Republican hatred of Ron Paul

[Lucille]

I think this is true.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/03/mailvox-republican-hatred-of-ron-paul.html

Stickwick wonders why conservatives react in such a stereotypically liberal manner to Ron Paul:

I have a question about the conservative perception of Ron Paul. Rachel Lucas seems like a reasonable right-of-center person whose political views are moving towards libertarianism. In fact, she now refers to herself as a libertarian. However, she still hangs on to the idea of American interventionism. In a recent post she criticizes McCain for his criticism of Rand Paul and for his overly-interventionist policy, but agrees with Ace that *some* interventionism is necessary:

I don't agree with it, but at least their position is stated reasonably. What I find odd is how her commenters are using this as an opportunity to dump all over Ron Paul. Here's a typical example:

"For the record, I cannot STAND Ron Paul. Fiscally he makes sense, but in every other conceivable way he's a senile, batshit crazy old fuck."

Why do some right-of-center people get so vitriolic about Ron Paul? They go right past "I strongly disagree with his ideas on foreign policy," and straight to "crazy old fuck." This is exactly the sort of thing they denounce when the left gets personal in its attacks or calls right-of-center ideology a "mental disorder."

Why do conservatives call Ron Paul crazy instead of just disagreeing with him? Would you shed some light on this?

It's not at all hard to understand why so many conservatives hate Ron Paul with all the fury of a thousand suns. The reason is that he shames them for their hypocrisy. He reveals the inconsistency in their non-conservatism. He forces them to confront the fact that they are not the proponents of small government and liberty they believe themselves to be.

Big government, international interventionist, and monetarist "conservatives" hate Ron Paul for exactly the same reason the Pharisees and Sadducees hated Jesus Christ. Because he exposes their intrinsically false nature to themselves. And the reason they dismiss him as crazy instead of responding rationally to the arguments he presents is because they know they cannot do so without losing.

 

[itshappening]

Ron has never helped himself with his brash style. Look at Rand, that's how you do it. Ron was never interested in playing the game. He always had bad advice to "tell it like it is". His advisers would revel in the criticism and seemed to enjoy it rather than reaching out and persuading them instead of being antagonistic.

 

[Quark]

Same reason why progressives dislike Rand so much. He's a threat to their ability to gain and maintain power. They are alright with big government as long as it's on their side of the lobby.

 

[FriedChicken]

Which is one thing that really got Ron a lot of attention and helped get the strong base of the movement. I loved how Ron was NOT a politician but I'm glad that Rand is. Does that make sense?

I think this response to why he is hated is somewhat true.
He is hated by a lot of the everyday republicans just because they've been lead into hating him by those who make a good comparison to pharisees.

 

[itshappening]

Yeah Ron's style reached me and countless others so I suppose it was a good thing but his former advisers now tell us to forget about the GOP and politics in general and to "secede!". Which is odd because you'd think they would want to help to build a lasting legacy. Bottom line: Now Ron's retired they're not interested. He was their cash cow and will continue to be in retirement.

Look at this way, even some of the best liberty candidates we have elected are not calling for secession. They always need to take the most extreme position. Even if we managed to convince a state to secede they would probably find something else to think of that we should do. Secede from your state! Secede from your County! Secede from your street! Where does it end? I don't know.

 

[itshappening]

Why don't we all put our money together (including the million dollars left in Ron Paul's campaign account) and buy a self-governing island in the Caribbean? We could call it Lew Rockwell Island and elect Ron as honory President (he wouldn't want to take executive power though so it's just an honory position). The island could be governed on an anarchist basis using the models found in Rothbard textbooks.

Come on Lew, this would be a great idea and Ron is a prolific fundraiser. He could raise the few million to buy the island easily then we can all move over there and declare ourselves an independent anarchist State where your education mission of the entire population being educated will be complete.

What do others think of this idea?

 

[supermario21]

I always thought Ron could be elected president of the Second Texas Republic! But that sounds much better.

 

[FriedChicken]

Why don't we all put our money together (including the million dollars left in Ron Paul's campaign account) and buy a self-governing island in the Caribbean? We could call it Lew Rockwell Island and elect Ron as honory President (he wouldn't want to take executive power though so it's just an honory position). The island could be governed on an anarchist basis using the models found in Rothbard textbooks.

Come on Lew, this would be a great idea and Ron is a prolific fundraiser. He could raise the few million to buy the island easily then we can all move over there and declare ourselves an independent anarchist State where your education mission of the entire population being educated will be complete.

What do others think of this idea?

I'm up for anything in the Caribbean.

 

[Emerick]

Yeah Ron's style reached me and countless others so I suppose it was a good thing but his former advisers now tell us to forget about the GOP and politics in general and to "secede!". Which is odd because you'd think they would want to help to build a lasting legacy. Bottom line: Now Ron's retired they're not interested. He was their cash cow and will continue to be in retirement.

Look at this way, even some of the best liberty candidates we have elected are not calling for secession. They always need to take the most extreme position. Even if we managed to convince a state to secede they would probably find something else to think of that we should do. Secede from your state! Secede from your County! Secede from your street! Where does it end? I don't know.

If you truly understand libertarian philosophy, the answer to your question should be obvious: individual self-determination, which means the possibility of secession from any group whatsoever.

If this is practical or not, if this can be achieved or not, if anarchocapitalism is desirable or not (I really think it is), is another problem; but, it's very clear, libertarianism, when followed through logically, inevitably leads to this. That's why the great Ludwig von Mises said that secession was a general principle, that should be applied as extensively as possible.

But, of course, you have a point: once you get to better place, you shouldn't dump it, like some people are doing.

 

[itshappening]

Anyone got any other ideas for Lew Rockwell Island and what it would look like and how it would be governed and organized?

Lew should jump at the idea and can get Ron to help raise the funds. Why waste time organizing conferences all over America when we can have our own island with a 100% educated population? Conferences will not be necessary as we would all be fluent in Rothbard and Hayek. Think of the efficiency savings. Business opportunities could be presented by people visiting our little island to wonder and marvel at the only anarchist state in the World with Ron Paul as president.

We could sell our own passports and citizenship. It could be quite lucrative actually. All profits can be used to build up gold reserves and to sustain the island forever

 

[Lucille]

I would move there in a heartbeat.

Also, it seems Republicans, much like their friends on the left, have a terrible time admitting when they've been disastrously wrong. Until they do, Americans will not trust them to govern.

An Iraqi citizen describes how the Great American liberators implemented democracy in Iraq:

“It is like I am standing naked in a room with a big hat on my head. Everyone comes in and helps put flowers and ribbons on my hat, but no one seems to notice that I am naked.”

The neo-cons set in motion a chain of events that will ultimately result in the collapse of the Great American Empire. The hubris and arrogance of our leaders over the last ten years is a reflection of our military industrial complex capturing the government in collusion with the Wall Street cabal and bankrupting the nation through foreign aggression and domestic pillaging of the middle class. The warfare/welfare state benefits bankers, arms dealers, and mega-corporations. They use their riches to buy off the politician puppets in Washington.

Their lackey at the Federal Reserve prints the fiat currency needed to sustain and further their enrichment. The corporate media provides the storylines of terrorists, imminent threats from 3rd world countries sitting on our oil, and our successes in helping Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans and all of the peoples yearning to be free like us.

We build chicken factories in the desert, fake its success, have our leaders proclaim the success to the corporate media, and the MSM mouthpieces do their duty. Edward Bernays would be so proud of what America has become.

HAPPY 10th ANNIVERSARY!!!

 

[Peace&Freedom]

This blessed Libertarian/anarchist island would last until somebody in the Pentagon or in the banking cabal decided it was "too unaligned" or independent. If the island country would not "cooperate" with the big country decrees concerning financial disclosure, IRS enforcement, promoting fiat currency or a central bank, international copyright, sharing (forking over) their natural resources to western corporations, et al, it would swiftly become a target. At which point, rumors of "Al Qaeda infiltration" of the island would start to fly, leading to economic sanctions, or military invasion to "rectify."

 

[jkr]

ARGH ]they be NOT republican, they be STATISTS

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Which is one thing that really got Ron a lot of attention and helped get the strong base of the movement. I loved how Ron was NOT a politician but I'm glad that Rand is. Does that make sense?

I think this response to why he is hated is somewhat true.
He is hated by a lot of the everyday republicans just because they've been lead into hating him by those who make a good comparison to pharisees.

This!^^ People often say in surveys and discussion groups that they want politicians to stop being slick and to tell the truth. In practice, they usually don't. They want the 'beautiful lie'.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I'm just wondering how this first city in the Woods' IA tour is going to pan out. I mean, if Woods is overtly anti-restore the GOP then it seems like this will go over badly. However, I don't see Woods in the same strict ancap/Rockwell camp in that he can't part with it to suit the needs of his audience which is why I assumed he was chosen to begin with. He's got great oratory skills and with the right shtick I think he could really make successes out of this startup tour. I just wonder how this is being marketed in terms of maximizing turnout outside of our bunch. Tho, even if it just targets our bunch at least I hope it energizes them to stay engaged and bring others on board. Perhaps I should've started a separate thread on this and I still might but I'm looking for community feedback as their insights on the likely happenings of this upcoming tour. Also, wouldn't mind hearing from Steve about any developments.

 

[itshappening]

No Woods is happy to educate in the GOP but he's always complaining why they didn't vote for Ron. Well gee Tom, it might have something to do with how you messaged him and advised him. The voters want it sugar coated and that's why Rand is more acceptable to them. They don't want their potential leader to get dragged into debates about legalizing heroin and god knows what else

 

[Lucille]

And Jeb Bush comes along to prove my point:

So it seems that Jeb Bush isn’t nearly as politically savvy as his admirers would have us think:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says a possible 2016 run for president would not be affected by his brother’s lingering unpopularity.

“I don’t think there’s any Bush baggage at all [bold mine-DL],” Bush said on “Fox News Sunday” when confronted with a poll that showed almost a full majority of Americans have an unfavorable impression of former President George W. Bush.

What to make of this? This is a clear misreading of his brother’s political legacy. Of course, no one expects him to denounce or attack his brother, but minimizing the difficulties he would face as the third presidential candidate from the same dynasty just makes him seem clueless. Even if George W. Bush had been a merely mediocre, unremarkable president instead of a disastrous failure, it seems unlikely that the public would have much appetite for a third Bush presidency in less than thirty years. It isn’t entirely the fault of the dynasty, but since the Bushes started running the GOP the party has gone from routinely winning landslide victories to not being able to fight its way out of a wet paper bag. How stupid would the Stupid Party have to be to go back for a third helping of such brilliant political leadership?

It might seem unfair to punish Jeb Bush because of how his brother governed, but Jeb Bush never showed any signs publicly or privately that he disagreed with what his brother was doing. It’s not as if his preferred policies are meaningfully different from those his brother pursued. He isn’t likely to repudiate anything that his brother did. So it would be entirely appropriate to view a Jeb Bush candidacy as an attempt to revive the Bush era and to rehabilitate the Bushism that his brother promoted. Bushism was a huge liability for both of the last two Republican nominees, and it would become a bigger one if the next nominee actually bore the name. A Republican Party that allowed its nomination to go to another Bush so soon after the failures of the last decade would effectively be declaring its political bankruptcy as a national party. If Republicans don’t think that their opponents will keep using George W. Bush as a club with which they bludgeon the party in the next few elections, they forget how much they have relied on trying to paint every Democratic nominee as the next Carter. Bush is their Carter, and the longer it takes them to break with what Bush represented the longer their political woes will last.

 

[jmdrake]

Because Ron challenges basic held assumptions that these fake conservatives feel cannot be questioned. Take Mark Levin for instance. In his recent praise of Rand he attacked John McCain. Now you're saying "what's wrong with that." Well....part of his attack was to attack John McCain for calling waterboarding "torture" and thus "accusing the U.S. military of committing torture." Now consider his "tortured" argument for a second. Rather than having a rational discussion of what constituted torture, Levin used a straw man wrapped in a circular argument. The straw man was the false assertion that saying that some in the military engaged in torture meant the entire military engaged in torture. Just because some U.S. servicemen have been found guilty of rape in Japan does that mean "the U.S. military rapes people?" The circular reasoning part is, since the U.S. military doesn't torture, and since it used waterboarding, waterboardingg cannot be torture.

 

[itshappening]

Levin is really incoherent. He opened his show the other night with a monologue about the Fed. it was great and I'm pushing him hard to get Schiff on his show to discuss it more to see if he'll have a real Austrian on there.

I actually heard him mention AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS on one show once, in passing, so he's very aware. Levin is an author, former editor of NRO and if you watch his twitter feed is tweeting conservative related articles all day long so he's very well read and smart. He's also a constitutional lawyer so you'd expect him to understand the 5th amendment better and that if Obama accuses someone of a crime then they get due process. But Levin was then praising Rand and THEN attacking due process. it was very bizarre and I found it difficult to listen to his latest show as he was all over the place. I think he's genuinally contorted between his own beliefs and knowledge as a lawyer and his mission to be a propagandist for the State and ensure he stays in their good graces so he continues to get on affilates. Levin like Rush says he gets phone calls from the GOP so I think in some way they're all "tied in" .

The thing that annoys me with him is that he's always going on that ITS A TIME OF WAR... but wait Mark, congress hasn't declared a war for 60 years so there isnt a war and due process applies to every "person" that Obama accuses of a crime. It's that simple. He's a lawyer so should understand this and it's very annoying. I wish someone would call up and challenge him but he tends to get very nasty when challenged.


I also heard him mention Alex Jones in passing when he was covering the ammo purchases by DHS, he said "i'm not talking about black helicopters here or the Alex Jones conspiracy crowd... ". He;s a lot smarter and well read than you give him credit for but this means he's doing his propagandizing for the state knowingly and is very aware of what he's doing.

 

[belian78]

Ron has never helped himself with his brash style. Look at Rand, that's how you do it. Ron was never interested in playing the game. He always had bad advice to "tell it like it is". His advisers would revel in the criticism and seemed to enjoy it rather than reaching out and persuading them instead of being antagonistic.

That's exactly what brought millions of us into this movement. Principle over politics, plain and simple.