by Jay Stevens
You may remember that both Pete Talbot and I went to see Ron Paul when he made his appearance here in Missoula, and we both liked some of the things he was saying.
Pete:
Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has a seductive message: get the U.S. out of Iraq, get the government out of personal lives, and put the country on a sound financial footing….
To probably the biggest applause of the evening: “End this war!” — it’s hard not to agree with that.
“How you spread democracy is by setting an example” and, hinting at the current administration, “we should teach a few people in this country about democracy.”
He’s anti-Patriot Act. He opposes FISA and warrantless searches. He’s against torture: “We’re known around the world as torturers.”
Our current economic policy “destroys the middle class and sends money to the Wall Street rich.”
And I even gave Paul kudos for speaking out for traditional conservative values, like sane fiscal policies:
And, while I certainly don’t share Paul’s vision of a crippled government, of regressive taxes and deregulation of business, it was at least refreshing to hear a Republican genuinely embrace those issues, and to see his supporters passionately voice their support to those ideas. It was certainly a marked contrast to the actions, voting records, and deeds of the current incarnation of the GOP at the state and national levels, which seems dedicated to bloated, inefficient government, irresponsible fiscal management, and authoritarianism.
It should definitely come as a surprise and a disappointment to Paul fans that his rhetoric appears to be just that: hot air.
Why, do you ask, am I saying this?
Can you think of a Republican who more embodies everything that Ron Paul was speaking out against in the UC Ballroom? Does Rehberg support the war, and has he supported it since its inception? Check. Did he gladly support the administration’s illegal “anti-terror” policies? Check. Is he one of the “spend-and-run” Republicans? Check.
I already quoted Rehberg from the Choteau shrimp peel, but it’s worth repeating in context of Paul’s endorsement:
Rehberg, giving an overview of national politics, defended George W. Bush’s policies and “You bet I defend George Bush.” The current president’s policies will someday be viewed as successes in a historic perspective, he said. Rehberg said Americans have enjoyed safety and no more attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11 because Bush took the war on terrorism abroad.
Really, what else can we possibly think of Ron Paul after this move, other than he really didn’t mean much of what he said here in Missoula? I mean, really? You support Dennis Rehberg?
-
Recent Comments
Jay Stevens on Are the State Republicans Push… Jay Stevens on In Montana, the Clintons are b… The Regulator on Biker slayer pleads … jhwygirl on Take a Moment, Please Mike Shay on Take a Moment, Please
May 8, 2008 at 9:24 am
I sick of faux libertarians.
May 8, 2008 at 11:28 am
Some observations on your post, Jay:
I don’t think Ron Paul really vetted the candidates. There’s already one retraction in his endorsements. It looks like it was a flakey process — but you’re right, Rehberg is the antithesis of the so-called Ron Paul revolution.
I couldn’t even find the Rehberg endorsement when I first went to Ron Paul’s site. I looked under ‘Mountain West,’ where you think it would be and finally found it under ‘Upper Midwest/Northwest.’ Someone is Paul’s office is geographically challenged.
Finally, the Ron Paul juggernaut seems to be losing steam. By the lack of comments that we’ve received on our Ron Paul posts, both here and at LitW, I don’t think people really care about his campaign. Besides a few hardcore activists, who’s really talking him up?
May 8, 2008 at 12:01 pm
People who have walked in the grassroots for Ron Paul since the beginning of last year know that it his campaign trying to micromanage things that have results in the present condition of the campaign. If it were not for activists separating themselves from the campaign the movement may have ended long ago.
As for Ron Paul himself, I have never heard about him ever taking a direct role in the campaign. He has never contributed to the planning for the campaign other than pushing himself to a rally. His message has also never been refined or simply put Ron Paul himself has never bothered to refine his message so that it may be receptive to others.
Ron Paul for all of his great words and record has worked carelessly to alienate the Republican moderates that actually like him. We must remember not to make the mistake of bashing Republicans or the RINOs and instead insist on educating the electorate and not vilifying the current GOP membership.
May 8, 2008 at 3:57 pm
We must remember not to make the mistake of bashing Republicans or the RINOs and instead insist on educating the electorate and not vilifying the current GOP membership.
What do you by “we”, Kemo Sabi?
May 8, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I fail. There should be a “mean” in there.
And indeed, it probably was.
May 9, 2008 at 5:14 am
Do people really care about endorsements? I’m a Ron Paul supporter, and it doesn’t sound like a good guy to endorse. But endorsements aren’t something that would make me automatically like or dislike someone. Like if Ron Paul came out and endorsed McCain, I’d be like - So, I’m still not going to vote for McCain.
Plus, I don’t know why Ron Paul would endorse him. Is it really expected for someone to do a complete history check on someone before endorsing them? Maybe Ron Paul had a private conversation with the guy, and changed the guys mind or something, I dunno. I would have to think there was some logical reason why he would do so.
And to those who want to play the “blame the campaign” game. Do you even realize what the McCain-Feingold campaign laws did? Do you realize that by limiting the amount of money people can donate it puts even more power into the hands of the media? Do you realize how much ad buys cost? Do you realize how hard it is to explain the issues in longer than a 30 second sound bite? Now, compare that to the actual news casts, where the candidates are given free airtime on a constant basis. Where you have people on TV constantly arguing for or against 1 candidate or 1 issue, but not all points of views are given time. While those same people ridicule and disrespect Ron Paul and his supporters on a regular basis. Do you honestly expect any campaign to overcome that?
And what do ya know, the guy who gave the media all that much more power, and pushed the campaign finance laws wins the nomination. With a dismal campaign that fought to stay out of debt, troubles following even his own laws suddenly “comes from behind” and wins.
Come on, get real.
May 9, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I think there were some bugs in the endorsement process. I can’t imagine him endorsing someone who supports the war. I’ll be interested to see what happens.