Ron Paul
I read Mona Charen’s column on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling (“kook,” as I’m sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.
Jesse Benton
Methinks the neocons are getting nervous. Just dismissing Dr. Paul as "unelectable" and "fringe" aren't working. In the last New Hampshire poll, Dr. Paul had twice as many votes as the GOP's celebrity darling, Fred Thompson. They have started to mount a campaign to paste Dr. Paul with as many unsavory associations as they can find. What few people take the time to mention, though, is that Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater both had many of the same associations foisted on them.
Charen's article is worth reading for the entertainment value alone. There is nothing substantive in it. It contains enough weasel-wording and evasion to make Hillary blush with envy. It also shows that the so-called right wing media is no better or much different than their leftie counterparts. They are subject to as much lying and parsing as you will find in a Molly Ivins or Susan Estrich column.
I suspect what Charen and the rest of her buddies at NRO are really afraid of is that Dr. Paul will force the issue of the war with other GOP candidates. The bevy of noeocons over there are terrified that one or more of the more "acceptable" candidates will break and go anti-war. Thompson has already made noises in that direction. Imagine the chagrin of the poor fools at NRO when they have to start beating Thompson up, calling him a kook, and associating him with the Klan.
Jesse Benton
Methinks the neocons are getting nervous. Just dismissing Dr. Paul as "unelectable" and "fringe" aren't working. In the last New Hampshire poll, Dr. Paul had twice as many votes as the GOP's celebrity darling, Fred Thompson. They have started to mount a campaign to paste Dr. Paul with as many unsavory associations as they can find. What few people take the time to mention, though, is that Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater both had many of the same associations foisted on them.
Charen's article is worth reading for the entertainment value alone. There is nothing substantive in it. It contains enough weasel-wording and evasion to make Hillary blush with envy. It also shows that the so-called right wing media is no better or much different than their leftie counterparts. They are subject to as much lying and parsing as you will find in a Molly Ivins or Susan Estrich column.
I suspect what Charen and the rest of her buddies at NRO are really afraid of is that Dr. Paul will force the issue of the war with other GOP candidates. The bevy of noeocons over there are terrified that one or more of the more "acceptable" candidates will break and go anti-war. Thompson has already made noises in that direction. Imagine the chagrin of the poor fools at NRO when they have to start beating Thompson up, calling him a kook, and associating him with the Klan.
posted by Anonymous | 10:21 AM
4 Comments:
I don't think it's fair that you paint everybody at National Review Online as anti-Paul when they have also posted pro-Paul articles over there. To be honest, NRO is one of the few websites that has coverage of the Paul campaign. The staff over there are backing different horses in the GOP race next year.
From National Review Online:
Jesse Benton of the Ron Paul campaign says that I “twisted” the meaning of the pardon power. I don’t know where Mr. Benton got the idea that the presidential pardon power is intended to prevent “cruel and unusual punishment.” It’s not in the Constitution that his candidate so often professes to revere. Article II, section 2 states simply that the president shall have power “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
He urges that when he mentioned the non-interventionist philosophies of Eisenhower and Nixon he was speaking only of campaign rhetoric, not conduct in office. This is weak. Eisenhower was the internationalist candidate, in contrast to the Robert Taft wing of the Republican party who favored a non-interventionist policy. Nixon competed with Kennedy in 1960 over who was the stronger cold warrior. He did promise peace with honor in 1968, but never said he would bring the troops home.
I’m all for reforming the tax system, but at least in the debates, Paul has not said what would replace the IRS. A sales tax? A VAT? He seems to like to leave the impression that he’d eliminate taxes altogether.
I have always favored smaller government – far smaller. But I don’t think you have to be a fanatic about it and in fact, overly ambitious or incautious approaches are doomed to failure in American politics.
I don’t think that citing the appearances of John Gibson and Anthony Napolitano on the Alex Jones program disposes of the problem. Your candidate (while not a kook himself) lacks a kookiness meter for those with whom he associates.
Finally, I have to tell you that I’ve received hundreds of emails regarding that column from Paul enthusiasts and you would be disturbed (I hope) to read them. In the first place, many are vile and abusive. Another huge percentage of the emails were cut and pasted and w were highly repetitive. Third, a significant number are disgustingly anti-Semitic. A mere handful were rational and clearly argued. You say that I’m “linking” Dr. Paul to “less than savory individuals” but I’m afraid he’s done that all by himself and if he doesn’t show some interest in shaking off those supporters, he is no better than they.
A question: does anyone who supports Paul (or would support Paul) really even care what professional Republican journalists like Charen say anyway? I'd assume that those folks are basically fed up with mainstream/traditional media outlets in general. Charen obviously has an ax to grind w/ Paul. So, what is it exactly?
BTW, if Paul's a kook, then there's a lot of kooks out there supporting him. And, IMHO, the truly kooky ones are politicians (or citizens) who continue to support the premise of the Iraq War and our continued occupation of that country.
"I don't think it's fair that you paint everybody at National Review Online as anti-Paul when they have also posted pro-Paul articles over there."
I didn't paint "everyone at NRO," I specifically said "Charen and her buddies" and "the bevy of neocons."
And pro-Paul articles? I think not. There have simply been some that were not stridently anti-Paul, as far as I know. Several of them that I read definitely fell under the damning with faint praise category. In any case, the anti-Paul rhetoric at NRO is overwhelmingly the rule and not the exception. NRO is not Paul-friendly territory.
Benton is right about one thing anyway: the biggest threat Charen and her ilk feel from Paul is the one to their deep investment in the Iraq war.
Post a Comment
<< Home