I've moved — check out my new blog at cassyfiano.com!

Redirecting in 10 seconds...

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Picture of the Day, Part Two: Ron Paul

Tee-hee:



That picture made me giggle. :)

And while we're on the subject of Ron Paul, I'd like to point you over to Right Wing News, where John Hawkins is explaining why people don't like Ron Paul (I'm not going to post the entire thing, just my favorite little nuggets):
It's no secret that I don't care much for Ron Paul, but after reading some of the hurt and angry responses from Ron Paul fans to his first place finish in the Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select Their Least Favorite People On The Right (2007 Edition) poll, I thought it might be worth taking the time to explain to them why Paul is so unpopular with mainstream conservatives.

In an effort to be polite, I am not going to be snarky about it, but I should forewarn Paul's fans and, for that matter, any "Big L" Libertarians who may be reading, that they are probably not going to like what they read. I'm not trying to be insulting, but without a certain amount of bluntness, it's impossible to get some of these points across.

First of all, a lot of Republicans are strongly pro-war and the fact that Ron Paul is not only anti-war, but has adopted some of the more obnoxious and inflammatory rhetoric of the Left about the war is extremely grating. According to Paul, Iraq is a war for oil and empire, engineered by neocons, and in Paul's book, we deserved to be attacked on 9/11.

When you aim that sort of rhetoric at people who strongly support the war and feel that it's justified, moral, and in America's best interests, it's guaranteed to generate a huge wave of hostility. Additionally, Paul's thoughtless, "we must leave immediately, regardless of the consequences," position on Iraq comes across as poorly thought out. Even if you thought that the war was a bad idea and opposed it from day one, the idea that we can simply extricate ourselves from Iraq immediately because it's unpleasant, with no consequences, is the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from a 16 year old at an anti-war rally, not something you expect from a candidate for President. Even Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, all of whom have spent months trying to convince their base that they're the most anti-war of all the top tier candidates, are saying we may be in Iraq for years to come.

...

Going beyond that, Ron Paul's support for the North American Union conspiracy and his winks and nods to the 9/11 truther crowd appall many conservatives. After spending much of the last six years ripping on liberals for tolerating wild eyed conspiracy theorists, it's embarrassing to many conservatives to have someone on our side, running for President, who's encouraging people on the Right to behave in the same fashion.

This leads us to the last big problem that Ron Paul has: despite the fact that Ron Paul is polling at somewhere between 2%-4% nationally, he has, for whatever reason, more obnoxious supporters backing him than all the other candidates combined. If you write a column or a post knocking John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani, you'll certainly have some people disagreeing with you, some of them strongly. If you knock Ron Paul, you'll often have hordes of social misfits making obnoxious comments, spamming your polls, touting conspiracy theories, insulting conservatives in general, and doing everything possible to make nuisances of themselves.

I'm not sure there's much I can add to what John wrote. As usual, he pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Frankly, I've always just found Ron Paul annoying. I mean, his positions are annoying enough, but by God, what is with the Ron Paul supporters? They reacted so badly to a post I wrote about Ron Paul in Jacksonville, that I had to delete comments and threaten to enable commenting restrictions. It's apalling, embarassing, and you know what? I'll say it again, annoying that we've got a truther nutjob running for President as a Republican. It's annoying to see Ron Paul wanting to get rid of the CIA and the Patriot Act. His conspiracy theories are annoying. And the "we must leave Iraq NOW, no matter the consequences!" viewpoint is annoying and potentially dangerous. He fits in better at DailyKos than he does with conservatives.

I say he's annoying over and over again because honestly, that's what he is. He's annoying. He's not a viable candidate (let's be honest, folks, he ain't goin' nowhere), he's just this guy hanging around the election spouting out crazy conspiracy theories and rhetoric. I mean, he has his positives (George Bush could take some lessons from Ron Paul on spending, that's for sure), but Ron Paul has so many negatives that it makes it difficult for people who aren't diehard Ron Paul supporters to find the positives in there, which will make it more than a little difficult for him to gain any new supporters.

When I think of Ron Paul, the image I get is of an annoying little housefly buzzing around your head. You know he's not going to sting you or anything, but the little fly is just bugging the crap out of you. You swat at it and swat at it, but it just won't go away. I think of Ron Paul and think of him as this little annoying housefly buzzing around the race for the candidacy that most people wish would just go away.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the uproar from the Ron Paul supporters I'll probably get from this post. Go right on ahead -- bring on the spammers. I'm still giggling at that picture.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hunter is a nice man, I've met him many times in NH. But he's not presidential material.

bbartlog said...

we've got a truther nutjob running for President

Paul's not a truther. Nor is he a nutjob. All of his positions have been held by many other Republicans in the past, even if they are not in vogue today.

He's not a viable candidate

Candidates are as viable as we the people make them. But in any case, this criticism rings hollow from someone who supports Duncan Hunter.

gid said...

I hear where you’re coming from. I am a stanch conservative, and I am even a Bush supporter. I don’t agree with Dr. Paul on Iraq, but I think he is right about a lot of other things. I started doing my research this past week on the Republican candidates, and to my surprise I ended up with Paul as my #1 choice. I have always been a strategist when it comes to who I was going to vote for in order to get a republican in the White House, but this time I am making a choice that I think is ultimately better for our democracy vs. what is best for my party. We have stayed so far from a realistic interpretation of the constitution and we need to get back on track.

COPioneer said...

bbartlog, "Paul's not a truther." Because you say he's not?

Where's your proof refuting his past remarks on 9/11, etc?

He clearly blames America for 9/11. That's the same as blaming someone for getting their car stolen because well, they had a nice car.

At the very least he is an isolationist who thinks you can talk to the enemy and they'll just say, "oh, okay, if you say so Ron Paul."

Doug R said...

Cassy,

Could a "nutjob" deliver a speech like this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul91.html

Dr. Paul is a kind, principled, intelligent, well-educated man who has consistently supported the Constitution in Congress for over 30 years.

Are some of his supporters nutjobs? You betcha!

So what?

Do yourself a favor and find out a little bit about the man before you hurl insults at him.

- Doug

COPioneer said...

Ron Paul, oh excuse me, Dr. Paul Kool-Aid anyone?

Anonymous said...

It is annoying that anyone would write such a long, stupidly dishonest post filled with so many lies and insults. Ron Paul is not a "truther" and does not want to leave Iraq "no matter what the consequences". Blaming the dishonest foreign policy of the neo-cons is not "blaming America". Since when does government creeps = America? He is the opposite of an isolationist and favors more open trade and travel between all countries.

I wonder about the sanity of people who just lie. I assume they are liberals who want free stuff from the government gang and know that Ron Paul will close the trough.

Angry White Guy said...

Ronnie just got the coveted David Duke endorcement...

Joe said...

Ron Paul is a hypocrite. He wraps himself in the flag of libertarianism, yet sponsors an unbelievable amount of pork. His out is that he generally, but not always, votes against the very pork he sponsors (knowing damn well it's going to pass.)

I'm willing to given politicians some leeway in spewing bullshit to the extremest wings of their respective parties in order to get elected, but Ron Paul goes way beyond anything reasonable.

If any Ron Paul supporter believes he would actually govern as president as a libertarian, you are fools.

Anonymous said...

Joe The Fool writes above that Ron Paul votes against the pork knowing it will pass anyway. What Joe The Fool didn't pay attention too is the fact that the pork will go SOMEWHERE. Ron Paul's constituents are taxpayers too. If some of the pork doesn't go to them, it will go to another politician's constituents, but the total pork will not be reduced. In other words, there is NOTHING that Ron Paul can do to reduce the total pork and therefore it is his duty to try to get some of it for his constituents since they are forced to pay into the sytem like everyone else.

Ron Paul consistenly votes against the entire system, but as long as the stupid system is there, he is obligated to make it fair to his constituents.

Do your homework, Joe before you simply repeat what you've read. Ron Paul has answered this question numerous times.

Gredd said...

Pork is bad, period. RP is no different than the rest of them... greedy.