Attention Ron Paul fans: He’s not a nice man.

30 Dec 2007 03:29 pm
Posted by: Donna

First of all, what’s with all the “hand-painted” signs, that look exactly alike?  Do you honestly think they’re fooling anyone?  

And hey Ron Paul supporter who goes to ASU, how do you like your subsidized tuition?   What do you think would happen to it if Dr. Paul had his way with education funding?  

Say, libertarians, how does Paul’s position on abortion jive with your belief in a small government that doesn’t intrude on citizens’ personal freedom?   (Just kidding, I know libertarianism is all about the freedom of white dudes to own property.   Sometimes that property comes in the form of your pregnant female chattel.  Which is why so many of you oppose abortion.)

And if you’re one of those libertarians who fancies himself a big Rational Thinker, then how do you explain Dr. Paul’s anti-science stance on evolution? He doesn’t believe in it. (Which is weird since it’s kinda hard to advance an ideology based on Social Darwinism without the Darwinism.)

Aside from all that, homeboy is a racist.  Back in the early ’90s he used to publish a newsletter called, I swear, “The Ron Paul Survival Report”.   Now, if that’s not the mark of a paranoid lunatic I don’t know what is but for whatever reason, he had enough of a following at the time to justify a newsletter.   A summary of some rather foul comments he made about African-Americans can be found in this Houston Chronicle article. One gem:

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.”

Out of curiosity, what the hell is semi-criminal? It’s like saying a woman is semi-pregnant.

Or that Ron Paul is semi-batsh*t insane. But I digress. Paul’s ardent supporters swarmed the blogs to claim that someone other than Dr. Paul actually authored the statement, and that Paul fired the guy, and that it’s not his fault that racist statements got out on a newsletter that his name is on blah..blah..blah… Baloney. If it’s your newsletter, you’re responsible for the content.

Besides, this blaming of the newsletter statements on another guy is a new wrinkle in the Ron Paul story. Back in 1996 when his congressional race opponent brought them to light he made no such claims. Here’s what the Houston Chronicle article said: “A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.” No staffer being held responsible there, is there?

Clearly, no one in their right mind would support Ron Paul if they knew this stuff about him. Sure, he’d still have his usual base of supporters from among the paranoid survivalist neo-Nazis, but there’s no way he’d be getting positive attention he’s getting now. Yeah, he’s against the war. A broken clock is right twice a day too. That’s no reason to buy a crappy broken clock.


  1. Comment by webdevgirl on December 30, 2007 4:40 pm

    It’s interesting that quite a few Democrats are, in fact, now supporting Ron Paul (here’s one such example: The problem is that most of what you see in the news about Congressman Paul are just 30-second sound bytes or his words are twisted or taken out of context so you don’t get the whole picture. No one in their right mind would do some of the things you accuse Congressman Paul of doing — and neither would he. Unfortunately the mainsteam media is twisting things or cutting him off so he doesn’t get to explain his full plan. I would suggest getting the whole picture. No other candidate, for example, on EITHER side has consistently been opposed to the war in Iraq except Congressman Paul.

  2. Comment by Krista on December 30, 2007 7:53 pm

    You’re wrong about the sound bytes – those are what make him sound good. You have to admit, he has some humdingers. But other than not supporting the war in Iraq, I don’t see a redeeming quality in Paul. I find him refreshing in some ways and find his supporters to be inspiring in some ways, but he doesn’t stand for what I stand for. In fact, he’s against most of what I believe in. But that’s just my two buck chuck :)

  3. Comment by The Mailman on December 30, 2007 8:00 pm

    The reality is that most Democrats who support Ron Paul do so because of his position on the Iraq War. And that’s a tremendous position for a Republican to have. But if a Democrat votes for Ron Paul due to his position on the war they are no better than someone who votes for an anti-choice candidate just because they want to overturn Roe v Wade, or a Club for Growth supported candidated because they hate taxes. One issue voters are just not credible. The war position is just something to get you to take a look. But once you look under the covers, it’s the same conservative B.S. that we’re used to. Come on; Democrats are smarter than that!

  4. Comment by Donna on December 30, 2007 9:06 pm

    webdevgirl, I’ve got quite enough of the “whole Ron Paul picture” to make my determination about him. In fact, that’s kinda my whole point. If more of those Democrats and progressives learned what they were really getting with Dr. Paul – a racist, anti-choicer who wants to dismantle the social safety net and abolish all government agencies except the military, they’d run screaming for the hills.

    I do have to give the media some credit for recently exposing his hypocrisy in getting all that pork for his district while pretending to be against government spending.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment

Democratic Diva is proudly powered by WordPress and WPDesigner.