Better Mr. Roberts than Mr. Dubya ... ;)

NYT Sunday Preview: Ron Paul for President -- Of the 'Wackos'?

By E&P Staff

Published: July 20, 2007 3:15 PM ET

NEW YORK A feature piece in this coming Sunday's New York Times Magazine on Republican candidate for president, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, portrays his followers as a wild mix of "wackos" on both ends of the political spectrum. Paul, a libertarian, has been gaining media and public attention.

The cover line reads: "A Genuine Radical for President." The headline inside: 8 "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul."

The article closes with the author, Christopher Caldwell, attending a Ron Paul Meetup in Pasadena. The co-host, Connie Ruffley of United Republicans of California, admits she once was a member of the radical right John Birch Society and when she asks for a show of hands "quite a few" attendees reveal that they were or are members, too. She refers to Sen. Dianne Feinstein as "Fine-Swine" and attacks Israel, pleasing some while others "walked out."

Caldwell notes that the head of the Pasadena Meetup Group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headqquarters: "We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country....We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next 'Star Trek' convention or whatever."

Asked about the John Birch Society Society by the author, Paul esponds, "Is that BAD? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They're generally well-educated and they understand the Constitution. I don't know how many positions they would have that I don't agree with."

The writer concludes that the "antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left" may have "irreconciable" differences. But "their numbers -- and anger -- are of considerable magnitude. Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together."

Among many other things, we learn from the article that Paul had never heard of "The Daily Show" until he was a guest and referred to the magazine GQ as "GTU." It also notes that he was the only congress member to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act and the a medal to honor Rosa Parks, among many others tallies.

Cool the left wing establishment is feeling threatend.:D:cool:

This is a sweet report, I could get all over and into it.
I leave it with this:
"A kingdom for the writer's crystal ball and the kind description of a country in need of a 'knitting job', executed by the next president. "
I tried to press some cynical tones through my teeth ... :D

Mr. Dubya...:rolleyes:...AKA ... Presidente Jorge W. Booosh.........:cowboy:

65min of fundamental, historical, political education.

Candidates@google: Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

With an unpopular war and an unpopular executive that appears to many to be grabbing more and more power, and feeling itself totally unaccountable and unapologetic, coupled with a Congress that is becoming more and more gridlocked and polarized, and doing nothing, many disparate groups find appeal in Dr. Paul.

My guess would be that Ron Paul garners support from disparate groups of people who feel marginalized, utterly frustrated and exhausted and fed up with the same offerings given by the two political parties in charge.

Along comes someone with an impeccable record of integrity, a political naif who speaks truthfully about his beliefs, and appears totally free of the baggage of indebtedness to special and narrow interests who would sacrifice the good of the public at large.

It's appeal in the tradition that candidates like Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, Ralph Nader and others had in the past. Disaffected citizens can cover a LOT of ideological ground.

Whether he'd be effective once in office is another thing, as he is just one person, and would inherit the rest of the structure intact.

The quoted article brings to mind George Wallace's remark to the effect of
"What do you suppose we'd do if we actually WON this thing?"

"Along comes someone with an impeccable record of integrity, a political naif who speaks truthfully about his beliefs, and appears totally free of the baggage of indebtedness to special and narrow interests who would sacrifice the good of the public at large."

That's good enough for me. Now if the major parties could adopt this revolutionary idea, nominating somebody who appears to have integrity and to be honest and clear in his thinking and actions, maybe people would be less cynical and more inclined to support candidates and programs from the the major parties.

OTOH, and as a lesson for us all, Jimmy Carter got elected because of similar perceptions about him. Recall that he ran by being the "not" candidate -- not Washington elite. We elected a bright, well-intentioned boob.

Bob

He has no chance in hell, but he has some AWESOME ideals... First of all, how many Americans have the attention span to watch a video that long? You need Paris Hilton in a video to capture their attention.

Sad but true.

It's the kind of stuff we need to hear, as a point of reference.

Oh I agree 100% -- but he deals in a perfect world. In a perfect world his method would be awesome -- but for now we have a nation that does nothing but take-take-take... so my attitude is we're better off giving it to our own people and companies and not to the Israels, etc. of the world. I LOVE the way he says we'll tell Israel to go pound-salt -- only in the context of our support for another nation.

The guy's a genius...