01.04.2012 09:50 AM

Ron Paul in his own words, and what extremism will do to conservatives

I pay quite a bit of attention to the lunatic named Ron Paul, these days, because he figures somewhat prominently in my new book.  His showing in Iowa last night, and some of his past publications, combine to ensure my guy – Barack Obama – is re-elected handily, I think.

Ron Paul statements, you ask?  Here’s some of my favourites, and the link to same:

  • “Needlin’, a new form of racial terrorism has struck New York City streets on the tony Upper West Side. At least 39 white women have been struck with used hypodermic needles — perhaps infected with AIDS — by gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14.”
  • “Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressmen (sic). What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”
  • “Order was only restored in L.A. when it was time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. … What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”
  •  “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”
  • “Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”

This maniac came a close third last night.  That tells you (as I will relate in my book) that (a) the Right’s recent political successes have shattered their self-discipline and (b) that, soon enough, progressives will decimate them.

They have gone to the margins, too far, too fast.

65 Comments

  1. WDM says:

    2012 – Obama beats Romney.
    2016 – GOP convinces itself once again it needs to move further right after running “moderates” in 2008 and 2012.
    2016b – Jon Huntsmen just finally breaks down and walks off the stage in the middle of a GOP candidate debate.

  2. W.B. says:

    This result is a huge boost for Romney because it seems he has overcome the Mormon liability with evangelicals and social conservatives who must have voted for him and just overall seemed to have finally accepted him.

  3. Kathy Briggs says:

    Warren in your opinion who today here in canada are the close equivalants or the up and comers to the likes of Ron Paul? Forewarned is forearmed…and whats the working title of your new book?

  4. William says:

    Demographics is the biggest threat to this mentality.

    It”s interesting how Paul supporters view the world through rose colored glasses. On paper, I agree that the US is involved with too many other nations around the world. But it’s the hole they dug and, like it or not, they are in for the long haul.

    Paul never tells his supporters that bringing home troops from around the world would effectively put them out of work. Imagine the hardship on families and vets, many of whom are already marginalized by society.

    The other reality of this is that if the US left other countries, they are leaving the door open for nations such as China, Russia and others to exercise greater influence.

    It’s a necessary chess match.

    Paul is also off base in his call to end the FED…no way on earth the US could do that given the world we live in. The dollar would lose its status as the world reserve.

    Seems to me that beyond his call to heed the constitution, lies a man who has serious problems with people who aren’t white nor self professed Christians.

    He’s a soft spoken Archie Bunker………but Carroll O’Connor was acting.

    • Pat says:

      Greatest President of the Twentieth Century? Maybe in the “How to be a conservative” textbook… but anyone who studies public administration knows that the guy really screwed up the efficiency and effectiveness of the US government, which has led to bloat. He is actually used as an example in more than one text (and don’t say it was a “liberal” text either, because Clinton and Gore were just as roundly criticized for not fixing the problems created by Reagan). Reagan created problems, then spun the hell out of them. In reality, he basically crippled the US government with his administrative actions. You can’t be considered the best when you cripple the government – the same way that people will never recognize Harper as the best because he is messing up our tax system and destroying the effectiveness of the public service with idiotic policies and directives… Once again, I’m not saying this as a Liberal – I’m saying it as someone who has studied public administration extensively (graduate level).

    • William says:

      Unemployment for Young Vets: 30%, and Rising

      http://www.businessweek.com/finance/occupy-wall-street/archives/2011/11/the_vets_job_crisis_is_worse_than_you_think.html

      And once again Gord, noted Democrat Carroll O’Connor was acting, Ron Paul isn’t.

      • William says:

        Gord, I have an MBA in finance, a CFA, and CAIA.

        I know exactly what I’m talking about

      • Philip says:

        Mr. Tulk, perhaps an apology to William is in order. Extending him the same courtesy you ask of others seems only fair.

      • Pat says:

        What the hell are you talking about? I actually don’t think that government should play a bigger role in people’s lives, so don’t put words in my mouth. What I was stating was a fact – Reagan made totally random cuts to the administration that resulted in efficiency and/or effectiveness of government, which resulted in the need to actually grow government to deal with holes. The USA government grew much quicker than it ever should have in the last couple of years of Reagan’s time in office to attempt to negate the adverse effects of his decisions. The ridiculous inefficiency of the US government has almost nothing to do with any of the POTUS since Reagan. Like I said, Clinton and Gore often get skewered for not dealing with these issues in their “reinventing government” kick. What Reagan should have done was shrink the administration incrementally to make sure that services were still able to be delivered efficiently, instead he crippled the system, then made it bloat to make up for his mistakes.

        Don’t you tell me this is fucking ideology you CPC mouthpiece. You have no place saying that to anyone. As soon as you have an equivalent understanding of public administration to mine, come talk to me. Until then, go fuck yourself for saying that.

        Another note – do you have a problem with Wilson or the other Roosevelt?

      • Bill says:

        Gord is completely right on this. William and Pat sound like arrogant people. Your views are in the minority, all your “experience” and “education” has made you think your shit doesn’t smell. Listen more and stop enjoying the sound of your voice, people will like you more……

      • Pat says:

        I’m stating actual facts to a person who obviously has no grasp of public administration, and you’re criticizing me, Bill? Reagan’s administrative actions are a case study, not an opinion. He actually did those things. That isn’t to negate the positive things he did – I just don’t think you can call a terrible administrator the greatest president of the 20th century when he created many of the problems that have led to US government bloat since the 1980s. Like I said, this isn’t an opinion. It is equivalent to saying grass is green, or the sky is blue.. it is a fact. The fact that it works against Reagan worshipers is just a coincidence – like I said, it isn’t like Clinton or Gore did any better. I’m sure there are Clinton fans who would tell me I’m a liar or biased too. They would probably think I’m a Republican or something.

        Bill – I sound like an arrogant person for stating facts? You sound like a Conservative for writing off actual facts when making your argument. Gord didn’t say anything of substance in his criticism of my comment besides he thinks I’m biased. That sounds like any other politico who thinks that anyone who disagrees with them is inherently biased. All I’m saying is that there is documented evidence that Reagan made administrative policy mistakes that should disqualify him from the mantle of greatest POTUS in the 20th C.

      • Ted says:

        Pat: And even on their own grounds, Reagan should not be held up as the model Republican President. He raised as many taxes as he cut. He increased military spending but also all spending and earmarks. He and his administration were involved in some of the worst corruption in Washington, including Iran-Contra – how is trading missiles for hostages a Republican value? – and the too-complicated-for-the-media-to-bother-trying-to-remember (but severely damaging) savings and loan scandal.

        The taxes one is an interesting one to me because it actually gives me more respect for him since it shows he had a pragmatic and not strictly ideological side to him, as fleeting as that may have been.

        But all of those, shall we call them… facts… add up.

        He took on some big challenges, helped end communism and he was a great speaker. I wouldn’t say he was nearly all bad.

        But his real legacy and why conservatives claim him to be a great president, relates pretty much only to the fact that he gave power to a new conservative core to the Republican Party that has only strengthened over time. He bumped the so-called “Rockefeller Republican” out of the core of the party. Today’s struggles with the ever-increasingly lunatic right is the last tailwinds of Reagan’s soaring.

  5. William says:

    3rd party Paul run guarantees an Obama victory.

    I hope he goes for it.

    • William says:

      And that’s what they said about Perot too.

      Know what, they were right.

    • The Doctor says:

      Gord, I think this is quite different from 1968 in a number of ways. Wallace was a Southern Democrat, and his effect on the 1968 election was, among other things, to take Southern Democrat votes away from Humphrey. Remember that in the 1960s, the South was a Democratic Party bastion, though that started to change slowly with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 (which was a big factor in Wallace’s whole attitude and outlook, including his decision to run as an independent).

      But these days, the demographics and voting behaviour in the South have changed considerably from 1968, e.g., most Southern States now trend Republican in the ordinary course. So Ron Paul is not a Wallace-type spoiler for the Democrats. I’m sure some of his supporters would be Democrats, but most would be from the Republican camp.

  6. Ottawacon says:

    Not so sure, finishing 3rd in Iowa has a mixed record – it means you are out by March at least as often as it means you might run all the way to the convention as a dark horse.

  7. Mike says:

    In comparison to a few of the other contenders, Ron Paul is positively sane…His greatest defect being an ability to find mortal danger to his country in a nursery school.

  8. jade says:

    Speaking to Republicans in Iowa on Monday, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) said his administration would reform welfare to the point that it would offer no welfare at all.

    After suggesting that an expansion of Medicare is really just a plot to make voters more “dependent” on Washington, Santorum added: ”I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them other people’s money.”

    …just saying…and interested to see Tulk’s views

  9. Justin says:

    Really the lions share of Paul supporters are only interested in one thing, legalizing pot. Apart from that many of his supporters would be turned off by his many views if they were to actually listen to what he has to say. Paul supporters tend to be rabid, anti government supporters and they flood every facet of the Internet, usually possibly with multiple accounts, with their tired screed usually in caps lock on the evils of obamas so called socialist “dictatorship”.

  10. Ted B says:

    No, he’s the GOP version of Ralph Nader, or the updated version of Pat Buchanan, only with much more support and therefore much more dangerous to Republicans if he was to abandon them again.

    Wallace appealed to what is now considered to be the Republican core and Democrats’ southern core, whereas Nader, Buchanan and Paul appeal to to their party’s respective fringes.

    Wallace is emblematic of the shift in US politics and the creation of a new divide. I don’t think we could say the same of Paul. Unlike Wallace, Paul does not appeal to a large contingency of Democrats.

    • Ted says:

      There are not a significant number of Democrats who think Paul is spot-on, even his foreign policy. Especially his foreign policy. I have no idea where you got that notion. Other than Paul opposing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and cutting funding to Israel – for very different reasons than Democrats mind you – I can’t think of anything in common with Democrats who are far more internationalists than Paul’s 1930s Republican isolationism.

      The notion that that a “significant” number of Democrats agree with him seems completely fabricated to me to support some theory you have about Ron Paul.

      I admire Paul because he does stand up for his principles, even in the face of national opposition. But he’s a kook and we’ve only become immune to his kookiness because we’ve seen him so long and because the Tea Party brought kookiness into the mainstream.

  11. James Bow says:

    I think you’re already seeing some interesting things on the Libertarian front. There’s that Republican governor of New Mexico who has quit the party and is running for the Libertarian nomination. Polls already indicate that, if he did get that nomination, he’d pull votes from Democrats and Republicans in his home state, although he’d pull more Republicans away, such that the state would likely go to Obama should he be a factor.

    Paul’s past is coming back to haunt him, but his present places him diametrically opposed to Santorum. I can’t see dedicated members of either camp being willing to work with the other should either take the nomination. This makes Romney a compromise candidate between them, and is is a candidate that plays better to independents and moderates (you know: the guys who are actually responsible for candidates winning elections in November) than either of the other two.

    The play that Santorum and Paul are getting suggests to me that the disagreements within the social conservative/libertarian coalition is coming to a head in the Republican party, and we may be heading towards a rather public split. At least that’s a worst case scenario (or best case scenario, depending on your point of view).

  12. Philippe says:

    Unfortunately Ron Paul won’t matter in the end. Mitt Romney is the one we should be worried about. He’s a smooth talker and will hold a lot of appeal for independents, who determine the elections south of the border. That said, Obama’s better financed and Mitt may alienate a lot of the looney tobacco chewin southern uneducated right who find him too progressive. No matter who wins (and it will be Romney) Obama will take it – but Romney will be a tougher fight.

  13. Riley Robertson says:

    Americans would never elect a Libertarian racist like Paul for President. They know enough about history to realize what the USA used to be like before the creation of the welfare state and affirmative action, and the EPA, and medicare and social security — it was a really shitty place to live for most people in the country. It’s trending back in that direction again so you have OWS and a recharged base of activists on the progressive side who are getting through to “average” Americans. The US system doesn’t even pretend to represent the majority of the public anymore. It’s a plutocracy from top to bottom. Meanwhile pitchforks are being sharpened, torches are being lit, ropes and lamp posts are being prepared…(figuratively speaking, of course) and as Warren writes, conservatives have just gone too far. It’s clear that a fringe is in power and though it may not look like it on the surface, their days in power are numbered. They just produce terrible outcomes. Eventually people wake up — they did in Australia, NZ, Britain, at various times…and they will here, as well. Today a Harper-funded US company (Caterpillar’s locomotive division) demanded that locked out workers take a 55% pay cut, after the company received millions in tax funding from Harper and the recently-retired CEO Jim Owens took home $22-million in 2010 and the current CEO saw his compensation quadruple to around $10.4-million. THIS is the stuff that makes people realize conservatives are in it for themselves — and why they will lose when the rest of us join together in the end.

  14. James Bow says:

    Another reason why the Iowa caucuses and, indeed, the entire 2012 primary season may give us a somewhat skewed view of electoral reality that could come crashing down on Republicans in November?

    Only 5.4% of eligible voters turned out to vote.

    Ouch.

  15. Christopher says:

    Ron Paul didn’t write those statements. They were most likely written by Lew Rockwell:

    Link text

    Having said that, I think it’s absolutely legitimate to criticize Paul for not being aware that such toxic views were being written under his name, and after the newsletters came to light, for being unwilling to reveal the true author’s identity.

    Also, Glenn Greenwald’s recent column at Salon.com on why liberals are so hostile towards Paul’s candidacy is a must-read:

    Link text

    QUOTE ON

    Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform — certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party — who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote — Barack Obama — advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil.

    As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant essay on the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot recommend highly enough: “the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.

    QUOTE OFF

    • International Progressive says:

      Yes but Paul’s association with the racist Rockwell speaks highly of his own racism and extreme views on foreign policy.

      Ron Paul’s foreign policy is untenable and extreme. That’s why we should support Obama’s foreign policy instead.

      • Christopher says:

        Thank you for conceding that Paul isn’t the author of the quotations cited by Warren. We’re making progress.

        Kindly provide even a single citation in which Paul said or wrote something that was racist. Unlike Obama, Paul opposes the War on Drugs which is arguably the most racist government policy in existence.

        You mean the Obama foreign policy that includes secret drone strikes, one of which assassinated an American citizen without due process? You don’t find that “untenable and extreme”?

        Link text

        It’s also worth mentioning that the ACLU recently awarded Paul a higher rating than Obama on its Liberty Watch Report Card:

        Link text

        As you can see, Libertarian Gary Johnson received the highest score of all the candidates.

        For the record, Johnson would be my clear choice, not Paul.

        • Warren says:

          They’re all from his newsletters. He published them. He has been repeatedly asked to repudiate those words, and has refused.

          He owns them.

          • Ted says:

            Exactly.

            He hasn’t even claimed they were quoted “out of context” or being misconstrued.

            I do have some respect for the guy as probably being the only one who stuck to his principles – on a matter such as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan – in the face of massive support within his own party.

            But when you stick with “principles” that are repugnant, maybe you need to stick with them a little less.

          • Philippe says:

            I have to dispute that one Warren. I’m following the stuff down south pretty closely and I’ve seen him repudiate those comments very clearly in several interviews. Based on some of his other comments regarding Muslims and so on, he seems like the _least_ racist of the bunch. Ron Paul is a ton of things, but I don’t believe he’s dishonest or a racist. The media is running wild with this one.

            “Velshi then brought up quotes attributed to a Paul newsletter from 20 years ago that included racist and prejudiced ideals. Paul has disavowed them several times and contends that a person on his staff of six to eight people wrote it. He added that he was practicing medicine at the time and didn’t have much oversight with the newsletter.”

            http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-and-ali-velshi-engage-in-heated-exchange-over-alleged-media-bias/

          • Warren says:

            Produce the “very clear” evidence “several times,” please.

          • Philippe says:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6rxts0-f9w
            at 4:25 Calls Rosa Parks and MLK 2 of his heroes (which racist would ever utter those words?)

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg&feature=related
            Watch at 3:00 where Wolf asks him to repudiate the comments – if anyone has time, it’s worth watching the whole clip

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH0QHNulxP0
            “It wasn’t a reflection of my views at all”
            “It was terrible and tragic”

          • Christopher says:

            Paul has said he didn’t write them. It’s obvious to anyone familiar with Paul that the quotations in question don’t even sound like him. He has also said he disavows the views expressed in them.

            For example,

            Ron Paul disavows racist newsletters under his name

            Again, if you can cite an actual quotation from Paul that you think is racist please post it.

          • Philippe says:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGBDLHsPK24&feature=related
            at 1:35
            “I didn’t write them – I disavow them”

            I’m not a Paul fan I find some of his positions too radical – but I don’t believe he has a dishonest or racist bone in his body.

  16. International Progressive says:

    Well said Warren. Ron Paul is an extreme isolationist. His isolationism is motivated by racism and antisemitism. He called Israel an apartheid state.

    Ron Paul and his supporters are pieces of shit, as far as I’m concerned. Their extreme views on foreign policy have no place in political discourse.

    • The Doctor says:

      So you must have a real problem with Israeli Apartheid Week, which is celebrated annually on Canadian university campuses — and mostly organized and promoted by people who see themselves as “progressive”.

  17. Jeff says:

    Ron Paul isn’t an isolationist, he’s a non-interventionist. Big difference. Remember that we’re talking about a person wants free trade with countries like Iran and Cuba.

    It’s also doubtful that Paul wrote the racist and homophobic parts in those newsletters. RP even goes as far as calling Bradley Manning (openly homosexual soldier who leaked US documents) a patriot. The lack of oversight on his part certainly definitely looks bad though.

  18. Dankyogurt says:

    “combine to ensure my guy – Barack Obama” Really? My man? You mean your corporate tool/patsy. Obama is the biggest snake in American history, to say that this administration is a continuation of the Bush doctrine, is an insult to all the Neocon pigs that dragged our country into the toilet. The list of blatant lies this guy ran on is overwhelming. Keep pushing the status quo with your false paradigm of left/right bullsh!t. Ron Paul simply states that wars should be authorized through the proper channels, not like a Dictator overriding any type of congressional oversight. Oh yeah, maybe you should read the NDAA your snake hero just signed on New Years Eve, cause thats when you know their ramming some really draconian shit down our throat, he will be forever remembered as the President who singed indefinite detention into law. You like the way our countries going? You wanna go to war with Iran and PAk next year, you wanna keep letting the FED rape us and the world with their BS keynesian policies of free money and government spending? Vote for the tool, the biggest tool in history. The sad thing is intellectuals like whoever runs this joke of a site, actually believe in this crap. This is a guy who openly reveres Reagan, who can’t even close Guantanamo, who nominates all these great people, and watches the Republicans fry them at the stake in committee. Oh wait you wanna talk about racism? Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who openly admits what a fraud the war or terror is, but I guess you support the Neocons creation of the new Fascism, that has killed over a million Arabs, and displaced another 10 million, hey let’s keep the war on drugs going strong because it’s been such a success. The war on terror and the war on drugs are two of the most Fascist/Racist policies ever inflicted on any populous. No, no Ron Paul is a racist that will repeal the civil rights act, force women to have back alley abortions and ensure gay people have to move to Canada, sounds awfully like Republican rhetoric, oh yeah I forgot there is no difference between mainstream republicans and democrats they just pretend to stand for different ideals all the while pushing us to the same corporate statehood.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*