Friday, November 23, 2007

Ron Paul Is Anointed into the Goldwater Lineage of the GOP

Barry Goldwater is My Republican of the Week.

Barry M. Goldwater, Jr., son of the late former Republican presidential candidate and Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, has endorsed Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul for president. Goldwater Jr. retired from politics in 1983 after serving 14 years in Congress.

His late father, Barry M. Goldwater, Sr. is credited with sparking the modern conservative movement and was the Republican Party presidential nominee in 1964.

Endorsing Ron Paul, Barry Jr. said
America is at a crossroads. We have begun to stray from our traditions and must get back to what has made us the greatest nation on earth or we will lose much of the freedom we hold dear. Ron Paul stands above all of the other candidates in his commitment to liberty and to America. Leading America is difficult, and I know Ron Paul is the man for the job.
Ron Paul's Campaign manager Lew Moore:
The Ron Paul campaign is exceptionally honored by Mr. Goldwater’s endorsement. Dr. Paul and Congressman Goldwater fought together in the Congress for the ideals of limited constitutional government that Mr. Goldwater’s father so tirelessly advocated. The Goldwaters have left an indelible mark on the Republican Party, and theirs is a legacy which Congressman Paul will certainly inherit as President.
This endorsement formalizes Ron Paul as the natural standard bearer for true American Conservatism.

19 Moderated Comments:

Blogger J.C. said...

He is a thinly disguised Libertarian, and they are even worse scum than Democrats or Republicans.

For all you Constitution worshippers, rooted in backward antique theory, such as Adam Smith economics, and who want to go back to a gold standard and dump what ever environmental protections, and then go on to privatize what ever is left to 'privatize', he should be the cats meow.
He seems more retarded than even Bush-co, or Hillary-co if that is possible. Similar dissembler though.

So, with this dude take a big step backward. But what would you expect from a politician in America ?

11/23/2007 05:46:00 PM  
Blogger Pink Liberty said...

Isn't Ron Paul openly racist?

11/23/2007 08:38:00 PM  
Blogger GetaLife-ReadUrNews said...

Whaa? Prove it. Sounds like a Neocon rumor.

11/23/2007 08:55:00 PM  
Blogger Messenger said...

Looking at Ron Paul's flag and its 13 stripes: To the extent that I understand these platitudes, I can support:

* Secure borders
* Lower debt
* Protecting privacy
* Ending senseless military globe-trotting
* Stopping corporate welfare
* Re-ignighting the American dream
* Real progress for generations to come

I score that as not much more over 50%.

11/24/2007 07:53:00 AM  
Blogger Messenger said...

But racism??????

Just because he wants secure borders?

11/24/2007 07:54:00 AM  
Blogger Sapo said...

As a -7.75, -8.36, I object!

11/24/2007 08:24:00 AM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

Pinks, I think, is referring to a recent rant on Swiftspeech to the effect that R.Paul is a closet racist. I forget the details, but I do not think that's more than a rumor (planted or otherwise) as GetaLife says. It certainly doesn't mean 'openly a racist'!

Assuming closet racism of Ron Paul, how does that stack up to or against the open, brazen, balls-out militarism and imperialism of Busheney and the GOPlausibles? For me, the choice is clear.

Until the SwiftSpeakers remind me of the details, I'll say this:

If Ron Paul were to be nominated by the GOP to face Hillary Clinton, I would think twice before voting against him.

But the Republicans have a 3.5% chance of being that smart, so I won't be faced with making good on this idle threat!

11/24/2007 10:23:00 AM  
Blogger J.C. said...

Politicians, local or national, are not chosen by the public on the basis of competence or knowledge but rather in terms of personality and promises.
Likewise, heads of governmental departments are chosen not for competence, expertise or experience but for their personal ideology and for conformity to a particular "party" line and their willingness to play the game as directed.

They do not necessarily have to know anything at all about the functions and services they are to direct.
The important thing is that they are willing to "toe the line" in accord with the prevailing political and financial ideology.

A President of the United States is only and merely a puppet for Special Interest groups.

If Ron Paul is a racist I don`t know. That in the larger scheme of things he is a backward and rather stupid character, and in essence against the 'human race', I am sure.

11/24/2007 01:20:00 PM  
Blogger Stella by Starlight said...

Agree to disagree, vigilante? I know you take the stance that you don't care who supports a candidate, but you concern yourself with the candidate's values. I have, and always will, respect you views.

However, when Alternet publishes the comments attributed to Paul, I do feel he is openly racist:

* "Opinion polls show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

* "We are constantly told it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

* We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males who have been raised and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

*Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

Further, I do get concerned when Lone Star Times) reports that Stormfront and David Duke support him.

Related articles appear at The Daily Kos, AOL News, Outside the Beltway, and HuffPo.

I completely understand your point of view that Assuming closet racism of Ron Paul, how does that stack up to or against the open, brazen, balls-out militarism and imperialism of Busheney and the GOPlausibles?.

Yes, vigilante, you are on point with that comment. However, may I counter with the old saw two wrongs don't make a right? I don't care if he's covertly OR openly a racist. And I agree with Skip that Libertarians are worse scum than Dems or Rethugs.

My recent rant on Swiftspeech runs counter to your opinion in that I carefully consider the type of organizations and PACs that support candidates. If a candidate attracts neo-Nazis, and I'm not talking about Busheney this time, then, as a politically involved individual, I believe part of my duty is to investigate the type of support a candidate receives.

This may be the first time we've disagree, vigilante. But, based on what I've read, I get the distinct feeling that Paul is dangerous. If you have any information counter to my opinion, I'm always open to reading your ideas.

Urbanpink, we have a difference of opinion here. GetaLife-ReadUrNews, maybe it's a neocon (I'm not) rumor. I've never liked Paul and always distrusted his perspective. But, as concerns racism, I'd be happy to acquiesce to anyone who could find facts to disprove what I've heard and I'll even thank you in advance.

11/24/2007 08:57:00 PM  
Blogger J.C. said...

The Environment: Ron Paul may be a Republican, but he's certainly not a Republican for Environmental Protection. That organization gave Paul a shameful 17 percent rating on its most recent Congressional Scorecard.
He doesn't fare much better in the eyes of the American Wilderness Coalition or the League of Conservation Voters.
Paul's abysmal record on the environment is driven in large measure by his love of sweet, sweet oil: in the 109th Congress alone, he voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from MTBE contamination lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, to allow new offshore drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay royalties to the government for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Par for the course for a man who called the Kyoto accords "bad science, bad economics and bad domestic policy" and "anti-Americanism masquerading as environmentalism."

11/24/2007 09:48:00 PM  
Blogger GetaLife-ReadUrNews said...

Ron Paul is not a "racist".

11/25/2007 06:56:00 AM  
Blogger GetaLife-ReadUrNews said...

Thomas B. Edsall, The Huffington Post: To His Dismay, Ron Paul Becoming Magnet For White Supremacists.

11/25/2007 07:30:00 AM  
Blogger Messenger said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11/25/2007 07:45:00 AM  
Blogger Messenger said...

I find Stella's argument compelling. I find Getalife has a point that many so-called examples of Paul's racism are not current. However, Geta's Ron Paul 2002 article drawn from Lew Rockwell's site is not exactly reassuring. But not exactly that damning either.

OTOH, Here's the question I would put to Stella and Co.:

How much of the attraction of David Duke types toward Ron Paul is due to his position on AIPAC's and the Israeli lobbyists' distortion of U.S. foreign policy? That is to ask, where else are Joo-haters to go? What other candidate, other than Gravel, is telling the truth on AIPAC?

11/25/2007 11:40:00 AM  
Blogger Stella by Starlight said...

Hey, GetaLife-ReadUrNews, thanks for the links. I still don't agree with Paul's complete dismantling of the federal government, but I appreciate the quotes you sent me.

I'm still not sure about Paul's position on multiculturalism, but I feel much better knowing there's contrary evidence to other's I've read. Still, unlike Vigilante, I am uncomfortable knowing that his support comes from racist organizations.

And, messenger, I'm with you 100%: What other candidate, other than Gravel, is telling the truth on AIPAC? Or any political subject, for that matter.

Thanks, all, for your feedback. Learning something new can be a clumsy, difficult process. Worse still, is when we refuse to do so.

11/25/2007 07:21:00 PM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

Good points made by Messenger.

Stella, here's the way I see it: looking at the polls, Paul has 3.5% of winning the Republican nomination. I worked it out that 29% of his record/campaign would have to be out-and-out racist before I would have 1% exposure. Since I am not an office seeker, I can easily live with this.

All I try to do once a week is reach out and grab a grubby little Republican and stand him up to show other GOP-ers that they don't have to be Weimarian imperialists and militarists. All you are telling me is that I have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to do so. I knew that.

11/25/2007 07:42:00 PM  
Blogger Stella by Starlight said...

Oh, shame on me. I missed the satire. Please don't hurt your shoulder with all that scraping. Locating a non-GOP Weimarian imperialist and militarist is a daunting task.


11/25/2007 09:48:00 PM  
Blogger J.C. said...

Not really Stella.

Hillary is available at the drop of a hat. Oh wait, she is not a Republican, right ?
Also a retarded religious dissembler who meets with fellow prayer makers, she seems to be one.

Maybe Vig. can make her the 'honorary' Republican for next week.

Obama is also a holy worshipper, as are most of these phony special interest hypocrites.

Of course they are not repubs though.
But does it really make any difference ?
Are not people here just caught up in the illusion of a political system that is not really what they think it is ?

11/26/2007 05:46:00 AM  
Blogger GetaLife-ReadUrNews said...

Stella, Ron Paul is Highest-Polling Republican Among Black Voters!

11/26/2007 07:22:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home