Friday, November 16, 2007

more smears and jeers.

i've covered the outrageous smears from the right against hillary clinton. this time, i'll point out some of the smears against ron paul.

according to some voices of the GOP, ron paul is a "populist leftwinger." and he's popular with "anti-war leftists." ron paul is using "leftist" money and votes to "hijack" the republican nomination. this, among other things, makes the ron paul campaign dangerous.

okay, let's go over to kos and see if they're humping ron paul's leg, shall we? according to a diarist named "phenry," ron paul is the radical right's man in washington. and he is a racist, to boot.*

all right. so ron paul is a leftist populist AND a member of the radical right. and black people shouldn't vote for him.

except he's polling the best out of all the republicans among african-american voters.

oh, and he's a homophobe.


LOFTON: Do you believe that God says [homosexuality] is a sin?

PAUL: Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way, but I think everybody's God's child too, so I have, you know, trouble with that.
ron paul has trouble with people seeing homosexuality as a sin. this was less dodgy and more positive than hillary's first response to the question. (and the "don't ask don't tell" quote that was linked to above has been spun so many times that i feel that i should comment: ron paul says that disruptive behavior should be dealt with in the military, no matter if it's practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. i think his answer showed a lack of understanding about the policy, but not bigotry. the rest of the repubs just want to keep the homos down. ron paul wants to change the focus of the policy to disruptive behavior of individuals, regardless of sexual orientation.)

so wait, now he's in step with homosexual agenda(tm)? egads! what to believe!?!?!

well, we do know one thing for sure. once a candidate starts raking in the cash and is put in the spotlight, the smears start gaining speed and ferocity. with ron paul, they're coming from both the right and the left, and the accusations are all over the map. i think the current political establishment is unsure how to handle someone who doesn't toe the party line and cherry-picks his stances based on his own principles. all i know is that ron paul is someone to watch.

[partisan hack] even if you just can't stand him, remember... if he sticks around long enough in the debates, he'll be debating the other republicans. the other republicans will spend precious energy fending off his attacks. understand that ron paul is the best thing to happen to democrats since ross perot. this is politics, a game based on numbers. this ain't a circle of kumbaya. [/partisan hack]

* note: ron paul has denied writing the complained-of statements and has come forward to say that he neither wrote nor agrees with those statements. well, we'll see how the chips fall on this one... it's definitely eyebrow-raising. but with all the cacophony around ron paul, i'll just say that i have no idea what is going on, and that the jury is still out on this.


emily1 said...

my jury is all in on this dude and the verdict is guilty. he's lying. pure and simple. now that he's in the national spotlight, he's not being honest about what his real positions are. in other words, he's being a politician. like mccain, he's trying for that all-important john wayne straight shooter maverick persona that americans have been dying to fall in love with since reagan died.

upyernoz said...

he's lying about what, emily1?

ron paul is a radical, he's a radical libertarian. and yes, he has gotten support from white supremacists in the past. but in all the paul trashing i have yet to see anywhere that he endorsed white supremacy. without that, the fact that some white supremacists have supported him is about as relevant as the fact that some child molester might have an obama sticker on his car.

i don't support ron paul at all. aside from the war and position on rolling back the expanded executive, i think his positions on just about everything else would be disasterous for this country. but emily2 is right. now that he's gotten some attention he really is getting smeared. hints that he may try a 3rd part run plus this poll will probably just make things worse.

emily1 said...

the radical right has united behind him unlike any other candidate since the neo nazi upsurge in the early nineties. it is not that 'some' nazi groups are falling in behind him. _all_ of them are. he traffics in just about every conspiracy theory common to the anti-semitic radical right. he talks about everybody being god's child out of one side of his mouth while voting for anti-gay legislation.

just like reagan didn't have to say that he outright supported segregation to court the support of white men who wanted to roll back civil rights legislation, ron paul doesn't have to say that he's a white supremacist to be one. every semi-organized white supremacist group is stumping for his election. that's not a coincidence. that he denies having the view point of the 'ron paul survival report' doesn't mean that i have to believe him. frankly, i trust david neiwert on this and i hope he slithers back under the rock where he came from.

it's not like he's falling all over himself to state that he doesn't want the support of the neo-nazi right and he isn't returning their money last i heard. what he's doing (or not doing in this instance) makes his so-called denial of racist beliefs very suspect.

emily2 said...

he talks about everybody being god's child out of one side of his mouth while voting for anti-gay legislation.

ron paul was one of the few republicans who voted against the federal marriage amendment, because he believes the issue should be left to the states.

that's better than mitt romney's position on gay rights, who is pandering to evangelicals and is bleating for the FMA.

hell, ron paul ain't perfect. he's far from perfect. he's nutty, and some of his supporters are nutty. but there is no question that he's getting smeared.

emily2 said...

okay, i missed andrew sullivan's post on the same topic. but here's the link. he's a lot more articulate than i am.

the smearing of ron paul

emily1 said...

he also voted against gay adoptions. you need to read up on his political philosophy before you cheer on his take on 'state's rights'. it's a mixed bag and not very comforting. i don't have time to go into detail about it right now because i'm working on a research paper for school. i'll post when i've got time which probably won't be this week.

emily2 said...

he voted against gay adoptions in d.c., because he opposed the use of federal funds for promoting adoptions in d.c.

washington d.c., as we all know, isn't a state. it's a federal district. however quirky his reasoning, it makes sense in his ron paulian world view.

still, his policy - as APPLIED - is better than romney's.

he's surprisingly even-handed, actually.

he even voted against awarding a congressional gold medal to ronald reagan, his former mentor.


"He voted against awarding a congressional gold medal to Rosa Parks (424-1) and also has fought medals for Pope John Paul II (416-1) and Ronald Reagan (350-8). Paul does not oppose the honor; he thinks the $30,000 expense is a waste."

of course, you'll see on lefty sites that he opposed the rosa parks medal and the mother teresa medal, while omitting that he also voted against the ronald reagan medal.

i'm not cheering him on his "states rights" stance. i'm merely trying to separate facts from spin. and the spin and smears are rampant.

the current political establishment just doesn't know what to do with him, so they smear smear and smear. ad hominem attacks. harping about the white supremacists who give him money. (giuliani hired an accused pedophile priest and no one seems to care.) the right calling him a radical leftist. the left calling a radical right wing nut.

wouldn't it be much more productive to say something like, "ron paul's strict adherence to his libertarian principles may not translate to sound policy. while admirable in his fair-handed approach never to use taxpayers' money for policies he deems unconstitutional or wasteful, perhaps SOME of these policies would provide more benefits to the public and to the economy than disadvantages. [then list benefits]. when someone adheres to principle to the detriment of the populace and the economy, [reasoned conclusion]."

just because i point out that ron paul is getting viciously smeared doesn't mean i'm a ron paul-bot. if i see a smear, i'm going to call it out. i pointed out that romney was getting smeared as well, and there ain't no way i'd vote for him!