The Real Ron Paul

December 26th, 2011 at 11:17 am | 54 Comments |

| Print

Ron Paul’s former senior aid, ampoule Eric Dondero, thumb has gone to and written a damning indictment of his former boss. The essay shows that Ron Paul is beholden to terrible conspiracy theories and has many questionable personal beliefs. While he is supposedly not homophobic, he reportedly would not shake the hands of a gay supporter.

Dondero also claims that Ron Paul is not anti-semitic, but that he does want to see Israel abolished and does not believe that “saving the Jews” was a good reason to fight against Hitler.

Here are a selection of some of the most incendiary revelations:

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

In 1988, Ron had a hardcore Libertarian supporter, Jim Peron, Owner of Laissez Faire Books in San Francisco. Jim set up a magnificent 3-day campaign swing for us in the SF Bay Area. Jim was what you would call very openly Gay. But Ron thought the world of him. For 3 days we had a great time trouncing from one campaign event to another with Jim’s Gay lover. The atmosphere was simply jovial between the four of us. (As an aside we also met former Cong. Pete McCloskey during this campaign trip.) We used Jim’s home/office as a “base.” Ron pulled me aside the first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps “sternly” is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: “Just do what I say NOW.”

The second incident involved one or two other staffers many years later at the BBQ in Surfside Beach. I was not in direct presence of the incident. But another top staffer, and I believe one of our secretaries, was witnessed to it. This top staffer adores Ron, but was extremely insulted by his behavior, I would even say flabbergasted to the point of considering resigning from his staff over it.

“Bobby,” a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.

Again, let me stress. I would not categorize that as “homo-phobic,” but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally. Ron, like many folks his age, very much supports toleration, but chooses not to be around gays on a personal level. It’s a personal choice. And though, it may seem offensive to some, he has every right in my mind to feel and act that way.

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

He did not want to vote for the resolution [The Afghan War Resolution]. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

Some Ron Paul enthusiasts have condemned Eric Dondero as a dubious character. Perhaps. But then, candidates of dubious character attract supporters of dubious character.

Recent Posts by FrumForum Editors

54 Comments so far ↓

  • indy

    Ron pulled me aside the first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities

    LOL: gays don’t use the restrooms at the local fast food restaurant? I guess it’s only the airports.

  • Graychin

    I was attracted to organized libertarianism when I first heard of it in 1980 from an acquaintance. I went to a local Libertarian Party convention – but I left early at high speed, and never looked back.

    Nothing is worse in politics that an extremist ideologue – no matter what the ideology. Their disconnect from reality is comical when they are out of power, and dangerous when they have power.

    Ron Paul is good entertainment in the Republican debates because he calls out the foolishness of the other candidates’ lockstep adherence to “conservative” dogma. But on his own, Paul is as nutty as a tree full of squirrels. Not that he doesn’t make some good points.

    It’s amusing to me that Frum Forum finds it necessary waste its time tearing down a screwball like Paul – because he is a threat to the anointed Country Club Conservative Candidate of the Republican Party. He seems to be the least flawed of the “not Romney” candidates.

    With Romney as their nominee, Republicans will be suffering from a huge Enthusiasm Gap. Even my moderate Republican mother-in-law thinks he’s a pompous phony.

    • Jaayy

      Please go back to the libertarian ghetto called Reason Magazine. See what else ghetto mayor Nick Gillespie wants to say.

      Or, for once, try not joining in Alinsky-inspired liberal and Necon bash-a-thon on the one candidate who might help bring libertarianism out of the ghetto.

      Ron Paul has done more for liberty and for libertarianism that all the belt way “libertarians” at Cato and Reason combined.

    • nuser

      Frum is targeting Paul , Alan Duke( is targeting Gingrich all on the same day and same News channel . Telling is it not?

  • Jaayy

    Nothing Frum has said about Ron Paul has been “real” so far. This column preserves the status quo.

    Preserving the status quo has always been Frum’s goal.

    • Primrose

      “Preserving the status quo has always been Frum’s goal.”

      Now, I’m only a liberal, but isn’t the point of conservatism preserving the status quo, or at any rate moving very slowly away from it?

  • Ludwig von Mises

    This race is going to come down to only two: Romney the RINO-vs-Dr. Paul.

    The Presstitute shills and the Neocons are going to pull out all of the stops against RP, and they will come down on him with both feet. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the establishment MSM so scared in my lifetime; It’s because they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

    By the way, if you want to see some great pictures of Ron Paul acting like a racist, then check out the following link:

    Please spread these photos around!

    • nuser

      Hilarious ! Unfortunately some voters will take those photos verbatim and that is what we are
      up against. Remember Palin? ;all of her lies stuck, and caused a great deal of damage.

  • jesse

    We all know who the oppressors are and it isn’t Ron Paul. hint (media, neo-cons, wall street and corrupt politicians).

    Romney openly is against gay marriage ” I believe marriage is between a man and a women”-Mitt Romney. Freddie Mac dough boy wants to enslave inner city poor youth (ie minority children) to work in schools cleaning the gym and yet these are not raciest? That’s what you MSM people would like us to believe but we are smarter than this!

    Ron Paul wants to give more liberties to everyone including gay’s, minorities and the impoverished in this country and he is bashed for doing so. Unbelieveable.

    If you idiot journalists and your warmonger buddies want to send your check to Israel or any other country for that matter then feel free to do so but the rest of us WILL NOT be helping others out to commit murder and violence!

    HELLO, we have people in this country who are starving, don’t have jobs, money and your worried about sending money to Israel so they can make nukes!

    Please keep printing this garbage it only makes the American people want to learn more about the man who will protect their freedoms!

  • Oldskool

    RP and the other candidates are symptoms of what ails the gop. They need to diagnose and treat the disease instead of knee-capping the individuals who bubble to the top every two months.

  • ArtusRegister

    Eric Dondero has been desperately looking for a forum from which to preen about his alleged inside knowledge about Ron Paul for years. He is an ardent statist who absolutely hates anything and everyone associated with true small government ideals. The very thought of ending the absurdly expensive and unlawful American empire infuriates Mr. Dondero, who is a typical, big government neocon. His hatred of Ron Paul stems from the fact that he was fired from Paul’s staff years ago.

    These “damning indictments” are a joke once the source is properly considered.

    What the hell does this mean:

    “Some Ron Paul enthusiasts have condemned Eric Dondero as a dubious character. Perhaps. But then, candidates of dubious character attract supporters of dubious character.”

    Mr. Dondero is “damning” Ron Paul. How does that qualify him as a supporter, as the closing comment infers? BTW, any true small government conservatives who have been on the web a while recognize Dondero’s phony nonsense. They needn’t be “Ron Paul enthusiasts.”

    • Xclamation

      Out of a morbid sense of curiosity, could you please explain how a ” …typical, big government neocon” ends up working/campaigning for Ron Paul for 15-plus years?
      Why on God’s green earth would Ron Paul choose “an ardent statist who absolutely hates anything and everyone associated with true small government ideals” as a senior aide?

      Finally, you asked how Eric Dondero could be considered a Ron Paul supporter. Well, how else would you describe a man with the title “Personal Assistant to Ron Paul”?

      • ArtusRegister

        First, thanks for posting your questions without the rabid insults accompanying most. It seems you actually want to discuss reality rather than just screed. And I appreciate that.

        I honestly think Mr. Dondero has some deep-seated issues. I believe that he simply wants to be a part of something, and that when he worked for Ron Paul he eagerly accepted the philosophy of freedom, laissez-faire, etc. I did not know him then, put have had some online discussions with him going back to the 2004 primary season, and have read many other discussions he was a part of. There is zero doubt that this man has fully embraced the neocon agenda, and has become one of those hawks that simply cannot imagine a war he wouldn’t support, if only someone used the terms “national interest,” or “terror” in the reasoning, no matter how baseless the excuses.
        When he was fired from Dr. Paul’s staff, he took it quite hard, and seems to have immediately turned not just on Ron Paul himself, but also on whatever stances his old boss had. While I don’t know what Eric said or did while he was in Dr.Paul’s employ, it is clear, as inferred from your question, that Ron Paul wouldn’t likely have someone at such odds with his take on government on his staff, so we can assume his tune was far different back then. What I can say with certainty is that for many years now, Dondero has taken whatever negativity has been written about his old employer and piled on—not in an informative manner, but a desperate one. He has trolled on various sites related to pro-liberty causes, waiting for a chance to pounce, and has posted his extreme statist, hawkish, anti-freedom messages in various places, etc. The desperation to find a perch from which to reign down his strange philosophy was glaringly obvious.
        If you’re interested, do some searches on him and look at some of his language. One gets the distinct impression that he’s as mad as a hatter. Seriously.

  • Java McPhearson

    Frum! You claimed to write the “Axis of Evil” part of Bush’s speech and were the loudest voice in the room calling for an Iraq war. How about an apology to the hundreds of thousands of civilians dead from your support of actions which you now say were a bit “silly”.

  • JohnMcC

    The deep thought process that Libertarianism is known for is obviously alive and well and in Congressman Paul’s camp.

  • Rabiner

    While I’m not a supporter of Paul’s I’m taken aback by someone writing this without any independent confirmation. This is where being a pundant gives you the ability to write this drivel whereas if you were a journalist you couldn’t.

    In 1988 there was a lot of hysteria regarding HIV and AIDS so I don’t see it as a problem if Paul did feel uncomfortable using the restroom facilities of someone who was gay. If I thought that HIV was contracted through simple contact then yea I may feel the same way. Now if this was 1998 then I’d think differently of the context.

    Regarding WW2, we didn’t go to war with Nazi Germany, Germany declared war on us after we went to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. So Isolationism was the policy of the United States until Pearl Harbor which would be within the frame of mind if Paul.

    “He did not want to vote for the resolution [The Afghan War Resolution]. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq.”

    He was correct. Now I do think the second part of this paragraph is problematic but he was correct about the Afghan Resolution being a precursor to war with Iraq.

    • Primrose

      Yeah, no AIDS does not excuse Mr. Paul. If you think AIDS can be contracted like the flu, thus the fear of bathrooms and handshakes, then you shouldn’t even be near them at all since it doesn’t require much to transmit. Plus, you could always wash your hands.

      If you feel comfortable enough to be around them, then you must know it isn’t contracted that way.

      And we knew by ’88 that it was transmitted by blood and semen, and before the 80′s only health professionals knew about it. If he had not wanted to kiss him or share a hot tub (being unsure of other fluids) I might understand.

      No, it seems to me this is very clearly homophobic with a pure meaning of phobia. These are phobic actions.

      • nuser

        I am pro gay just about pro for anything that goes around. I do not sit on any toilet seat ever.
        Ron Paul is a doctor and surely knows what germs survive on a toilet seat , many will! Test have been made , and it is astounding how many germs survive for a limited time. HIV
        of course is another matter. BTW , I sit on my own ha.

  • Nanotek

    “The Real Ron Paul”

    not that I’d ever vote Republican but I’d prefer Ron Paul to Mitt Romney… hit piece, notwithstanding

  • martyblueyes

    Het Eric,

    Go write a book. It would be more profitable than telling your story to these losers. David Frum’s career will soon be marginalized when the GOP loses all of their credibility. He as well as all of the other desperate Pro Israeli Zionist media will return to Israel with their heads tucked neatly between their legs. Ron Paul will be the Republican Revolution that we’ve been waiting for. You guys don’t get it. Everybody agrees with him. Ron Paul 2012

    • Primrose

      I can not predict Mr. Frum’s future but you lack a sense of reason or proportion if you think everybody agrees with Ron Paul. Most democrats do not.The evangelical world does not to name one important voting block. Clearly the moderate ‘ish Republicans like Mr.Frum don’t agree, nor does the Fox news crowd.

      I think that all Mr. Paul has to do is say to Americans on TV that he didn’t think preventing the Holocaust was important and the man fails, and fails big. Most people with a functioning limbic system, let alone common morals, would be distressed by the idea of gas chambers for millions.

      • Peter Halferding

        Eric Dondero / Rittberg creates a strawman argument about reasons for FDR to enter WWII, you shouldn’t try to use it, because it backfires. As some commenters already noted.

        Pearl Harbour occured in December 1941.
        The Wannsee Conference (that’s the notorious Endlösung der Judenfrage meeting in Nazi-Germany) took place at January 20, 1942.

        So how on earth could Roosevelt ever have decided to enter WWII on an argument to stop the gas chambers, when the Nazis decided to built them a month after they declared war to the USA.

        When the TV-series Holocaust was aired in the 1970s, it was met with disgust in Europe, as it was considered as Hollywood trivializing the prosecution of Jews by the Nazis.

        Alas, that’s the power of narratives. People think in narratives. Many young people with a Muslim background in Europe today think that WWII Remembrances are about Jews first and not about the Tragedy of tens of millions losing their live on the battlefields and during resistance activities.

        And, one has also to keep in mind that many in Europe are aware that the real Slaughterhouse was the Eastern Front. The battle between Nazism and Communism.

        The dominance of the 1970s Holocaust narrative has caused and does cause regular problems in Europe today in the class room and during the Remembrance events. In particular as left wing oriented teachers tend to phrase their WWII history lessons with this Holocaust story now dominating. Which is partially a whitewash to avoid more painful historic discussion.

        The correct story of WWII would be that a million young men from the Nazi-occupied Western countries signed voluntarily into the Wehrmacht or the SS to fight the Commies. This really painful fact is submerged under the Holocaust narrative.

        We instead got narratives about heroic resistance fighters (albeit their number was lower than those who joined the Nazi-armies) and the horror of the gas chambers.

        Seeing the atrocities of War in the face, has been difficult. And alas removing that aspect from the narrative enables one to think of “Good Wars” and produce misguided ideas like “Axis of Evil”, to enthuse the population against an entire nation, instead of the more pragmatic, but far less “Soundbite ready” reality of an Axis of Evil Leaders.

        Dubious characters in a Leadership positions tend to look for the company of other dubious characters in other countries.

        I think David Frum was fully aware of that reality, when he wrote the “Axis of Evil” line. Despite that, he seems to have thought it was a good idea to let George W. Bush state it in an official speech.

        It is one thing to call Leaders to compose an “Axis of Evil” it is another thing to call an entire country to be part of an Axis of Evil. The first enables one to call for a popular uprise to get rid of their leaders, the latter incites unwarranted anger and hatred against an entire population in a country. That’s warmongering at its worst.

        It is called Propaganda, an act first mastered to the extreme by Joseph Goebbels, who used it against Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and other countries, who stood in the way of their aspirations.

        The real discussion about Ron Paul’s foreign policy should be whether the Republican Party would dump its warmongering attitudes and start addressing ways to get local populations to topple their Evil Leaders and get a resilient democracy, instead of occassional calls to march in with drum rolls under the aegis of soundbites and accompanied by applause from cheerleaders like Bill O’Reilly.

        • Primrose

          I think there was plenty of tragedy to go around in WWII. And I think the British are fairly clear why they got in the war, so too the French and Belgians.

          Having said that, no, I think an attempt to destroy an entire culture of people, from babies to the elderly, bones to thoughts, should take center stage.

          Plenty of people died on the Eastern Front, and died purposelessly, but much of those deaths were the responsibility and lack of preparedness of their leaders.

        • jakester

          While lots of Eastern Europeans fought for the Nazis, for various reasons but mostly as an act of rebellion against the USSR, millions of Western Europeans DID NOT fight for the Nazis. At most maybe 100K. It is hardly some freak of history that many conquered people will then fight for their new masters. As well as the Holocaust and the general level of atrocities & brutalities on the Eastern Front, like the deaths of about 4 million USSR POWs in German’s hands, are intertwined

  • Linton Barwick

    The more I read about the newsletters and hear accounts like this one, the more I have had to rethink my feelings on Paul. Still, this tripe is worthless:

    “But then, candidates of dubious character attract supporters of dubious character.”

    Don’t candidates of any kind of character attract some supporters of dubious character?

    The final sentence in this article is worthless, and makes less of a point than whoever wrote it would have the reader think.

  • Deep South Populist

    [Ron Paul] is [not antisemetic] however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general.

    A lot of people oppose Israeli policy and sympathize with the Palestinians. It might even be the majority position across the world, if not in the AIPAC owned Republican party.

    A significant percentage of Jews, including some very prominent and influential Jews like Noam Chomsky, also oppose Israeli policy.

    Opposing Israeli policy isn’t evidence of antisemitism.

    Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist.[/blockquote]

    A brazen lie.

    - Ron Paul favors free trade and economic engagement with the rest of the world.

    - He also favors going to war when 1) an enemy NATION directly attacks the United States, and 2) the US Congress makes a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution.

    Unlike Mitt Romney and David Frum, Ron Paul opposed the Iraq war which as everyone now knows was justified based on lies, led to an enormous expansion of police state powers (Patriot Act), and to people being tortured.

    If opposition to the Iraq war makes Ron Paul an isolationist, then I am one too and claim the label proudly.

    As an opponent of the Iraq War, Ron Paul had nothing to do with any of the following:

    - 4,404 American dead disproportionately drawn from America’s poor, working class and middle-class citizens rather than people in David Frum or Mitt Romney’s social class

    - 31,827 American wounded

    - 103,000 Iraqi civilian dead at the low end to upwards of 1,000,000 civilian dead at the high end depending on the estimate used.

    Give me isolationism any day.

    I would not categorize [Ron Paul] as “homo-phobic,” but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally…And though, it may seem offensive to some, he has every right in my mind to feel and act that way.

    Even if it’s true, I have to ask, so what?

    A lot of gay people on the cultural left would probably be “unsettled” around orthodox Jews, fundementalist Muslims, or evangelical Christians simply because of how they look at the world. But that fact alone would hardly make them Jew-phobic, Muslim-phobic or Christian-phobic.

    [Ron Paul] strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII.

    And so did a huge percentage of the country at the time, including Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee.

    And while we are on the subject, how exactly was Hitler’s Germany a threat to the United States? Germany was facing Stalin and the Red Army in the east and Britain and other hostiles in the West. What was he going to do? Order a navy fleet he didn’t have across the Atlantic to invade the United States while simultaneously fighting on two fronts?

    It’s ridiculous to the point of being surreal.

    In geopolitics, there is a classic distinction between land powers (Germany) and sea powers (Britain). Germany was a land power, not a sea power, and it didn’t have the naval power to threaten the United States even if it wanted to.

    He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business…He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

    Except it it was a theoretical discussion about whether entering WW2 was justified based on what Americans knew from 1939 – 1941, not 2011.

    At the time, saving the Jews was definitely not a rationale for America’s entry into WW2. How could it have been? Americans did not and could not have known about the Jewish genocide at the time.

    The Wansee Conference where the final solution was hatched did not happen until 1942, and the Jewish genocide did not become public knowledge until 1944/45.

    When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand…

    The word “conspiracy” is a propaganda smear. It is a label designed to control the parameters for acceptable discourse and cut off debate on issues some that some people would prefer not to discuss.

    In point of fact, the view that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance isn’t a conspiracy theory at all but rather the truth. There is a huge body of evidence that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor but let it happen to whip the public into a war frenzy.

    Anyone interested in the topic can start here.

    Drawing on twenty years of research and access to scores of previously classified documents, Stinnett proves that Pearl Harbor was not an accident, a mere failure of American intelligence, or a brilliant Japanese military coup. By showing that ample warning of the attack was on FDR’s desk and, furthermore, that a plan to push Japan into war was initiated at the highest levels of the U.S. government, he ends up profoundly altering our understanding of one of the most significant events in American history.

    amazon [dot] com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324929621&sr=8-1

    So all these nutty views being ascribed to Paul are actually anything but.

    • jakester

      The Japanese attack force that sailed towards Pearl Harbor observed radio silence and used orders hand delivered or telephoned earlier, so that force was unknown to our radio code breakers. The US was well aware that Japan was going to attack, but the whens and wheres were missing. Our military leaders were simply unable to grasp the magnitude & scope of their attacks & enemy’s capabilities, a common failing of that time. The real dummy was MacArthur, who even after Pearl Harbor was attacked, hid behind the fig leaf of Philippine neutrality and refused to use or disperse the air force and navy there, which the Japanese promptly bombed in rubble the next day.

    • Traveler


      Glad you went back to your original handle. You state your case coherently, but I respectfully disagree about the homophobia, and isolationism is no way to operate in the current era. Jakester pretty well demolished the Pearl Harbor warning, or which I buy it as much as Bush knowing about 9-11 beforehand. Inept sure, but that evil, no.

      • jakester

        Don’t forget pre Pearl Harbor, the US & most of the military dismissed the Japanese military as a joke. Their attitude was that our fleet could sail to Japan, circle around it, shoot it full of holes and Japan would sink. Their pilots flew cheap planes and were all bespectacled nearsighted boob who couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn

  • Rossg

    Surely Ron Paul does not believe we went to war in Europe to save the Jews. While it would have been noble to do so, there is plenty of documented history suggesting this was not high on our list of reasons.

    This is why I question Paul’s historical basis for doing away with the Fed. Much like Gingrich, he cherry-picks history to fit his objectives.

    In closing, Paul’s statements over the many debates makes clear that he wants America to withdraw within its borders, pull up the drawbridge, and live in perfect isolation. For what country in history has this worked?

  • midwest guy

    Lots of reasons for me to not want the company or friendship of Ron Paul the man. Not so many reasons to believe he would be a dramatically worse candidate than the other lying, sleazy, pandering, pompous candidates like (for example) the one that Mr. Frum apparently likes best.

  • armstp

    While he is supposedly not homophobic, he reportedly would not shake the hands of a gay supporter.

    Ron Paul must still be shaken-up from his encounter with Borat/Bruno/Sacha Baron Cohen.

  • Geprodis

    Ron Paul is the only Republican that can beat Obama. Romney does not have a chance..he is a terrible debater and he has flip-flopped on every issue! Obama will destroy him…he will win by a wide margin.

    Ron Paul can take votes away from the left because the left agrees with Paul’s foreign policy and his high regard for civil liberties.

    Ron Paul inspires people! Do you think Obama has supporters waiting out in the freezing cold just to lend support?

    Obama’s only attack will be the newsletters…and by the time the election rolls around people will be tired of hearing about the newsletters and just want a REAL change.

    • PW43

      Well written Geprodis! Obama has only one strength – he’s a great campaigner. Paul can counter that with his strong anti-war position and give a voting option to all the anti-war Americans betrayed by Obama these past four years. Plus it’s no longer the Left who is anti-war. Most Americans are fed up with it and dead set against any attack on Iran. All this Iran war hype is perfect for Paul as he’s the only politicians who can prevent such a war.

      It’s a shame he’ll never win the GOP nomination because of Israel first republicans like David Frum and other extremist elements. It’s a shame Americans will never be given a choice to put a stop to these endless wars. Now we know why Romans gave up on their republic so easily.

      • jakester

        It’s a shame he’ll never win the GOP nomination because of his “Israel Not” beliefs and the rest of his other extremist elements & beliefs.

        • ArtusRegister

          “It’s a shame he’ll never win the GOP nomination because of his “Israel Not” beliefs and the rest of his other extremist elements & beliefs.”

          Opposition to taking money by force from Americans and gifting it to foreign governments is “extreme?”

          I’m so glad the status quo of spending us into oblivion, printing the dollar into hyperinflation, gutting our liberties, and spreading our military dangerously thin abroad in endless wars fought for vague, unattainable purposes is normal, and not in the slightest “extreme.” It is so very sad that this country is so backward that keeping your word is extreme, while lying with every vote and systematically destroying the Republic are considered “mainstream.”

    • Baron Siegfried

      That’s all well and good until you get to one of his zany positions which are total dealbreakers for a great many people. At that point, roadblock. If Romney looks like the guys who’s going to fire you, Paul looks like your crazy uncle who no one wants to be around after his second gin & tonic. The one whose favorite rhetorical device consists of a question mark accompanied by a finger in the chest.

      The biggest problem I have with libertarians is the same as I have with MENSA or any other intellectual single-focus group. They tend to be a combination mutual admiration society (we’re all just so SPECIAL!) and grump group, where they solve all the world’s problems, if only the fools would just listen . . . You can generally spot them by their response of ‘No, it’s EASY, you just . . .’ when confronted with a complex and difficult issue. They tend to take the ‘Gordian Knot’ approach to problem resolution, though perhaps ‘Gordo’s Chainsaw’ might be more apropos . . . They seem blissfully unaware of the fact that you can’t simply abolish 150 – 200 years of precedent with the stroke of a pen, and seem to think that what they propose is so eminently reasonable that no one would think of opposing it, not even those rich guys over there who would take a major hit with their proposals . . .

      Combine that with a profound lack of social skills, awareness of how the real world operates (as opposed to the alternate version they have constructed) and the ability to support mutually contradictory thought trains and you have a libertarian. Bright, earnest, and unaware that such things as ‘clues’ exist, or that it might be a good idea to look into possibly getting one. People who make Murphy chortle with glee when he see them coming, who are walking opportunities for the Law of Unintended Results to toothily manifest itself.

      Of course, that also describes most theater groups, just so you don’t think it’s only on the right . . .

    • TJ Parker

      Ron Paul is the only Republican that can beat Obama.

      As stated that might be trivially true: none of the Republicans can beat Obama.

      But face it: Paul is a crackpot economist. Just like Knut is a crackpot historian, Santorum is a crackpot ethicist, and Bachmann is a crackpot. They love to lecture us on economics, history, religion and pseudo-science (respectively), but these are little minds that are lost in details, and like to make broad, sweeping and ultimately false pronouncements in an annoyingly professorial manner.

      Now Romney, he’s none of the above. He’s a politician, through and through, which is repellent, but for different reasons.

  • TJ Parker

    So except for the isolationist thing, Ron Paul is a pretty mainstream GOP kook.

  • camus32

    David et al.,

    Your attacks on Ron Paul contain way too much name-calling and attribution of motives. Point out where you think he is wrong and leave it at that please.

  • Cato

    Please please please keep up these attacks on the Pauls!! You are driving every noncommitted voter to us! Sometimes, all it take is to see who is against you to knwo who to support! If the king RINOs hate the Pauls, they must be doing something right!!

  • cdorsen

    I support RP not because I think he is going to be our next president. I think he is too extreme in some areas as well. However, he changes the conversation to issues that need to be discussed. He argues real change in Washington back to a more Constitutionally supported government. Whether he is racist, homophobic, or some other form of bigot in private does not concern me. He is not espousing these views publicly, no one has ever heard him personally say such things publicly, he has denounced such views, and it is in no way part his core message even as a dog whistle. I hope he wins Iowa. I hope he pulls in a few more states because the more he wins, the more he changes the subject. The larger the microphone he gets the better. Even if you disagree with him on the Fed or foreign policy, it forces everyone to think about these issues differently and take them seriously. They are serious issues that deserve serious consideration which is something the media generally will not tolerate. The media only wants to talk about who wants which tax rates for the wealthy and when, not if, we are going to bomb Iran. I don’t believe he is a kook, but even if he is, it is a crazy world and it takes all kinds of crazy. The kind of crazy we currently have now simply is not working.

    • Candy83

      cdorsen writes:
      The kind of crazy we currently have now simply is not working.

      The kind of crazy representation from D.C. that we have is propping up the status quo; the wealth; and continuously putting everything of stress on the backs of what used to exist of the middle class.

  • bill_mcgonigle

    Wow, a guy with such a huge axe to grind against Ron Paul that he challenged him in Texas for his House seat publishes a story of unverifiable accusations against Paul, ones which don’t seem to fit with his character …

    … and “Frum Forum Editors” run with it as fact (the tiny disclaimer at the bottom doesn’t count without explaining to readers the history of the relationship)?

    Wait, has Stephen Colbert been providing strategic consulting here?