Holy Kookfest, Batman! November 28, 2007
Wowzers.
Yesterday was Ron Paul day here in West Virginia.
I dared comment that Ron Paul’s candidacy was irrelevant (which it is, since he has no chance of winning the Republican primary).
I dared comment that Ron Paul was only polling 2% and was quickly corrected - he is actually polling (on the reputable polling firm… ‘pollster.com” - are they the same people who run eHarmony?) at 5%. Wow.
I also dared comment that Ron Paul supported complete and total surrender in Iraq. I was slightly wrong, judging by the comments, he not only supports surrender, he supports a helicopter-rescue-from-the-rooftops-of-Baghdad sort of surrender.
These comments brought hundreds and hundreds of comments from Ron Paul supporters. I allowed about 1/2 of them to be posted, the other 1/2 would have had to have been under the X-rated moniker.
Actually, some of my normal readers complained about the language that I DID allow. Trust me, those were mild.
One of our normal commenters, JohnA commented that NOW, I would finally understand the support Ron Paul has.
And, he’s right.
Don’t get me wrong, many of the commenters were intelligent, while misguided, people. Many good comments and I certainly respect their right to support whatever candidate they wish.
But, I suggest you go to yesterday’s post. And, scroll down through the comments. I don’t mean read them, just spend about ten minutes simply scrolling down through the hundreds of comments.
This no doubt does show the true colors of Ron Paul’s supporters.
A state Senator, in one of the smallest states in the nation, dares question the relevancy of the Paul candidacy, and hundreds of people across the country are so offended, they send bile and hate toward the person who wrote it.
Scary.
Let’s face it. For some reason, Ron Paul has attracted every kook fringe group out there. The anti-War hippies. The pro-drug legalization hippies. The anti-Bush crowd of Republicans. The disenfranchised within the Republican party.
And, while I hate to paint with such a broad brush, because there are clearly intelligent people who support Paul, the rest of the loons who have attached themselves to the campaign drown out the intelligent voices within their campaign.
So, yesterday was KookFest at Change WV. My guess is calling the Paul supporters who are delusional enough to think they are going to win the Republican nomination, will bring hundreds and hundreds of more comments.
I may let them post one more day, but after that, we’ll have to put an end to it, but, their response to yesterday’s commentary says more about their campaign than any commentary I could ever put together.
Loading...
68 Responses to “Holy Kookfest, Batman!”
I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but I like what I hear about his views of the role of the Federal Gov’t.
However, I find it odd that so many MoveOn.org types who can best be described as socialists in regards to the role of the government are supporting his candidacy.
Yes, there are some good limited gov’t guys out there like George Johnson supporting Paul, but I see alot of the MoveOn and hippie crowd there out there too, and they tend to be the most vocal.
I really believe a substantial portion of his financial support for the loons at the netroots is being generated by Soros and his network.
I suspect that when he loses the nomination with 20 million in the bank, Paul will run as an independent.
Despite what Ron Paul himself thinks, he is the tool of Soros and Clinton to solve their problem of Hillary not being able to breech 47% of the popular vote.
Vic,
Thank you for calling these people out! This is madness, the Republican Party regardless of our disagreements with each other, we still work together in an orderly fashion, and get results. The RPP, will never stop, even after the election is over… God Help these RPP!!!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/pauls_internet_campaign_wont_g.html
Take care & God Bless,
Tommy Phillips
Harry Bertram, a white supremist and frequent candidate for House of Delegates in Monongalia County, has filed to be a Ron Paul delegate at the state convention.
Will the Paul campaign ask Bertram to withdrawl or tell them supporters not to vote for him?
Probably not since he has refused to return a $500 donation from well-known white supremacist Don Black. The Paul campaign has even refused to block Black’s Neo-Nazi website, Stormfront.org from connecting to the campaign’s donation page.
I don’t think Ron Paul is racist but it should be a great concern to people that he seems to be willing to except help from racists if it suits his cause. When he accepts there help he risks giving them legitimacy. If he doesn’t want to return the money he should give it to the Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Senator,
First of all, let me apologize for the handful of overzealous Ron Paul supporters who employed profanity to make their points yesterday. I assure you that we know they do us no credit.
However, I am saddened to see that once again you have resorted to ad hominem attacks and mischaracterizations of the Congressman’s positions instead of offering any sort of cogent argument against his stance. If you can offer something more substantial in the way of criticism than calling the Congressman and those of us who support him nasty names and mischaracterizing his position on the Iraq war as “surrender”, I’d love to hear it. Until then, you seem to be talking without saying anything.
Furthermore, you have completely (and clearly intentionally) glossed over the poll results that contradict your earlier statement that the Congressman is polling at 2%. Why did you choose pollster as the only example here, when plenty of other legitimate polls results were explained to you yesterday.
After all, even John Zogby himself went on Hannity and said he expects Paul to take around 18% of the vote in New Hampshire, and as I mentioned to Tommy Phillips and the other good people at the Harrison County Republican Club meeting last week, I believe he truly underestimates us.
Like you, I also encourage the readers to go back and review yesterday’s comments, especially the posts by other good WV Republicans like Victor Zill. But unlike you, I encourage them to read them — really read them — not just “scan” them. There is a wealth of information contained there. Sure there are three or four over-the-top posts, but more importantly there are lots of facts, lots of data, and if nothing else lots of evidence that America is truly sick and tired of the status quo.
The GOP can either pay attention and cash in on this sentiment, or it can nominate another big government RINO like Giuliani or Romney and then watch in horror as Hillary takes the election and dooms us to years of inept, corrupt socialist rule.
By the way, if you check your advertising revenue from yesterday, you may reconsider disallowing comments from Ron Paul supporters after this post. You may just discover what many other neoconservative pundits have realized — by trash-talking Congressman Paul, you can make money on the Internet.
Thanks for considering my words here and for offering your thoughts, though I wish you’d reconsider your methods and try to offer some real, substantial criticism of the Congressman’s positions instead of cheap shots and name-calling.
Sincerely,
Kent Nowviskie
~~~~~~
To Tommy:
It’s good to ’see’ you here. I hope you’re right that the patriotic, freedom loving Americans you call “RPP” will never stop, even after the election is over. And I also ask that God helps us — I pray for it every night. Now more than ever we need God’s help to take back our country and to restore the Republic that we have squandered.
Charles,
I honestly cannot understand how people can refer to Congressman Paul’s supporters as “conspiracy theorists”, and then listen seriously to people who say that the socialist George Soros is funding the campaign of the Republican candidate who has the longest and most consistent record of working to dismantle big government.
If you’re looking for the truth about who the power brokers are in this election season, you’d do better to ask why Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, has hosted fundraisers for Hillary Clinton.
Awesome! Ron Paul will not win cause you say he won’t and you guys are the Party!
Oh wait a minute then who am I? Oh just some American who wants what’s best for my country.
Just an FYI, to be a member of the party I think for the most part all you have to do is check a little box. Oh and in quite a few of the larger states, like Texas, we don’t care what party you affiliate yourself with.
Parties are for crybabies and losers, enjoy your party, we’ll take the nomination and then the presidency.
Brilliant. Running on a surrender platform in the party where a majority of its members that supports the war.
Paul is an unwitting stooge of Soros and Hillary, he will run a 3rd party campaign after he finishes with single digits in every state but NH.
Bile and Hatred? Please, Senator. We just corrected your misinformation, misinformation that you continue to spew.
Hmmmm … taken directly from RonPaul2008 [dot] com:
“We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution. ”
Sound to me like cut and run. That’s all I need to know about him.
To sum up Ron Pauls supporters, an why I totally changed from a big Bush supporter is this:
1. I am seeing the network of a Police State growing, it is however in its infancy, it is growing.
2. My new founded understanding that America can not arbitraily take down a government unless it has assaulted us directly. Iraq’s regime did not. To support such actions are historically in line with Hilter and other extreme tyrants.
So Ron Paul supporters are defined by Limited government, smaller government and a RESPECTABLE government when coming to foreign policy. A humble foreign policy is what won us favor in the World until after WWII when we began poicing the World.
I hope that all republicans can understand this and compare to what we have in government today. And compare to what the candidates are saying today.
God Bless
Usually, a candidate for any office has a platform, presents it to the voting public, and they either accept or reject the platform. Republicans have largely rejected Ron Paul’s platform and his few rabid supporters absolutely can’t stand it. They believe they are entitled to be heard, and call everyone a constitutional traitor if they don’t agree. I think Ron Paul probably has a better fiscal policy than the other candidates, but his foreign policy views are absolutely insane. Paul forgets that the Islamofascists in the middle east hated us long before the Iraq war or the Gulf war. I’m sorry, but a isolationist, blame American first foreign policy will never play in this country. Ron Paul has a 0% chance of winning the nomination.
Mavtek claims to want what’s best for this country but yet apparently supports a surrender to terrorists. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE???
Wake up, Paulistas!!! The terror threat is real no matter how deeply you have your head firmly embedded in the sand. If you refuse to support your nation in a war that will determine its very existence you are NOT a patriot. Your lack of support is treasonous. Shame on all Ron Paul supporters.
Vic,
First of all, thanks for reading my posts! Second of all, as you know, I disagree with a lot of what you say w/r/t national politics. However, I did want to give you props for allowing so many pro-Ron Paul commenters to post. Regardless of how you want to spin the incredible support Ron Paul has both on the internet and running for at-large delegate spots (which by the way, at $25 a pop should help the state GOP to dig out of that $100K debt), the easy way out would have been to delete the hundreds of posts, many of which attack you directly. So, I commend you for not censoring every single Ron Paul post.
And, as a longtime reader of your blog, I realize that a lot of what you might have to say is constrained due to your consulting firm’s working with Giuliani, but someday I would love to buy you a beer or four and get your honest take about what the phenomenon of Ron Paul means for the changing world of local and national politics.
Finally, thanks for giving me more reasons to continue visiting your blog.
It looks to me that Ron Paul is a poll guy. If you look at his platform it appears he would like to win the nomination based on Republican platform ideas: Smaller gov, etc.
But then, you through in the mix what the media is telling us that majority of Americans are against the war. So, he offers a mixed bag.
The problem he faces now is that the majority of Republicans believe we must continue the war on terror, and have that as a priority they cannot compromise on. Therefore he continues to stay in single digits nationally and has no chance of winning the nomination.
Lastly, lets look at the types of comments his supporters are posting. Many had inappropriate language and on the attack against fellow Republicans in a MoveOn style. I really don’t see how that is going to attract any more supporters that what they already have, but rather can actually cause him to loose what little support he currently has.
“I may let them post one more day, but after that, we’ll have to put an end to it”
I’ve been a quiet reader of the comments flowing on this blog the past few weeks and was grossly disappointed at the realization of how low our society has become.
It seems to me that the Ron Paul supporters have solid, valid reasons to support him (outside the issue of Iraq–that I am not going to touch); things I feel that if you claim to be conservative Republicans you should be 100% in support of. Things like preserving our rights, limiting government and reducing their involvement in our personal lives, cut spending, and especially upholding our Constitution.
But here we are, resorting to name calling (I’m so disappointed in you, Senator) and because the good Senator, has decided to refuse these people their Second Amendment rights by no longer allowing their post to come through.
Come on, admit this blog has not been nearly as interesting as it has been these past few weeks. I’ve learned a lot just reading the comments from everyone. I’ve concluded that our country is going downhill fast, and unless more people take a stand and fight for it, the freedoms and liberties that we fought for so fervently over two hundred years ago will be snuffed out not only by the Socialist Democrats, but by our dear Republican Party as well.
Aaron, you may want to check your history books. As I recall, Hitler’s regime did not directly attack us in WWII before we took them on. In fact, it was Japan who attacked us, but we went after Hitler first.
Following 9/11, we went after those responsible first, then expanded to other threats who support terrorists and would provide weapons and support to our attackers, the Islamic Fascists. Now that there are nuclear and chemical weapons out there and people willing to sell the technology (or perhaps even the weapons themselves), can we really afford to give each country one free shot at us before we take them out? Perhaps it would be a while until someone comes directly after West Virginia, so you might be safe, but that policy puts a lot of people at huge risk (especially if we announce in advance that they get a free shot - we know there are those willing to die for the spread of radical Islam)!
Clyde,
Hitler is a result of the West meddling in the affairs of the Middle East. Study the Ottoman Empires fall as a result of Nation Building by the West.
Hitler was a maniac, because he blamed the pressures from Great Britain and France on the Jews.
Western nations(Great Britain) split up the middle east into nations. Then rearrange those borders later…this angered those residents.
The middle east has felt screwed by western nations since we BUILT NATIONS.
Now we defend these borders that Great Britain defined in the early 1900’s.
We need not entangle ourselves in this mess anymore. WE are adding fuel to the fire.
IF YOU NOTICE that most peopole are not against the war against A/Q. The world was with us but the argument came in toppling a government that did not attack us.
ASK YOURSELF WHY. It is not because we are anti-war. You’ve been mislead that we are.
Clyde, my point is…
The terrorists are as passionate as we are in this war. They feel justified and believe they are right and that they we are evil.
We think they are evil and that we are justified.
You believe that western nations are completely innocent. You are blind to what has happened in the past century, HECK I WAS TOO UP UNTIL LAST YEAR WHEN I READ HISTORY.
So we can’t continue setting bad examples like toppling their governments with out a justifiable reason. That only reason is if they are directly attacking us(A/Q was Iraq wasn’t).
THEY WANT TO KILL OR CONVERT US TO ISLAM
WE WANT TO KILL OR CONVERT THEM TO DEMOCRACY. We can’t force religion or governments policy on people. People don’t like that, you don’t like it when they want to enforce Islam on you..right?
Put yourself in their shoes. We look like they do to us in their eyes.
We have to change foregn policy. We think we have things under control now but if our enemy triples in numbers or other nations jump in the fight at last minute then we are screwed…WE CAN’T TAKE ON THE WHOLE WORLD..THAT IS SUICIDE.
So we must change our policy or we could face a tide of change that we one day we can’t contol.
Surrender is not what I’m talking about. You need to think deeper than that.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people continue to unthinkingly throw around meaningless terms like “islamofascists” and actually believe that the war in Iraq is somehow making us safer. So many people have bought into that nonsense hook, line, and sinker…
There’s a reason that Congressman Paul has been endorsed by Michael Scheuer, the head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden Task Force. As a matter of fact, he actually said that Congressman Paul is the only candidate NOT “marching to Al Qaeda’s drum”.
There’s a reason that David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, our government’s chief accountant, has said, “I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility.”
If more people got their information from people like Agent Scheuer or Comptroller General Walker, people who actually have a clue what’s going on out there, instead of from talk radio hosts who will say anything to maintain a certain market share and stay on the air, this country would be a lot better off.
It also never ceases to amaze me when members of the Republican Party characterize Ron Paul’s foreign policy as “MoveOn.org type nonsense”, when in fact his is the MOST TRADITIONAL REPUBLICAN foreign policy of all, and what the GOP mainstream is preaching these days is the interventionist foreign policy first instituted by Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.
Incidentally, this foreign policy found its way into the Republican Party through the maneuvering of former Democrats like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, both of whom worked for Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson and only latched onto the GOP after the success of the Reagan Revolution.
Speaking of Reagan, how many of you would have accused him of “cut and run” or “surrender” when he pulled our troops out of Lebanon after 243 Marines were killed in a bombing there? He wisely decided not to put our troops in harms way when we cannot understand the “irrationality of Middle Eastern politics”.
Also speaking of Reagan, how many of you realize that he said of his good friend Congressman Ron Paul, “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”
I don’t know about y’all, but I’m listening to Reagan on this one.
Vic, You are right on it by naming today’s column Kookfest…I know exactly what you mean.
Clyde, you’re absolutely right and it was very well written.
Sir,
Pollster.com is not a polling firm and does not do any polling, but aggregates the results of scientific polls, both nationally and at the state level. All of the polls they list are scientific and done by reputable firms like Zogby, Gallup, Rassmussen, etc.
Dr. Paul’s last 5 national results are:
Zogby 11/14-17/07 5
Fox 11/13-14/07 3
Gallup 11/11-14/07 5
ARG 11/9-12/07 4
Harris 11/2-12/07 6
There is no hate and bile here, but if you misstate facts, expect a correction from Dr. Paul’s supporters.
Aaron,
You’re right about the “anti-war” thing. People need to understand that Congressman Paul is NOT a pacifist.
He is not opposed to fighting wars that are justified.
He advocates a STRONG national defense, and he has one of the best records in Congress of helping veterans like me secure our rights.
He voted to go after Al Qaeda and bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice.
He has simply been saying that if we’re going to declare war, then Congress should exercise its Constitutional authority to declare war. Declare it, get the whole country behind it, fight it, win it, and come home.
But Congress isn’t willing to do that, because they know the support’s not there. They know that then they’d actually have to stand on the floor of Congress and cast a vote on whether or not a war in Iraq is justified, but most of them are too chicken to take a stand on it.
Instead, they just voted to give up their Constitutional authority to declare war and hand that awesome power over to the executive branch to do whatever it wants.
We need a president strong enough to say, “That’s not in my Constitutional powers. That is the clearly-defined role of the Congress.” We need a president who will hold Congress accountable for their actions. We need President Paul.
Reagan was the greatest President since Lincoln.
But he made two mistakes that we are still paying for:
1. Being soft on Illegal Immigration
2. Pulling out of Lebannon
He can be forgiven for pulling out of Lebannon as he was fighting a global cold war against the Soviets, and couldn’t get mired in the distraction of Lebannon and their Iranian sponsors.
However the consequences of withdrawing from there helped inspire Bin Laden and his ilk, along with Clinton’s decision to retreat from Somalia after a couple of our brave soldiers’ corpses were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.
Whether or not it was wise or proper to invade Iraq, I am certain in every fiber of my body that retreating would be a disaster and lead to more 9/11’s or worse.
Does anyone not think that history would declare Al-Qaeda the victor if we retreated?
Charles,
I agree that Reagan was too soft on illegal immigration, and that we are indeed still paying for it. Shamefully, so many of the big government Republicans we are currently being offered essentially support the same weak stance on the issue.
However, I disagree that the withdrawal from Lebanon was a precipitating factor in Al Qaeda’s decision to perpetrate the acts of 9/11.
Much more significant was the fact that we armed, funded, and trained them to go after the Soviets in Afghanistan. Without our generous aid, it is unlikely that they ever would have had the resources or capability to carry out those attacks.
Furthermore, a much greater inspiration for them was the fact that we have an ever-increasing troop presence in Saudi Arabia, the muslim holy land and the largest source of state-sponsored terrorism in the world.
Most of Al Qaeda’s leadership is Saudi. Almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Most of the insurgents fighting us in Iraq are Saudi. Yet we continue to subsidize Saudi Arabia’s military to the tune of millions of dollars annually in military hardware, even as we borrow billions more from them (and from China) in credit to finance our operations in Iraq and elsewhere.
As the personal aide to the commander of Task Force Warrior (1st BDE 10th MTN DIV LI), I sat through numerous global sitrep briefings in the years leading up to and the months immediately after 9/11. There is obviously much that I can’t discuss, but I assure you that the picture painted of the threat from islamic extremist terrorists is NOT what is depicted in the media, just as the media doesn’t report the many successes of our forces in Iraq.
But those successes don’t justify the scope or expansion of the operation. They certainly don’t justify building an embassy in Iraq that is larger than the Vatican, and they certainly don’t justify the many years of projected occupation financed by moneys borrowed from Saudi Arabia and China, even as we go bankrupt here at home and the value of the US dollar remains significantly lower than the value of the Canadian dollar.
No, an orderly and well-planned withdrawal from Iraq will NOT be viewed by historians as surrender to Al Qaeda or as a victory for Islamic extremists. Even Don Surber in his blog a few days ago rightly pointed that we have already WON the war in Iraq.
An orderly withdrawal, coupled with a firm affirmation that we have achieved our goals there, will indeed achieve several functions that will actually make us safer and more secure:
1.) It will provide us time to rebuild the forces have been stretched far too thin by constant deployment in Iraq — including the National Guard and Reserve units who have undergone multiple deployments even as crises (including the illegal immigration crisis) have arisen here at home and their equipment has become inoperable due to overdeployment.
2.) It will take away the islamic extremist terrorists’ #1 propaganda weapon and recruiting tool, leaving them with fewer propaganda weapons to use against us and fewer gullible young muslims flocking to their cause.
3.) It will improve our standing in globally in that islamic agitation against will be seen as less justified by other countries, who will then be more cooperative than they are now in helping us to prevent acts of terrorism. We will earn more allies willing to work with us, rather than against us, while now we see that our few remaining allies, such as the British, the Australians, and the Polish, are withdrawing from Iraq and leaving us holding the bag.
Declaring victory in Iraq and withdrawing in an orderly fashion will achieve all those goals.
Then we can take further practical steps to ensure that we are safer from terrorism here at home, such as securing our borders from illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists using our open borders to sneak into the country, instead of sending our Border Patrol agents to Iraq to secure THEIR borders like we are now.
We can also then work for the passage of sensible legislation like the bill proposed by Congressman Paul that would cut off the number of student visas (like the ones the 9/11 hijackers used to come into the country) from countries that are known sponsors of terrorism, like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. For some reason, though, Congressman Paul’s colleagues in the House, who pay so much lip-service to protecting us from terrorism, didn’t even let that bill get out of committee.
There are so many more productive things we could do to make sure we are safe from terrorism than wasting lives and dollars in Iraq. I’d like to see my good friends come home from Iraq soon, celebrated as the heroes they are for winning the war there, and given the opportunity to actually defend OUR country in a more productive fashion.
Declaring victory in Iraq then withdrawing in an orderly fashion would send that country into a quagmire of terrorist violence and allow them to have another base from which they can launch attacks against this country. That would not be a victory for the U.S. That would be surrendering and effectively saying to A/Q, “Go ahead, take the country over. We don’t have the will to fight you anymore.”
Is that REALLY what you want, Mr./Ms. Anonymous?
B.K.
Dick Cheney used the Word :Quagmre in the 90’s referring to the idea of America going into Iraq.
He said it is not a good idea.
That makes himn like Kerry. I was against the war then I’m for it.
First of all, I am not anonymous. My name is already posted on this thread.
My name is Kent Nowviskie, and I was born in Montgomery, WV, where my dad’s dad was the fire chief for many years until his death. My mom’s dad worked for the Corps of Engineers at the London Locks, her mom was head nurse at Montgomery General Hospital. My dad was president of Turnpike Chevy and Nitro Pennzoil, though he has now retired from business and works for the state helping disabled people find meaningful employment. My mom is the Director of Elementary Education in Putnam County.
I am a graduate of Hargrave Military Academy in Chatham, VA. I hold a bachelor’s degree in Political Science and a master’s in Linguistics from WVU. I am veteran of the United States Army Infantry. I currently live in Salem, WV, where I operate a web design/IT consulting firm called Appalachian Information Consulting Systems and teach classes at West Virginia Junior College in Bridgeport.
Who are you?
Secondly, do you have any actual EVIDENCE for your assertion that an orderly withdrawal from Iraq “would send that country into a quagmire of terrorist violence and allow them to have another base from which they can launch attacks against this country”, or are you just making stuff up?
In fact, the evidence goes completely AGAINST what you say. The truth is that terrorist violence in Basra has DROPPED by 90% since the British withdrew from the area.
No, as Congressman Paul correctly pointed out, the same people who tell us there will be a bloodbath if we leave are the same people who told us it would be a “cakewalk” going in. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now.
B.K.,
Kent was not being anonymous, whenever someone includes their website on this blog, their name is covered up and converted to a link to their website, but you can highlight the area with your mouse to see the name of the person who posted the message…
Kent, it’s good to see you here also… Good luck to your campaign and to you in all of your future endeavors!
Take care & God Bless,
Tommy
Thanks, Tommy! Best wishes to you.
Mr. Nowviskie: If you think the Iraq after America’s surrender won’t be a base of operations for terrorists, I have some more oceanfront property in Logan I’d like to sell you.
It’s called using logic and actually listening to what terrorists say. Your request for hard evidence is moot since we haven’t surrendered thus far. No evidence can exist. I dare say the reduction in violence in Basra has much less to do with British withdrawals and more to do with the American surge.
If we surrender in Iraq, think of the message that sends to terrorists all over the world. Doesn’t that bother you at all?
Well I was not a Ron Paul supporter until I read both your article and the comments. After doing some more research, I have decided that I have to disagree with you and I will be voting for Dr Paul. The rest of the party is too big government. While you can call some of his views kooky, I will vote for small government over big government anyday. I have been a Republican since 18 and have grown frustrated with the spending.
Mr. Sprouse:
While you are quite correct that some people posting in disagreement said some inappropriate things, I would like to quote the first person (in the 3rd post) to agree with you. He called Ron Paul supporters “paranoid, delusional, and totally out of touch with reality.”
You yourself then went on today to slander his supporters. Frankly, you really have no high ground to stand upon. As I posted yesterday, I really can’t see how you are benefiting your career by slandering your readership - many of whom must be your constituents.
There are many more of us than there are Paulistas here in the Senator’s district. Additionally, Senator Sprouse is retiring from the Senate after his term expires. (Governor Sprouse has an awfully nice ring to it, eh folks?)
Also, sorry for the mistake about the anonymous thing. I didn’t know about the internet link issue.
B.K.,
You are correct regarding what is currently numbered comment 34. After 14 years in the Legislature, Senator Sprouse is retiring after achieving the amazing-for-West Virginia feat of surviving that long unindicted and undefeated.
Jim & B.K.,
I agree very much so…
Take care & God Bless
Tommy Phillips
How can you say that they are high jacking the convention. They are doing the same thing Giuliani/Romney/Thompson and others are doing. The only difference is that Paul doesn’t even have paid staff in West Virginia like others.
You should probable let people know you are getting paid by Giuliani to consult.
Okay. I get that Senator Sprouse is retiring and may not be seeking votes anymore. I also am realistic enough to know that in an election held today, someone who has offended “Paulistas” (to borrow your term - care to explain?) will probably not be too harmed. I see real progress in the acceptance of his ideas, but I know that we still have a ways to go. Lots of people still love immense government power.
All of that aside, I still bristle a little that the senator complains about the abuse that he has gotten from Ron Paul supporters. His own attitude as well as that of many others bashing Ron Paul’s supporters is completely out of line.
Frankly, I’m calling the senator a hypocrite.
Vic,
You are right about the kookfest.
After my little comment about the Libertarians silly position on the drug issue I had to run out and purchase some asbestos underware. Boy did we get flamed!
Vic,
Unfortunately, a helicopter rescue from the rooftops is what you get, when you try to fight an unwinnable guerrilla war on foreign soil using conventional warfare.
You would think we would have learned this by now.
So the real question would be, why would we want another president who won’t take a serious pledge to keep us out of more unwinnable wars?
Unless you want a hardcore Marxist in the White House to go along with your Democrat majority, I see only one choice for a responsible, conservative — and most importantly, sustainable — foreign policy. Ron Paul.
B.K.,
You have again demonstrate that you have very little understanding of the ACTUAL threats posed by islamic terrorists and how they relate to our foreign policy.
You urge us to “listen to what the terrorists actually say”, and then go on to prove that you have never done so. What bin Ladin and his ilk have said for years now is that THEY WANT US TO STAY. They want us bogged down there, wasting our men and our resources there where they can easily come and take out their aggression on us in the sandbox. They want us to stay there, because it gives them more propaganda to recruit new terrorists to fight against us.
This is all in the open. Earlier I referenced Michael Scheur, head of the CIA’s Osama bin Ladin Task Force (and who has endorsed Congressman Paul). He has clearly said that they want us to stay in Iraq. In fact, he has written books on the subject!
The drop in violence in Basra has very little (if anything) to do with the “surge”, considering Basra was British-patrolled territory, and the “surge” has been downgraded. We are reducing troop levels by about the same amount we sent for the “surge”.
Again, give us some EVIDENCE that if we declare victory and withdraw Iraq will somehow miraculously become a staging base for terror attacks on the US. Don’t just parrot Hannity — I can get enough of that nonsense on the radio. Actually try using some of that logic you were talking about.
Think about it. Even if terrorists move into Iraq and set up shop after we leave, how are they going to attack us in ways they can’t right now? What are they going to do? Build a navy and sail over here? Build an airforce and fly over here? Seriously…
Right now we’re just as vulnerable to attack as we were when we went into Iraq. Maybe more so.
The borders are still wide open, so anybody who wants to carry out terror attacks here could just swim right on across the Rio Grande, and being in Iraq ain’t gonna help us then.
We’ve still got thousands of Middle Easterners coming in on student visas, just like the 9/11 hijackers did. Being in Iraq ain’t gonna help us if they choose to attack us here.
As a matter of fact, if you look back to Vietnam, we ended up taking in thousands and thousands of refugees (”boat people”) displaced by the war. And now, we are starting to see the first Iraqi refugees, displaced by the war, trickling into America. You can bet your bottom dollar that among them will be angry young men with a grudge against America, and they’ll be right here among us, just like those British-born muslims who blew up the subways in London.
And why were those muslims there in England in the first place? Because they were displaced refugees from the corners of the British Empire, where the British tried AND FAILED to subjugate Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 19th century and Iraq after WWI.
So tell me again how being Iraq is making us safer?
We’ve got to pay attention to HISTORY, we’ve got to pay attention to the people who actually know what they’re talking about, and we’ve got to STOP paying attention to the same talking heads in the media who told us it would be a cakewalk going in.
We have deposed Saddam Hussein. We have helped the Iraqi people establish a government, with a constitution and free elections. We have achieved our goals. So let’s come home.
We haven’t achieved our goals. Our goal is to establish a free, SECURE, democracy in Iraq. Iraq is not YET secure.
Really…please stop with the “parrot Hannity” business. You people are so condescending towards real conservatives it’s sickening.
As I wrote earlier, your call for hard evidence that if we leave Iraq it’ll deteriorate is simply moot. How can I provide evidence of something that has not yet happened???
Let me ask you this: If we surrendered in Iraq and withdrew our troops, do you think the terrorists, including Bin Laden, would declare victory? If they did, would it bother you at all?
Tell that to Don Surber, who just the other day was saying in his blog that we have won in Iraq.
And I haven’t seen any evidence that you are a “real conservative”. I don’t have any idea what your economic stances are, but on the issue of foreign policy you are as far from conservative as can be.
Conservative is Taft, Goldwater, and Reagan. Conservative is NOT Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. And it sure ain’t Sean Hannity.
This isn’t WWII. In Germany and Japan, we obliterated their cities and killed most of their fighting-age men. Unless we’re willing to do that, we’re never going to be able to build the kind of stable democracies we built in those places. People like you will be telling us that Iraq isn’t “YET secure” fifty years from now when we’re still bogged down there (if we don’t go totally broke first).
You still haven’t made a single cogent argument to back up your fallacious assertion that if we leave Iraq will become a “staging area” for terrorist attacks on the US. Answer the question: How would they be able to attack us in ways that they can’t now?
And I don’t care if bin Ladin CLAIMS they won in Iraq. This isn’t a damned football game, this is the survival of our Republic.
If Ron Paul has no chance of winning, is a nobody, and is supported by loons, why did it take you 23 paragraphs to try and discredit him?????
Sprouse, your entire argument is based on telling us we have no chance of winning (which doesn’t matter because we’ll do everything we can anyway) and childish name-calling. Where’s your attempt to discredit Mr. Paul with facts to support your position?
I would think a senator would be above resorting to childish name-calling.
If you are really curious to find out what Dr. Paul is all about feel free to contact the Charleston, WV. MeetUp group and we will be glad to give you a DVD that has over 5 hours of Dr. Paul being interviewed and giving speeches. When given more then 30 seconds in a “debate” Dr. Paul excels in explaining his positions and their constitutional context.
Senator Sprouse please stop charecterizing Dr. Pauls supporters as “The anti-War hippies. The pro-drug legalization hippies. The anti-Bush crowd of Republicans. The disenfranchised within the Republican party.” I moved to WV three years ago from Dr. Pauls district in Texas and can attest to his popularity in a very diverse district. I am a Christian, 15 year Navy Veteran who has never used drugs and I do not like being called names because I choose to support a canidate whose positions you do not like. I vote and I spend money on canidates whom I favor. You would do well to understand that the comments you are making on this blog will be cached on the internet and may come back to haunt you sir. The politcal winds are changing in the Republican Party. Dr. Paul may not win this nomination but you should remember that Barry Goldwaters run set the stage for Reagans eventual victory.
Senator Vic Sprouse,
I have voted for you every time you have stood for election. I have campaigned for you. I wore out a pair shoes campaigning for Berry Goldwater, et.al. - did the same for Ronald Regan, et.al. (except for the shoes thingy). I am a 5th generation Republican and have pined for the return of the Robert Taft’s of the Republican Party - advocated for it.
And, having way too many things to say, will reduce it to this … Vic, what is a Republican?
You’re right. It IS about “the survival of the Republic” and you people who want to surrender to our enemies aren’t doing the Republic any good.
I’m glad you folks are also confident that terrorist pose no threat to our nation. Thank God you will never have your candidate in any position of real power.
Ron Paul’s ideas on trade and isolationism are disastrous. Two events in the 20th century taught us that protectionism and isolationism hurt our prosperity and security. The Great Depression was amplified by US protectionist policies that encouraged Germany and Japan to move towards aggressive conquest rather than trade. Pearl Harbor proved that “Fortress America” is an idea that will not protect us. In both cases American security is compromised. Do I support less government? Certainly. But Paul’s ideas as a whole ignore the lessons America has learned over the past hundred years.
Also, Spirit 76, Don Surber did not claim that we won in Iraq. He said we were winning, which we are. As an American, aren’t you just a LITTLE ashamed that you won’t celebrate that fact?
…and one more thing: you don’t get to question my conservative principles or beliefs. YOU are the one who supports American defeat/surrender in Iraq. YOU are the one who doesn’t care if terrorists laugh at the U.S. Given this, I am the one who questions whether YOU are the true conservative. Conservatives take great pride in their nation. You obviously don’t care one way or the other.
B.K.
YOU are the one to liken yourself to 9-11 victims, in a vain attempt to bolster your own “patriotic” arguments. If YOU aren’t ashamed by that, how do you expect Spirit76 to be ashamed of anything?
Stephen Smoot
Someone has told you the wrong things about Ron Paul’s policies. He is anything but an isolationist, and has been criticizing the same monetary policies of today that helped worsen the Great Depression.
I’ve already addressed your ridiculous and offensive accusation that I “likened” myself to the 9/11 victims. Try reading and absorbing what I write and you won’t keep beating the same, tired, old horse, John A. If you ever have questions about what I mean, please ask me before spouting off with these absurd accusations.
Ron Paul is “anything but an isolationist”?! Let’s see…he wants to withdraw our troops from foreign nations and effectively wants our foreign policy to be focused on domestic priorities (go figure). Paul is a classic libertarian/isolationist. He simply doesn’t understand the world in which we live today. His beliefs may have been applicable in the first 10-20 years of the 20th century, but given the circumstances in which we find ourselves today, they would result in nothing but danger to our nation if enacted.
I know, I know…there is no threat to America and everything is lollipops and roses around the world. Whatever you Ron Paul people are on, I’d like to try some of it.
B.K.
I thought you knew the difference between “non-intervention” and “isolation”! You don’t need me to explain that to you, do you?
Actually I’m curious…yes, please explain the difference between isolationism and non-intervention as you see it.
A good way to tell the difference between isolationism and interventionism is the example of Vietnam. During and before the Vietnam war, we were intervening in the internal affairs of Vietnam–both politically and militarily. After the Vietnam war, the U.S. quit intervening in the internal affairs of Vietnam and simply traded with them. We have succeeded in changing Vietnamese culture (they are much more open and capitalistic now, than they were 30 years ago) much more by trading with them, than by operating militarily within Vietnam. In fact, after the ‘06 elections, Bush had a historic official visit in Vietnam.
Isolationism with Vietnam would have been to boycott Vietnamese goods and to put sanctions on the country, as well as refusing to speak with its diplomats, which is what we currently do with Cuba and Iran.
Using those definitions is why I can confidently say that Ron Paul isn’t an isolationist. While he is against intervening in internal affairs of foreign countries, he would strongly support trading and talking with nations.
Vic, it’s offensive to me, as a U.S. soldier in the National Guard, West Virginia ski instructor, and college student, that you would resort to personal attacks on Ron Paul and his supporters.
Maybe you are just upset that Giuliani has about as good of a chance of winning the West Virginia convention as Alan Keyes.
Or maybe, just maybe, you are starting to fear Ron Paul. Maybe the thought that he’s gaining traction across the nation just makes you piss your pants.
Whatever the reason, let’s start with a few corrections.
1.) Ron Paul is polling 7% nationwide.
2.) Ron Paul is polling 9% in New Hampshire.
3.) Ron Paul’s supporters are about as “kooky” as the pro-war neocons that “hijacked” the Republican party in the first place.
Thank you for your time, Sir, and have a good day.
Okay, John A., I have to admit you make a very good point. However, I don’t consider the liberation of a nation to be unnecessary meddling in another country’s internal affairs. I consider it to be…well…liberation.
Also, the U.S., as you pointed out, has been involved in the internal affairs of other countries long before Bush became President. As a matter of fact, the entire 20th century is known as the American century because we’ve been involved around the world. Please remember that conservatism does not necessarily equal isolationism or non-interventionism.
Mr. Lloyd, I respect your service in the National Guard, but I vehemently disagree with your anti-war position. I would think that a soldier, of all people, would understand the danger of surrendering to terrorists. As a soldier thinking in strategic terms, would it bother you to allow terrorists to have Iraq as a base of operations?
Also Mr. Lloyd, if anyone is threatening to “hijack” the Republican party, it’s the libertarian movement and your candidate, Ron Paul. What he preaches is absolutely NOT conservatism. It is libertarianism.
B.K.
You don’t have a clue what Ron Paul is saying. You have really listened.
have you really looked at his political points from his website and compared it to the founding fathers?
I don’t just mean the Iraq war, I mean everything else he’s saying?
Compare what he is saying to the founding fahters? Have you listened to the founding fathers too? Read what they say and compare to Ron Paul.
B.K says
“We haven’t achieved our goals. Our goal is to establish a free, SECURE, democracy in Iraq. Iraq is not YET secure.”
If your goal is to ESTABLISH then that is Nation Building which isn’t the duty of the American Government or the training of any soldier.
B.K. said:
44 by B.K. on Wednesday, November 28th, 2007
“We haven’t achieved our goals. Our goal is to establish a free, SECURE, democracy in Iraq. Iraq is not YET secure.
Really…please stop with the “parrot Hannity” business. You people are so condescending towards real conservatives it’s sickening.
As I wrote earlier, your call for hard evidence that if we leave Iraq it’ll deteriorate is simply moot. How can I provide evidence of something that has not yet happened???
Let me ask you this: If we surrendered in Iraq and withdrew our troops, do you think the terrorists, including Bin Laden, would declare victory? If they did, would it bother you at all? ”
With respect for your right to an opinion, regardless of how misguided it may be, I totally disagree with your ideas.
America has no RIGHT to determine what kind of government the people of Iraq choose for themselves PERIOD!!!!! It is none of our business.
America has no RIGHT to force our way into ANY of these countries and overthrow their forms of government, regardless of their being communist, dictatorships, totalitarian, theocracies, puppet governments, military dictatorships, or otherwise. We are WRONG to attempt to impose our political and economic will upon any country for any reason. Our only military RIGHT is to defend our own country here in America, or to defend our country in a just war, duly and constitutionally declared by our elected Congress. To declare “war on terror” by invading two countries after a few thugs attacked us is not rational. I submit this tragedy was used as an excuse to remove our liberties in America and to move forward with a very global agenda that was already in the political pipeline of our hijacked government. At the very NSC meeting before 9-11, the question was put forth, when we are we going to attack Iraq?
You can learn more here;
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html
and
Project Censored
The News That Didn’t Make the News
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/
You are correct that you cannot provide evidence to support your claims and thus, you cannot provide evidence to refute the claims of those who oppose your position. We do not yet have hard evidence that it was Bin Laden who attacked us on 9-11. Europe seems to believe otherwise. His brother was in America in a meeting of the Carlisle Group (think Bush the Elder) on the morning of 9-11.
I do not give a rat’s behind what Bin Laden declares!!! Furthermore, I wonder that we so easily accept the notion that some idiot, whom the CIA had trained, fostered and supported for its own nefarious agenda, all on his own from some cave in Afghanistan managed to coordinate the whole 9-11 tragedy. Why have there been no further attacks in America since then? Interesting question.
Regardless, the goals were never clearly defined in the illegal invasion of Iraq and a war on terror is in itself an excuse and a prelude to ENDLESS war, because there is no clearly defined enemy. What we had was a bunch of thugs who did the unthinkable. There was never an established country behind the tragic event. There still is no proof even that Bin Laden was the perpetrator in spite of his taking credit for it. It has never been proved. The Kean so-called “investigation” in to 9-11 was a joke.
You continue to insist we are surrendering by leaving. To whom are we surrendering if we are not held captive by anyone? We are building Oil pipelines, an embassy large as the Vatican, and fourteen military bases there. Obviously, we are NOT planning to leave EVER. Why?
You refuse to listen to any voice of reason even when it comes from even more valid sources such as the responder earlier who cited, “Michael Scheur, head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden Task Force”.
The responder further said:
“…You urge us to “listen to what the terrorists actually say”, and then go on to prove that you have never done so. What bin Ladin and his ilk have said for years now is that THEY WANT US TO STAY. They want us bogged down there, wasting our men and our resources there where they can easily come and take out their aggression on us in the sandbox. They want us to stay there, because it gives them more propaganda to recruit new terrorists to fight against us.”
You continue to be afraid and to apparently believe the ridiculous notion that America will be invaded and whatever else you believe. If you listen to what they say, they hate us for our intervention and occupation of their territory. There were no or few terrorists in Iraq when we invaded. Now they have used our occupation as a tool for recruitment and will continue to do so, while they continue to spill the blood of Americans into the sands of the Middle East.
Once again, common sense requires, as you say, that one “look at the reasons they attacked us” and acknowledge the mistakes, withdraw our forces from Iraq and mind our own important business here at home. We ARE NOT, NEVER WERE, or EVER SHOULD BE the policemen for the rest of the world. It is SIMPLY WRONG!
Iraq did nothing to America. This ridiculous war is NOT about 9-11 I assure you.
Perhaps you also believe we were attacked because we are a rich country and we are free.
You need to consider a better quality and line of reasoning to gain any respect for your arguments.
In the meantime, this may all become moot as our dollar nosedives and is no longer accepted around the world by more and more countries. Get this if you can—our monetary system, our dollar is near collapse in attempts to finance these ridiculous wars. We CANNOT afford to do it, even if we had the right. Once the monetary system collapses you can continue to “feel good” if you wish that you were “right”. But then you must also accept responsibility for your grandchildren who will have to spend their lives paying for it all. You will not be around for them to blame, but they may remember what you did to them.
I frankly do not care what you think. It matters not once our monetary system collapses, because inevitably, then so will our EMPIRE!!!!! And the Fascists will have won. We will be ripe for a real invasion and takeover. Truly, I believe you are insane and naïve to sacrifice your entire country for such an irrational idea that our government wants to establish a democracy in Iraq. That was never part of the agenda. They care nothing about the people of Iraq. Remember, we went in there on the basis of lies. What makes you think the NEOCONS are telling the truth about anything? Do not be so gullible.
Thank you for reading this.
It is nothing short of shameful that you Paul supporters don’t care if terrorists laugh at America. Take your phony high-minded objections to what YOU call “nation-building” and voice them to the millions of Iraqi people who no longer have to live in fear of their own government.
It is America’s place to be a liberator, as it has always been. If this nation lived by your isolationist standards, we never would have gotten involved in WWII and Hitler would have conquered God knows how much of the world. We LIBERATED Europe just as we are LIBERATING Iraq now.
Also, it is well beyond time that you consider the benefits of having an Arab, democratic ally in the Middle East. If you’re so all-fired concerned about the U.S., please compare those benefits with the results of American surrender in Iraq. According to your candidate, Ron Paul, the only reason there is terrorism is America and our involvement in other nations’ affairs. I assume he (and you) honestly believe that if we withdraw our troops from around the world, they’ll suddenly call off their jihad?
I highly recommend this video to help anyone understand the nature of the past dew presidencies and the future of America.
From the Wilderness - The CIA Connection
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7726031384917866364
If you consider me a kook then also consider that I have supported rep. bush,& reagan. I am 50 years old’I've been here a little longer than you. Paul has the support of more of the military than any other canidate. Wonder why. I think little whimps like you need to get educated or if that’s not possiable then put you on the front lines in the next world war. My advice would be to watch your back or apoligize.
BK says, “Also Mr. Lloyd, if anyone is threatening to “hijack” the Republican party, it’s the libertarian movement and your candidate, Ron Paul. What he preaches is absolutely NOT conservatism. It is libertarianism.”
Ronald Reagan says, “When you analyze it, I believe libertarianism is the very heart and soul of conservatism.”
Who are you going to listen to?
The only people trying to kill us is our own government. The CIA is having trouble keeping the Al Quada myth alive. The only ones who want war are leaders and bankers. We don’t believe this crap anymore. It’s illusion. It makes the bankers richer. There is no Islamic country who wants war..they want us off THEIR land..there is no bombings that happen in America except the one perpetrated by the Zionists, to get dumbasses from WV to fight war with an imaginary enemy. Bush just took billions from you. What are you going to do? Who is your enemy?