Ron Paul's High Profile Critics

In this case I am referring to Sean Hannity and Bill Bennett. I don't know Hannity's background, but have always considered him a moderate, not a conservative. He's not too knowledgeable on history, and if someone like Smedley Butler ("War is a Racket") (i THINK Butler was a general, but not certain of WWI rank) were living today, Hannity would not likely have Butler on his program.

Anyway, having got wind that Hannity had Bennett on his program and they proceeded to trash Ron Paul, I thought about Bennett's fall from public grace, and found this great article on Bennett:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/benn-m09.shtml

And then there's Dick Morris - the "now I'm a conservative". Also now trashing Ron Paul It's kind of fun to hear former Clinton buddy now trashing Clinton. But Dick Morris is out for Dick Morris. One of the things he is currently doing (for money)is advising the greedy goofball who owns the Ambassador Bridge on how to block Canada and the U.S. from building a publicly owned bridge.

So these are Ron Paul's critics - people whose personal lives demostrate lack of character and complete lack of anything resembling wisdom. Ron Paul works for the people. These other men work form themselves. Bennett on tv pontificating about Ron Paul - what a horse laugh!!

No votes yet

I'd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat. He is and always has been the only candidate that wants to play by the rules. (the constitution). I watch every Repub. debate. Aside from Paul and maybe huntsman, the rest of those bafoons make me want to puke. They all love their country so much. Yeah and kiss my ass. What they love is the opportunity to get more power which will lead to more money. All those asshats who critizise and put down Paul do so out of fear. They know that if Paul gets elected the money train is going to derail. The moneymakers will do what ever they can to make sure that doesn't happen. If anyone besides Paul gets the nomination. you might as well keep Obama in there. They are all the same. They all answer to the moneymakers.

ps: Dick Morris's mother named him right. He is a dick!

If Gingrich gets the nomination (and establishment Republicans are also saying this out loud lately)... the Republicans will surely lose the 2012 presidential contest (but still possibly gain the Senate).

Given a chance to hear Ron Paul debate toe-to-toe with the man-child currently in the White House, I think Paul would actually win... in a heartbeat. This is the first year that the tv talking heads have been FORCED to admit he even exists.

Michelle Bachman has been a disappointment to me. She praises Herman Cain (in an ovious attempt to attract his voters) and then attacks Ron Paul in the last debate (because he is going to come in 2nd in the Iowa caucus). I've also heard her on radio - again what a disappointment! I liked her at first - she has weathered a lot of attacks by the likes of Chris Wallace & Jimmy Fallon. But she is a war hawk, best I can figure, and seems to forget her Christian background when praising the likes of Cain. She is all over the board in order to get votes. Sort of like the liberals, Newt & Mitt. I will not feel sorry for her when she is forced to drop out of the race.

Santorum - I like. I followed him for years. He actually IS a conservative. He actually DID accomplish what he claims he did when in congress.

The only one who appears to be a conservative, but that I don't trust, is Huntsman, because he is war-monger Henry Kissinger's guy. To me that is the political kiss of death to be aligned with that war criminal. Too many in my age group know and remember too much about Rockefeller-owned, Vietnam era "light at the end of the tunnel" (while arguing about the shape of the "peace" table).... Hank Kissinger.

Back to Ron Paul - he is threatening what some call the "shadow government" - the puppeteers behind the scenes the public doesn't get to see (although we do see Kissinger from time to time). I have been getting e-mails from friends around the country passing on articles and comments that Ron Paul should maybe have an "assistant" with him at all times for protection, as his popularity grows.

Ok more problems with your posts.

You say Gingrich can't win the general election yet Ron Paul could. Right? Based on what?

Every national poll I've seen has Gingrich for the last two moths polling better against the President than Ron Paul. So what are you basing your assertion off of?

Secondly, do you even understand how the current political world shapes up? You say the GOP could lose the presidency yet it's possible they will take the Senate.

In all actuality it's actually probable that the GOP will take the Senate. This is because the Dems have more to defend in less friendly territory and 2 of the 4 the GOP needs are already being written off by the Dems (Montana, Nebraska).

Now if this post is based only upon your opinion as the rest of your post was just say that.

Secondly I think you're banking on the Establishment's hate of Gingrich to bring Paul a win. You are negating the Establishment's hate of Paul. So you are guilty of falling into the Establishment's trap of making Romney the nominee by allowing them to create hate between Gingrich and Paul supporters.

MikeyA

FG

FG, here is the problem with your post. It's nothing but attacks. And they're personal attacks and not attacks on the substance. As I pointed out before that is a Alinsky tactic.

"Anyway, having got wind that Hannity had Bennett on his program and they proceeded to trash Ron Paul," "Got Word"? Why don't you go to Youtube and search and look it up so you can see exactly what was said so then you have firsthand knowledge. Additionally that will give you a chance to counter exactly what was said instead of posting links to attack.

"I don't know Hannity's background, but have always considered him a moderate, not a conservative" Again, you refuse to do research and make a judgment based upon hearsay. I'm not defending Hannity or saying if you're right or not but I'm demonstrating that you refuse to find out for yourself yet make a judgment.

"Also now trashing Ron Paul It's kind of fun to hear former Clinton buddy now trashing Clinton." Ok, what did he say? Again, you cite nothing, you make an unbacked up claim that no one can counter. What exactly did he say and why is he wrong, this is the way a debate works. You don't make generalized attacks.

And for your knowledge Major General Smedley Butler was a Marine Corps hero. Being that I am a Marine our indoctrination training we learn a good deal on General Butler and SgtMaj Dan Dailey who were the only two Marines to win two medals of honor for separate actions.

If you want to have a debate about the "military industrial complex" we can have that and I will destroy your arguments. Butler's book is based upon the Spanish American War and WWI knowledge of which is outdated because the number of contractors who provide to the military are considerably larger than the limited few who were in operation from 1890-1925.

Things you benefit from that were developed or enhanced by that "Racket" that otherwise wouldn't have been invented or invented way later:
1. Personal Computers
2. Email and the internet
3. Cell phones
4. GPS
5. Kevlar anything
6. Radar and Sonar
7. Radio and telegraphs
8. Nuclear power
9. 4 wheel drive
10. Planes
11. Calculators

Just as some examples. So out of principle I know you will now stop using all of the above because I know you don't want to contribute to the military industrial complex.

MikeyA

Is she serious Hannity a moderate? As far as Ron Paul, he would make a good Sec of Treasury in my opinion, but he is to far out on foreign policy,he would rather seclude America rather then resort to any military action.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

"Is she serious Hannity a moderate?" Well I can only imagine how PinkSlip and Sensor laughed at that one. I know it made me chuckle. But as I demonstrated with her own quotes she doesn't know the first hand information, doesn't care to look for it, and would rather attack. Which is the far worst way to debate because you look moody and irrational.

I've never seen a poll of Ron Paul voters but I'd imagine it is comprised of two groups: well educated people who have thought out his policies and realize it aligns with their ideology, and dunces who hear his sound bites and think "Yeah, that's what I think and this guy's telling me the truth so regardless how unrealistic or unimplementable his programs are I'm going to vote for him". There is no in between. Which is why he struggles to get 15% of the GOP behind him. There is a glass ceiling he's never broken. Even Ross Perot was able to get more GOP support. (I believe a large portion of Ron Paul supporters are former Ross Perot voters)

MikeyA

Farmergal gets all worked up because someone said something negative about Ron Paul and decides (like a stereotypical Paulbot) that she needs to trash that person. That part, in the given context, makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is that for all the "this person isn't a conservative" and how critics of Dr. Paul lack character and wisdom, she chooses to link to a story about Bennett from the freaking World Socialist Web Site!?!?!?!? I have a hard time believing that site just happened to be at the top of the list when running a search for Bennett. Which leads me to believe that she is either a frequent visitor or made a conscious effort to pick that article.

Just for fun, I googled "Bill Bennett Gambling" and I'll admit, to my surprise, the socialist site was second to last on the first page of results. That being said, one would've had to pass up similar articles/information from The Weekly Standard, Wikipedia, CNN and Slate. Talk about lack of character and wisdom...

If Republicans get mad at their party with whomever is nominated and decide to stay home on Election Day, then Obama wins in a landslide. You can blame yourselves for that happening. You'll get what you deserve -- four more years of the worst president the U.S.A. has ever had. The same warning goes for conservatives and libertarians.

toledojim

The rightwing establishment is terrified to the marrow that a real fiscal conservative like Ron Paul may attain the Presidency. He'd put a dead stop to the warfare-welfare system that now feeds most of corporate America.

And then there's the vote-split problem. The RWE fears they'd miss the opportunity to unseat a fairly well criticized Liberal piece of shit in the White House. Behind the scenes, of course, the bankers don't care who wins from the major candidates, since they've already bought both sides. But on the surface, critics like Hannity have to keep up the pretense that Americans actually have a choice from between the corporate candidates on the left and the right (i.e. all being the financial center of the nation, lined up obediently behind the bankers).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.