Aside from the fact that many Ron Paul supporters worship him as a messianic figure, sole hope for the USA and Deliverer from evil; or the fact a bunch of them are the same anti-war moveOn.org Leftist kook conspiracists that populate Airhead America and the Democrat Underground; an increasing number of Conservatives and Constitutionalists recognize that Ron Paul is simply unfit for the role of Commander-In-Chief.
His Libertarian baggage, Blame-America-First and appeasement of our enemies disqualifies him for the the position in my opinion. As time wears on, he is proving he really does not belong in the GOP either. His increasing shrill anti-war rants put him more in unity with the NeoLeft and nuts like Code Pink than with Conservatives.
Ron Paul attracts a rabid following of Isolationists, Peaceniks, Pro-druggies, anti-semites, NWO Conspiracists, anti-Capitalists, skinheads and anti-government anarchists, along with some mad-as-hell conservatives fed-up with the GOP’s push for Amnesty for Illegals and their runaway spending. His is a bandwagon of the “Throw-The-Bums-Out” movement with an anti-war Leftist twist.
But is this the guy we want at the top spot? A guy who blames Amrieca for the world’s woes; who thinks that 17th century geopolitical strategy works in the modern world; who seeks to appease Jihadists; who seeks an Isolationist America?
Here’s a blog that I can fully agree with, and I’m sure the accusations that I’m a dirty Jewish “neocon’, traitor, scum and all the other niceties I get from the Ron Paul worshippers will follow.
Ron Paul does not belong in the race for the GOP nomination
Ron Paul played a valuable role in Congress. I do think so. He was never effective at limiting government, but that’s not the role I saw him fill; rather, he was a minor gadfly to the statists, keeping in the vocabulary of Congress the small-l libertarian notions of a government limited to specific functions, non-confiscatory taxation, etc.
…It’s the surrender bit, completely incompatible with what I had thought of Ron Paul; it is, however, a good way to drag confused Code Pinkers and pseudo-libertarians into the cash-donating aisle with the Red Light special. Is it a con? Who the heck knows, but Ron Paul come up with a small following from the anti-war crowd, folks blathering about concepts of liberty and governance which they obviously do not choose to understand understand.
“Get back to the founders, man! They didn’t dig war, man, and interference, like, in other countries, and stuff.” Oh, right. Thomas Jefferson in 1801 launched a preemptive war – without the approval of Congress – against the Barbary States because their actions ran counter to our national security interests. The Pirates only wanted the United States to pay them off. Would President Ron Paul, if he had been the third President of the United States, have paid the Barbary Pirates their toll, thus allowing the precedent to be set for the young United States that we are a paper tiger? Would a President Ron Paul, as the 43rd President, have allowed Saddam Hussein to thumb his nose at the United States and the world, continuing to become more dangerous apace, as the United States maintained and protected its image as a paper tiger earned by President Clinton (Bill)?
There is a difference between going back to the vision of the United States held by our Founding Fathers, and they saw us as an eventual world player, and shrinking the United States to its seminal, 18th century form.
Sword At-The-Ready 