Ahh man, more bashing of Ron Paul... Article: The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul

[LibertyEagle]

Hey Mike... thanks. You did a great job!

 

[mikelovesgod]

Do I get a cookie or a metal?

 

[angrydragon]

Hunter, Duncan, R-Calif.
Of course has a rating of 84 (2006) on national journal.

NTU rates him at 62% (2006).
56% the previous two years.

I never heard of Duncan, and I'm in California. haha.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Do I get a cookie or a metal?

I think a metal. Your response was much better than one I would have constructed, because I would have created a huge long post with sources, rebutting each of his points.

Sometimes shorter is much better. Thanks.

Where do I send the metal?

 

[angrydragon]

Medal, not metal. =)

 

[mikelovesgod]

Send it to Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dspectre]

It's like Bradley in DC said we need to be nice because we are representing Ron Paul.

 

[briatx]

Posted this in the action forum, but this thread has more action.


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.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Medal, not metal. =)

LOL. I thought that sounded wrong when I wrote it, but I'm way too tired right now...

 

[mikelovesgod]

Posted this in the action forum, but this thread has more action.


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.

Word

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'll sure be glad to see Ron Paul's numbers get past the low single digits.

 

[james1906]

most conservative? yes
most neoconservative? not by a longshot

 

[james1906]

i also didn't get how the writer wanted libertarians in the republican party, then bashed libertarianism in the article.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If Jar is on here, you said 10 years, instead of 10 TERMS.

It's also helpful to note that he is a conservative (that is, a “constitutionalist”) and a Republican, with a proven track record spanning 10 years.

 

[Korey Kaczynski]

i also didn't get how the writer wanted libertarians in the republican party, then bashed libertarianism in the article.

Short answer:

Because he's dumb.

Long answer:

Because he's a fucking idiot.

 

[briatx]

Because he's working for the Hunter campaign, and he's jealous.

The establishment in both parties hate Ron Paul, because he exposes them for the corrupt sellouts that they are. They can't say: but everyone else is doing it. They have to say: everyone else is doing it, except for Ron Paul.

 

[james1906]

Because he's working for the Hunter campaign, and he's jealous.

The establishment in both parties hate Ron Paul, because he exposes them for the corrupt sellouts that they are. They can't say: but everyone else is doing it. They have to say: everyone else is doing it, except for Ron Paul.

and the hunter will become the hunted!

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'd pretty much say that anything he's said has thoroughly been dealt with at this point.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

Because he's working for the Hunter campaign, and he's jealous.

The establishment in both parties hate Ron Paul, because he exposes them for the corrupt sellouts that they are. They can't say: but everyone else is doing it. They have to say: everyone else is doing it, except for Ron Paul.

It stupefies me that anyone associated with or supporting the Hunter, Tancredo, Brownback or Huckabee campaigns would step up and call Paul unelectable.

Everyone knows that all four of these guys are utterly unelectable. I won't go into why, because I don't want to start any fights here, but they all have handicaps in a general election that it's impossible to overcome. So if we're silly for supporting Paul because this guy thinks he's unelectable, what about his quixotic support for Hunter?

 

[beermotor]

dang, that's one of the funniest articles i've seen in awhile.

for anyone else who wants to start handing out awards for most-liberal, most-groovy, or most-fill-in-whatever-you-want-here, I've got a tip:

Spend, I dunno, at least 5 or 6 words describing your methodology and/or your definition of "liberal".

Yeah - it was very poorly done, and the comment that quoted the press release where the guy was signed up to be Duncan Hunter's "online presence" was hysterical. The comments were awesome.