Prominent conservative blog quashes Ron Paul

Tiassa

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...
Valued Senior Member
RedState.com, a prominent conservative blog, dropped the hammer last month against the Ron Paul campaign and its supporters. Complaining about liberal provocateurs, Leon H. Wolf wrote:

Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.

(Wolf)
Click to expand...

In a maneuver I consider absolutely classic, Wolf demands that Paul supporters earn his respect by promoting other candidates and issues:

Hey, we're sure *some* of Ron Paul's supporters really are Republicans. They can post at any one of a zillion Ron Paul online forums. Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect. Those who have not will have to *earn* that respect by contributing usefully in the other threads... and not mentioning Ron Paul. Given a month of solid contributing, send one of us an email and we'll consider lifting the restriction on your account.

(ibid)
Click to expand...

It is a difficult conundrum, admittedly, and not helped by the fact that , as Kate Phillips notes for The Caucus:

Early this year, RedState, which features several bloggers, was bought by Eagle Publishing, a company that also owns Regnery Publishing and Human Events, among other ventures that cater to conservative Republicans.

(Phillips)
Click to expand...

RedState suffers the appearance of a conflict of interest. Blaming liberal provocateurs is an interesting tactic, but it may well be that Ron Paul and his supporters just aren't the candidate of choice for RedState's masters.
___________________

Notes:

Wolf, Leon H. "Attention, Ron Paul Supporters (Life is *REALLY* Not Fair)". RedState.com. October 22, 2007. See http://redstate.com/blogs/leon_h_wo...n_ron_paul_supporters_life_is_really_not_fair

Phillips, Kate. "A Ban on Ron Paul Supporters". The Caucus. October 24, 2007. See http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/a-ban-on-ron-paul-supporters/
 
Last edited:
Hannity's forums temporarily adopted a similar policy a little while ago. I believe it's been dropped.
 
To address the liberal provocateur bit mentioned in your post, from the NYTimes blog you linked to:

Over at Captain’s Quarters, Ed Morrissey disagreed with RedState’s decision, saying it would more likely hurt the site than Mr. Paul and his supporters. Here’s part of what he had to say yesterday:

"I disagree with Leon’s assumption that these Paul supporters are all or mostly cryptoliberals. Plenty of libertarian-leaning Republicans exist in the party, along with the former Buchananites and isolationists of the GOP. Instead of cutting these people off, it might be better for Redstate to keep engaging them. After all, Paul will not be in the race all that much longer, and we need those voters to stay in the GOP when Paul disappears. There are worse impulses than libertarianism."
 
Good eye, Ashura. Thank you. I suppose we should also include RedState's response to Ed Morrissey:

.... RedState is a community blog, and our collective opinion is that we don't actually want the typical online Ron Paul supporter in either our community, or for that matter, the GOP.

(Lane)
Click to expand...

Ron Paul's supporters are warned: conservative Republicans do not want your vote. Don't get me wrong, I know the Democrats aren't going to impress you with plans for health care and such, but there are some liberals who would be more than happy to drink with you and plot the end of the drug war, the reinforcement of free speech, and plans for a society in which people are not compelled to look to government for solutions. And, yes, we'll probably cuss each other out a bit as we do, but we'll all feel better (hangovers aside) in the morning knowing that we can have different opinions while working toward the same goal. Your votes and thoughts are both welcome and wanted; we cannot stop the moderate advance (which brings the worst of both Democrats and Republicans) without you. You'll find us by looking to the left of the Communists.
 
That pisses me off. Except for foreign policy, I like Ron Paul. I'm going to jump on over to Red State and see what's up.
 
Oh please Tiassa, I'm sure you're aware that RedState does not represent all conservative Republicans.

Here are a number of endorsements for Paul's run from his wiki:

Elected officials

* Michael J. Doherty [219] - New Jersey State Legislator
* Paul Findley[220] - Former Member of Congress (R-IL)
* Barry Goldwater, Jr.[221] - Former Member of Congress (R-CA)
* Jim Guest[222] - Missouri State Representative
* Barbara Hagan[223] - right-to-life activist and former New Hampshire state representative.
* Paul Ingbretson [224] - New Hampshire State Representative
* Karen Johnson [225] - Arizona State Senator
* Tom Langlais [226] - former New Hampshire State Representative
* Jerry O'Neill[220] - Montana state representative
* Dick Randolph [227] - former Alaskan State Representative
* Steve Vaillancourt[220] - New Hampshire state representative

You'll find that like madant, Ron Paul's views are shared by many Republicans. It's really foreign policy that's the big speed bump, and even that's getting some traction.
 
Then they'd better get on RedState's ass and remind them that the GOP is going to need those votes come November, 2008.
 
Or maybe Red State better get on Ron Paul's bandwagon and realize that he's the best candidate for president.

(ah, one can only hope :p)
 
Unfortunately, RedState isn't interested in the best candidate or the benefit of the nation at large.

Of course, I'm still puzzled at the idea that the conservatives are the reds. The old conservative saying was, "Better dead than Red."
 
Tiassa said:
Of course, I'm still puzzled at the idea that the conservatives are the reds. The old conservative saying was, "Better dead than Red."
Click to expand...
You share that concern with Rush Limbaugh. He was bitching about that during the last election. So there you go, you and Rush on the same side of an issue.
 
Madanthonywayne said:

You share that concern with Rush Limbaugh. He was bitching about that during the last election. So there you go, you and Rush on the same side of an issue.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's strange what the Bush administration has done to people. I found myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan one day, and stopped, and thought, "What the hell?"

Some of us were proud to be called Reds.
 
this reminds me of a strategy attempted by the most extreme rightwing leader in Israel trying to become the prime minister by getting his supporters to join the Likud party and voting him as the party leader.

Likud's response was to interview suspected "members" about their politics. those who exposed themselves as the extremists that they were were ... if i remember correctly... kicked out of the party.

Tiassa - re: Red State's actions, i think it proves what everyone in the world already knows - that Paul is more of an extreme Left guy and that he has nothing to do with today's GOP.
 
spidergoat said:
Obviously Republicans are no longer real conservatives.
Click to expand...

but Paul is... lol

the term 'conservative' changes over time, and for today's time he is no conservative. in fact, his ideas are the most radical out of all the Democrat, Republican and Independent candidates out there.

Bill Maher said of Paul "compared to you, I'm chairman Mao".
 
Oh please. Just because the current generation of Republicans likes to pretend they're conservatives doesn't mean they really are.

I've already mentioned in another thread a number of issues where Paul is aligned with main stream Republican voters such as gun rights; lower taxes; smaller government; decreasing the national debt. Foreign policy is really the biggest difference.
 
the man wants to completely dismantle the CIA (and several other federal agencies) => sure, smaller government, but is crazy (and dangerous)

gun control => conservative (OK)

lower taxes => same point as the one re: CIA

he is a revolutionary in a Republican's clothes. Paul: stop pretending - you're not a Republican. start your own friggen party.
 
He wants to dismantle the CIA to stop their foreign interventionism, not to stop their intelligence gathering.

Lowering taxes by bring our massive military home sounds like a great idea to me.

He's a Republican, deal with it. The best you can say is that he's not a neocon, which I'll agree with completely.

On February 20, 2007, prior to Paul formally announcing his candidacy, Radley Balko of Foxnews.com wrote an article[246] titled "Ron Paul, the Real Republican?" Balko concludes the piece with: "Of all the candidates so far declared, only Paul can credibly lay claim to the legacy of the Reagan-Goldwater revolution. How well he does, how long he lasts, and who ends up defeating him will reveal whether there's any limited government allegiance at all still stirring the Republican Party."

After the May 3, 2007, debate at Reagan Library, Pat Buchanan told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann that Ron Paul came the closest of all the candidates to classic conservatism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_2008

Oh, but then I guess I have to remember who I'm talking to. Someone who thinks a neoconservative is a liberal who became a conservative because of 9/11. :rolleyes:
 
He wants to dismantle the CIA to stop their foreign interventionism, not to stop their intelligence gathering.
Click to expand...
no. to completely dismantle it, "brick by brick". his logic is that 1) it is a government agency, less government = good, and 2) to remove US foreign intervention.

Lowering taxes by bring our massive military home sounds like a great idea to me.
...
Of all the candidates so far declared, only Paul can credibly lay claim to the legacy of the Reagan-Goldwater revolution
Click to expand...

that's funny. comparing Paul to Reagan is probably the most ridiculous thing i've heard yet in this election season.

Reagan is about projecting military might.
Reagan's biggest legacy is creating a HUGE buildup of military -- which was what won the cold war by the way.
Paul wants to project no military might, which is in line with his non interventionist policies, and defund it. you say it yourself.

from the quote above it is also clear that he is the black sheep of the Republican race. to me he sounds like a fundamentalist... a "classic Christian" for example, is a fundie who lives in the 18th century, which is where Paul's ideas come from. not 21st century conservatism, but "classic" 18th century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top