pat Buchanan just stays put and gives himself a new Party name until they come back. In the interest of full disclosure, Buchanan has stated that he has not endorsed Ron Paul yet, but the mere fact that he needs to explain that is rather revealing.
Newt Gingrich was the Republican Speaker of the House during the Clinton Administration who implemented a new "Contract with America". In this video he explains that Ron Paul's success issues from his strict adherence to the Constitution, honesty, and candor.
Victor Gold was an advisor to Goldwater and a recent author of the book, Invasion of the Party Snatchers. There, he explains how the conservative movement was co-opted by the neoconservative movement, which promptly destroyed the party (and the country) out of a lust for power. In this interview with Bill Moyers, Gold explains that Ron Paul is the only real conservative with a 2008 presidential bid. He explains the irony that the rest of the Party has strayed so far from Goldwater-conservatism that Paul sounds like an outsider.
Barry Goldwater’s family has given Ron Paul an outright endorsement. Goldwater was the architect of the modern conservative movement. He sacrificed himself for a 1964 presidential bid that he knew he could not win: "The Country is not ready to assassinate two presidents in twelve months", but in the process, he turned the Republican Party toward a brand of thoughtful, intellectually-formidable Conservatism which ushered the 1980 candidacy of Ronald Reagan. Barry Goldwater Jr., who has announced his endorsement of Ron Paul was a Congressman from Arizona who has held fast to his father’s theory of conservative governance. He explains that Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who maintains these views.
Paul is not without detractors, however. Neoconservatives are lining up to take shots at Paul without really explaining how or why he is wrong. Bill Kristol, who has been dead wrong about foreign policy for the last eight years, recently called Ron Paul a "crackpot" and said that Paul "hates America". Kristol, who has never served in the military, has been pushing an invasion of Iran after issuing disastrously incorrect predictions about Iraq. Bill Maher asked Kristol to "sit this one out". David Shuster also called Ron Paul a crackpot on Morning Joe. When Ron Paul called into the show to challenge him, Shuster was at a loss to explain how or why the comment was justified.
I admit that when I got onboard with the Ron Paul Revolution, I had a few reservations. The media’s portrait of Paul as a radical and his supporters as "fringe" gave me pause. I questioned whether I liked Paul because his views were sound or simply because he thinks outside the box. The latter can be dangerous. Discovering that every Republican with a capacity for abstract thought backs Paul has been a boon to my confidence in the movement. Discovering that every neoconservative who has been wrong on foreign policy opposes Paul didn’t hurt my confidence either.
Join this imposing band of conservatives and take back the GOP. Join the American mayors, wall-street traders, and quick-witted Texas judges (see this video) who will be voting for Paul in the next couple of months. Join the troops, who overwhelmingly donate to the Ron Paul campaign compared to any other, so they can leave this fruitless war and return to their families. Join the younger voting generation who will otherwise have to suffer the consequences of a government that taxes children before they are conceived and runs the national debt to epic proportions. Don’t vote for mere charisma without a governing philosophy (Mike "Chuck Norris is my plan for governing" Huckabee), or candidates who beg for a second chance after successive mistakes (John "We came to Washington to change Washington, but it changed us" McCain), or who morph their platforms for your vote (Mitt "whatever" Romney). Stop this trend toward economic disaster and revoke the neoconservatives’ licenses to govern. Join the only Republican who stays Republican, even when it’s inconvenient.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 191 thumbs so far
2008 Grizzle Griz, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, January 3, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, January 3, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Grizzle Griz only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Grizzle Griz is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The so-called "war on drugs" has been a waste of time and money and an affront to civil liberties. Under Ron Paul, people would not be criminalized for what they do to their own bodies, therefore illegal drugs would be legal and drug dealers would be out of the picture.
Ron Paul would end the undue influence that corporations have on our government and would end subsidies, therefore creating a true free market. The way to hold them accountable is to level the playing field and get government out, not by making more and more laws.
Seems like any reasonable centrist would support those things.
Very well written. I watched CNN last night for about 4 hours and Dr. Paul's name never came up. I am praying that he comes in third tonight in Iowa or maybe even 2nd. I have my fingers crossed and hope my faith in Americans will be up held.
Ron Paul's stance on the War on Drugs left me puzzled for quite awhile. Off the cuff, it does sound, well, ridiculous. However, the key point that no one (sadly, not even RP himself) emphasizes enough is this: Ron Paul wants to end the FEDERAL war on drugs, for various reasons that after much research I have found to be justified. This in no way would hinder the states from continuing the fight against drug dealers targeting children etc. It would however, put money back into your pocket to help fight drugs locally, if you should so choose. And, it would save even more money -to be used to fight local problems, say education- in the state prison systems (a dramatic decrease in drug-related incarcerations). Don't mistake federal leniency on drug use with general crime leniency. Violence, theft and a host of other crimes would still be crimes and prosecutable as such. I'm no drug-use advocate; I don't even drink alcohol and I've never used an 'illegal' drug. My personal belief is that practically any substance use is at best, unnecessary and at worst, destructive and potentially fatal. That won't change. Ending the war on drugs most certainly will not entice me or most rational people to go out and buy some. I believe it will actually take away some incentive to deal drugs because suddenly the price and profit in drug dealing will fall. But the thing that gets me is the principle that constitutionally, federal involvement in policing a nebulous "war" on drugs is at best, inefficient and at worst, inneffective and fiscally irresponsible. We need to continue to make the distinction between Federal and State roles and regulations in implementing action in the drug war and other issues. If you recoil from Ron Paul because of the seemingly dramatic examples of decreased FEDERAL involvement in social and government issues, PLEASE do your research and find out the depth of his understanding. Vote Ron Paul 2008!
sorry Statist, but Ron Paul would eliminate the drug dealers by regulating the drugs. Granted your plan is to ban the drugs, but banning them causes more problems than it keeping them legal ever could. All your statist views, aside from the rasist and religious fanatical ones, sound good on paper, but when you add in the human element, they will never hold true.
to -collin28- dont waste your time watching cnn or any msm they put ron paul only once a week for the most a few minutes and he has to answer all the questions with one word or less than 30 second and even with this limited time what he gets they still interupting dont let him finish his answer but being -kooky-he still come out as a winner
did you hear his finishing line for fox -i think they put themself in the box- so our new slogan is FOX IN THE BOX
bytheway cnn is 23hrs nonstop for hillary
my prediction if they not able to steal the votes from ron paul than the establisment will force hillary for president with obama vicepresident because only their combine votes will overpass the ron paul revolution one on one nobody beats the good doctor period. but we have to deal with that freaking DIEBOLD first keep the faith brother
a.j.fabio, I'm not following you. You need to re-read my post.
just to clarify: I agree with RP to legalize drugs at the federal level. You are right, banning them causes more problems than keeping them legal. If some states want to fight them, fine; they just wouldn't be able to use your (our) federal taxes to do it. And to get individual states to end the 'drug war', people like you and me would need to get involved. (i.e. educate others, get involved and vote. It is easier to make a difference in policy at a local level when the Federal Government isn't a factor.)
By the way, there is no mention in my comments about racism or religion.
He wasn't talking to you, but the user named "the statist". It was the same user you were responding too in your post about the war on drugs. "The statist" was the guy defending the war on drugs.
This is one of the best articles I've seen in awhile... You have a gift for prose - the ability to make it concise enough to fit into one article, but good enough to cover the major points. I wish I could do that, more frequently! :-)
Chin up kids. Ron was fifth in Iowa. Lock in the front hubs and lets go four wheeling. Time to dig in and show our metal. We are in it for the long haul. The constitution rules all. Ron Paul 2008.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Grizzle Griz, all rights reserved.