Will Ron Paul "Paulinate" the Republican Party?

anti-semetism when out in the 30's and I don't think we need a revival from RP and his ilk.

What are you talking about? Dr. Paul is most certainly NOT anti-semitic.

Again, where are you getting this from?

Please provide one instance where RonPaul has said/done anything anti-semetic.

And just to put out there:
Saying that the pro-Israel lobbyists have too much sway over our politicians is not anti-semite. It is an issue of national sovereignty.

Voting against subsidies to Israel is not anti-semite. It is pro-not-wanting-to-give-away-money, the tax dollars of the American people. That is why he votes against subsidies to everybody.

Provide proof or be a man and take back your statement.

The insinuation that Ron Paul is anti-Semitic flys in the face of fact. It can only be suggested: (1) in the midst of ignorance and an accompanying penchant for intellectual laziness or (2) as an outgrowth of an agenda designed to discredit Dr. Paul through ad hominem attack. In both instances, the individual making such an insinuation, obviously, does not feel competent in mounting rational, fact-based arguments to counter Dr. Paul's carefully reasoned and supported assertions.

To equate Paul's opposition to funding Israel with anti-Semitism opens a can of blatant, illogical errors so plentiful as to rival the evils of Pandora's box. One is hard pressed to understand how anyone could think so uncritically about such an important issue. It reinforces the well-known assertion that people primarly make decisions based on emotional factors rather than reasoning.

So, when we are giving other people "digs," let's remember to call an emotional spade a spade.

Prior to learning about Ron Paul, I was an ardent backer of the Republican National Committee. I have an Eisenhower Commission in my closet (you receive one when becoming a life member, $1,000).

Just by looking on the FEC dot Gov website, Republican candidates are raising abysmal amounts of funds compared to their Democratic counterparts. We are getting stomped on, big time.

The RNC actually called me this past Thursday. Apparently their computer system stinks, as they noted I was a big supporter of the RNC, and that I should consider a life membership (which I already have) at a special, once-in-a-lifetime rate, of $750.00.

That's how bad it is, offering 25% discounts on Lifetime memberships. Imagine if the RNC returned to being champions of liberty, the constitution and Jeffersonian values. Cash would pour into their coffers. As long as they continue to support the new conservative (and properly identified by the author), pitt bull policy of offensive aggression, their regular-folk support will continue to dwindle, and they'll have to reach deeper into the pockets of their backers who have a tangible, vested interest into the Committee's direct actions.

Those funds can only reach so far.

Ryan (NoLongerNeocon'd)...

Thank you for providing an insider's view of the current, unfortunate plight of the Republican National Committee. Is it any wonder that this situation exists after the mauling that this country has endured at the hands of the Imperialist, anti-liberty forces that have co-opted the Republican Party as well as the soul of this nation?

The information that you shared provides a valuable confirmation of the importance of re-fertilization of new life in the Republican Party. This is precisely what the Ron Paul movement offers and is providing by political osmosis, viz., "paulination."

Any Republican, and especially any leader of the RNC, who ignores the foregoing fact imperils the future of conservative voters in America and the future of the Republic itself. Prudence would dictate that every Republican suspend biases and pet personal concerns so that Dr. Paul's positions can be examined dispassionately and objectively on their collective merits and not dismissed out of hand based on preconceived notions deriving from emotional reactions and irrational thought.

The fertilizing energy that is growing daily in Dr. Paul's supporters all across the country can no longer be denied without risking detachment from reality. Witness the unofficial report of Dr. Paul's victory in the recent Maryland State Fair Straw Poll.

Ron Paul 263 votes - 27.3%
Giuliani 220 votes - 22.8%
Thompson 188 votes - 19.5%
Mitt Romney 89 (10%)
John McCain - 54 (6%)
Mike Huckabee - 35 (4%)
Tom Tancredo - 16 (2%)
Sam Brownback - 12 (1%)
Duncan Hunter - 3 (0%)
Write Ins:
New Gingrich - 17 (2%)
Bob Ehrilich - 3 (0%)
Other - 11 (1%)

Dr. Paul's first place percentage (27.3%) in this East Coast poll of 911 Republicans is striking, given the fact that the "scientific polls" have given him at most 3%. This follows on the heels of his third place showing in the Texas Straw Poll (16.7%) in which it appears that upwards of two hundred Ron Paul delegates may have been prevented from voting because of the enforcement of a 10:00 AM deadline which apparently was not provided, or if so, very obscurely, to those who pre-registered online.

Fred Barnes, Editor of the Weekly Standard had this to say about the debate last night:

Paul, who got in the most words last night, should debate Democrat Mike Gravel, he said. Both are marginal candidates and scolds. And both interfere with the give-and-take among the more serious candidates.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/065dbylu.asp

They (the new conservatives) really have a hatred for Ron Paul. They're so blinded to the imaginary construct they've constructed for themselves called "conservative values", that they don't even realize the ignorance of their own remarks.

I will never, ever support the RNC or flip a page of the Weekly Standard until they're all born-again. :)

Actually, Ryan (NoLongerNeocon'd), Fred Barnes was quoting Giuliani:

"Giuiliani had a clever suggestion for a separate debate. Paul, who got in the most words last night, should debate Democrat Mike Gravel, he said. Both are marginal candidates and scolds. And both interfere with the give-and-take among the more serious candidates."

I find this remark by Giuliani completely inappropriate and certainly not presidential. But, it is not as un-presidential as his obvious, ridiculing laughter while Paul was discussing "serious" issues in a very "serious" manner. This was infantile and smacked of schoolyard taunting. We certainly do not need another schoolboy for a president. The recent one is more than enough.

Furthermore, for Fred Barnes to make this inappropriate effort to marginalize and demean Paul the only mention of Dr. Paul's contributions to the debate, is in itself equally, if not more, deplorable than Giuliani's puerile remark. Barnes appears to be of the same persuasion as Huckabee. Republicans should maintain honor at all costs, even if it means losing the election and the opportunity to implement true conservative values.

Huckabee clearly showed that it is not Republicanism that is important to him. He values being an uncritical vassal to his Lord more than advancing conservative values. He is ready to ride into battle...correct that...to send young people into battle as his knightly surrogates to preserve honor even if that honor is derived from dishonorable, inhumane pursuits. Misplaced honor, not values, are his driving force.

Actually, Ryan (NoLongerNeocon'd), Fred Barnes was quoting Giuliani:

"Giuiliani had a clever suggestion for a separate debate. Paul, who got in the most words last night, should debate Democrat Mike Gravel, he said. Both are marginal candidates and scolds. And both interfere with the give-and-take among the more serious candidates."

I find this remark by Giuliani completely inappropriate and certainly not presidential. But, it is not as un-presidential as his obvious, ridiculing laughter while Paul was discussing "serious" issues in a very "serious" manner. This was infantile and smacked of schoolyard taunting. We certainly do not need another schoolboy for a president. The recent one is more than enough.

Furthermore, for Fred Barnes to make this inappropriate effort to marginalize and demean Paul the only mention of Dr. Paul's contributions to the debate, is in itself equally, if not more, deplorable than Giuliani's puerile remark. Barnes appears to be of the same persuasion as Huckabee. Republicans should maintain honor at all costs, even if it means losing the election and the opportunity to implement true conservative values.

Huckabee clearly showed that it is not Republicanism that is important to him. He values being an uncritical vassal to his Lord more than advancing conservative values. He is ready to ride into battle...correct that...to send young people into battle as his knightly surrogates to preserve honor even if that honor is derived from dishonorable, inhumane pursuits. Misplaced honor, not values, are his driving force.

I heard Giuliani say he (Paul) should debate Mike Gravel in passing when he spoke with Hannity and Colmes post-debate.

I did not hear Giuliani say "Both are marginal candidates and scolds. And both interfere with the give-and-take among the more serious candidates".

Giuliani really said that? I can't find evidence of him saying that anywhere. That is what I thought Fred Barnes said.