Conservatives and Libertarians United Against Ron Paul

Watching what Ron Paul does. Not what he says.

What IS Wrong With Ron Paul?

Posted by chip91 on August 17, 2007

This is a recent article by Warner Todd Huston at “Mens News Daily Blog”

I have been watching with interest the candidacy of Libertarian Ron Paul. Like many, I’ve been wondering what the heck is is doing in this race in the first place. Let’s face it, even in the GOP field of candidates he doesn’t fit in well. Naturally, he is a whipping boy for the GOP establishment… well, maybe just a laughing stock, would be more accurate. But, there is real substance to Mr. Paul, a substance that is all too easy to gloss over by focussing on his quirks. And he does serve a very important purpose; he helps bring the debate to the right. A necessary pull with Mitt the Malleable and Rudy the lefty in the race.

Being of a libertarian bent myself, I see a lot of merit in Mr. Paul’s focus on taking government out of things as opposed to trying to find new and expansive (not to mention expensive) ways for government to meddle in our lives. His voice is a welcome change in this direction.

However, his chief flaw is his overly simplistic approach to the war — and this is the single most important issue of our day. This is the main reason he is uncredible as a possible president one who, should he be elected, would have to deal far more with foreign threats and diplomacy than that of other, past presidents.

Last Sunday’s debate was a prime example of the unsuitability of his candidacy for our times. From his constant and easily ridiculed use of the word “Neocons” in practically every answer he gave, to his policy suggestion that we “just leave” Iraq as if it were merely a bad movie we could walk out on with no consequences, made him look… well… off his nut.

Like I said, I agree with much of Mr. Paul’s ideas on government. But his claim that we should “just leave” Iraq is entirely empty of any thought whatsoever. If he were the president in charge of the original decision, he could have been heeded and let the chips fall where they may. However, he would be a president that would inherit this situation already developed. This being true there is no serious option to “just leave” and be done with it without causing irreparable damage to all parties concerned. Well, all parties but al Qaeda that is.

In fact, during the debate he mentioned that we should also have “just left” Vietnam but didn’t seem to recognize the many millions that communism murdered after we did, ultimately, just leave. Additionally, his denial that the “domino theory” is discredited was so wrong it is laughable. The theory that communism would over take every small nation in its path was absolutely true. The only reason they are not all still communist (even as some still are) today is because the Soviet’s communism failed to sustain itself. This ultimate failure does not discredit the domino theory and the fact that more countries didn’t turn to communism is expressly because we fought communism via the Cold War. It was not mere happenstance as Paul seems to contend.

Still, I disagree with people that say his ideas of isolationism are not “conservative” ideas, of course. In fact, his stay-out-of-it attitude is one of the oldest conservative policy ideas since day one of any conservative movement in America. Since the turn of the century the GOP had the stay-out-of-it mode of thinking and this idea persisted as a common GOP attitude until recently. This included being skeptical of the 1900s “American Empire” as well as wishing to stay out of both World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. This particular idea is based on a somewhat mistaken belief in language contained in Washington’s Final Address to the nation upon his retirement. Many conservatives feel George Washington warned against foreign entanglements in that address. This, however, is based on an incomplete knowledge of what was already going on in Washington D.C. (and had been for decades before Washington retired) between the US government and foreign nations and what Washington really meant. A closer reading of history would support that, at the time of his retirement, Washington thought the USA was not militarily ready for such entanglements, and could not back up whatever position the country would take, not that the USA should never get in them in the future. Regardless of its beginning, though, Republicans have usually leaned toward a trade-with-them but stay-out-of-it ideal.

In this Paul is living up to the more prevalent GOP inclination. And I cannot say he is wholly wrong in this inclination on an average day, in a relatively safe and stable world.

But we are not in average times. Al Qaeda would love us to fall back to old GOP isolationism so that they could roam the world unopposed doing their level best to murder and steal their way to power. There is no material difference between the threat that Islamofascism offers us and that which Hitler’s empire building offered in the 1930’s. The only real difference is that Islamofascism is not all rolled up in the personage of one man who controls one militant state as did Hitler.

But, this difference makes their efforts at the same time more resilient and far more dangerous than was Hitler. And this is a point that Ron Paul’s overly simplistic policy of “just go home” cannot contend with.

Abandoning the battlefield will neither make us safe, nor solve the Islamofacist problem. Nor would our “just leaving” turn Islamofascism from “our” problem to “their” problem by virtue of our barricading ourselves within our own borders, leaving the problem to Europe and others to contend with. It would not be safely left “over there” should we just abandon the whole enterprise of the War on Terror. Not only is this a craven action against our allies by abandoning them in a time of great need, but it will not, in the end, make us any safer at all for the simple fact that it will merely follow us home from Iraq.

By the terrorist’s own words and deeds, Iraq is the central front for the Jihadist movements. If we turn tail and run, this will not mollify them but will embolden them to gather strength and follow us home, here , to our very shores.

Ron Paul has some great ideas about limited government. I like a lot of what he says. But Ron Paul is not the man we need to lead us in these dangerous times.


39 Responses to “What IS Wrong With Ron Paul?”

  1. disinter said

    A little frightened of Ron Paul are we?


  3. Warner Todd Huston is an official Newsbuster. What the heck-a-roo is going on here?!? With three rare names in a row, there is absolutely no way this is a different person writing this?!? I mean … thee Warner Todd Huston??!??

  4. Chris said

    You have NO idea what you’re talking about.

    I’m pretty sure you’re naive enough to believe that they hate us for our freedoms too, right?

    A suggestion would be to TRY to think for yourself. It’s not as painful as you might think. Give it a try.

  5. disinter said

    “You know “establishment” (AKA RINO) Republicans are starting to pee in their pink panties when they start running websites against another Republican campaign.”

  6. Al Doyle said

    Not surprisingly, you ignore the Constitution. Wars are supposed to be declared by Congress, and the fiasco in Iraq flunks that test. Even though he is opposed to the war, Dr. Paul put it up to a vote to give the House a chance to obey the Constitution. Naturally, the two-faced chicken hawk neocons refused to go on the record to vote for the war they claim to support.

    If you want to go after the real cancer in the GOP, start with globalist illegal alien lover George W. Bush. When it comes to government spending, Bush makes Clinton look like a tightwad by comparison.

  7. Bill said

    You know, this is a moot criticism I believe. Ron Paul asked Congress to declare war on Iraq rather than “authorizing the use of military force”. I firmly believe that if Congress would declare war, the Constitutional option, that Ron Paul would do his best to prosecute the war quickly and fully.

  8. Joe said

    I agree with Ron Paul that we should “just leave” Iraq.

  9. allegrine said

    Just found this page. Its the worst page in the world. You abuse Ron paul with misleading soundclips and statistics that really doesn’t represent his political philosophy. Its very dishonest. you should be ashamed for accepting the bribe from Mitt or whomever to make this sorry exuse for a blog.

  10. Christopher Jagge said

    So why didn’t the Republican leadership in congress (at the time, now that they are out!) support the declaration of War offered by Dr. Paul? Silly him for wanted to follow the Constitution!

  11. Tara said

    Wow, a brand new blog for the sole purpose of dissing Ron Paul. HAHAHAHA. Must be scary trying to battle a man of truth, honor and integrity.


  12. Rich said

    This is rediculous! I’m a true conservative NOT some neoconservative like you are. You don’t even know the difference. If you did, you’d be supporting Ron Paul with everything you had.

    It’s funny, you people that call yourself conservatives are the same people that were blasting Clinton over his wars and nation building. You were very critical of Clinton for doing it, but now that there’s a neocon in there doing the samething your fine with it. It’s the sameway for the democrats. They were all for Clinton’s wars and some have been very critical of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war. When will you people wake up and open your eyes?

  13. Concerned Citizen, Mid-Atlantic said

    You are not a libertarian. You, my friend, are a neoconservative. I was a member of the GOP when it was not cool to be a Republican (i.e., back in the seventies). I left the GOP when the neocons (originally from the Henry M. Jackson wing of the Democratic Party) and the religious right (most of whom are re-treaded Democrats) hi-jacked the party in the mid nineties. The current incarnation of the GOP cannot stand the idea of individual liberty, especially the neoconservative wing (an their mouth piece PNAC) that wants us to all be slaves to the military industrial complex.

  14. Charles said

    This article has a very poor premise. Each sentence of his reference was a debateable opinion with no bases in fact. Whats your point. You are a neo-con and not a traditional conservative. The last 7 years prove that a neo-con is just a liberal who doesn’t really care about the common good. Ron Paul is the smartest candidate and not a kook. Your the kook with your Jr. High school writing style. Good luck defaceing the good american traditions we all should be proud of.

  15. disenter: My pants are rather dry, what about yours? So if we (those of us that are real conservatives) call out your candidate of choice (judging by your post we have to assume that you are a Rontard, or you could just be a lefty looking to mix it up), you call us RINO’s. So first let’s take that word RINO. RINO (for those of you from Lake Jackson) stands for Republicans In Name Only. Ever look at Ron Paul’s voting record, or listen to any of his speeches, at best he’s a libertarian. He does not support the same things that conservatives or Republicans support. He has an abysmal record on abortion, and low ratings with real Pro-Life groups. So by my estimation Ron Paul is a RINO. Next let’s look at the fact that we are still in the primary season. So the alleged attacks you perceive (in reality – criticism) on your guy Ron Paul is all a part of the primary process. Maybe you just need to grow a thicker skin.

  16. While I applaud your “Conservatives Against Ron Paul” efforts, and are thankful for it, I’m a little perturbed that this site is not called “Libertarians Against Ron Paul”.

    Many of us Libertarians are deeply offended by the far-out “Surrender to Radical Islam” views of Ron Paul. We are also extremely irritated at the fact that Ron Paul has been continuously labeled a “libertarian.” He’s more of a nutcase Leftwing PaleoCon. There was a time, yes, when he was more libertarian, Pro-Defense in fact. He even sold his South Texas Congressional District on that stance. But now he sees opportunity with the Liberal Media by bashing Bush and the War, so he’s turned into Cindy Sheehan in a blue suit.

    Please consider changing the name of this website to “Conservatives and Libertarians United Against Ron Paul.”

    Thank you,

    Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
    US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

  17. Tara said

    Surely you jest, RINO_Hunter!

    Below is a link from On the Issues regarding Ron Paul’s stance on abortion. BTW, he has a 0% rating from NARAL, indicating he is PRO-LIFE.

    Click here for 14 full quotes on Abortion OR other candidates on Abortion OR background on Abortion.

    * Embryonic stem cell programs not Constitutionally authorized. (May 2007)
    * Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
    * Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
    * Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
    * Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
    * Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
    * Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
    * Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
    * Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
    * Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
    * Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
    * Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
    * No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
    * Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

  18. chris said

    First off denying Paul is a Republican in entirely ridiculous. The fact is that if he isn’t a Republican then Republicans can not lay claim to anything that is in America’s best interest.
    Every single one of Paul’s actions has been based on a literal translation of the constitution.
    RINO’s like you like to point out different actions of the Paul campaign that they claim does not represent the Republican party. The truth is that Paul’s opinions are well known and that any votes he has made that has opposed the neo con attempt to impose their will on Americans he has made based on the guidelines of the constitution and its policy of limited government.All of those bills that Neo cons are trying to pass which are violations of the constitutional powers granted to the federal government should be opposed, and you attack the one who dares oppose them? That doesn’t speak to highly of your respect for the constitution.

    I could literally go through every example you have stated that supposedly shows he is not a conservative and give you very good reasons for his actions based on the guidelines of the constitution.
    I have read the constitution and its intent is clear. The fact that people like you want to give examples that show Paul opposing your attempts to impose your opinion on this country unconstitutionally is actually evidence that you are not acting in America’s interest. Your type keeps assuming that American people are to stupid to think for themselves. The average American does posses the intelligence to figure out the truth for them self and i believe this will be shown to be the truth when its time to elect the next president.

  19. Charles said

    Mr. Dondero is not a former aid to Ron Paul and makes no valid points except to insult the congressman. Clever Neo-con tactic for bashing whats doesn’t bring them more power.

  20. Ken said

    1st, they ignore you
    2nd, they ridicule you
    3rd, they fight you*
    4th, you win

    A Libertarian against Paul, must be a neo-con in drag.

  21. Chris Dillard said

    I would like to point out that Ron Paul was the only representative to draft a declaration of war regarding Iraq. He voted to go into Afghanistan, and to say that he would surrender to Islamo-Facism is in my opinion a fallacy. He would promote a strong national defense, have a more open government if elected president. The real problem lies within the fact that Congress is so busy getting re-elected, that they have failed miserably in applying checks upon the executive branch.

    I would recommend reading to see Ron Paul’s feeling upon the “War in Iraq”

    You can also access the entire index of his columns at:

    As a native Houstonian born in the 1970’s, Ron Paul was one of the first politicians that I had ever heard of. It was a sad day when I realized that he was the exception and not the norm for those that represent America.

    Perhaps the real problem is that most politicians have become so removed from the ideals that founded the country, that when someone comes forward to turn us back towards the Constitution, he seems extreme. To me the real problem is that the government operates outside of the very document that granted it the authority to exist.

  22. andy davenport said

    We can’t “just leave Iraq like a bad movie” ???

    No….of course not.

    We need to stay like we did in Vietnam, until 50-60,000 of our guys are killed, the defense industry has made enough profits, and THEN we can come home and build another memorial to stupidity.

  23. The simplicity of Ron Paul’s positions should alarm anyone who is not familiar with his depth of understanding from which they spring. In a world of sound bytes and media spin, it’s easy to dismiss someone who’s views don’t quite square with yours. The problem with your analysis is that you fail to see the connections between Ron Paul’s ideas about the wisdom small government and non-interventionist foreign policy. A principal remains true because it applied in the past as in George Washington’s time and it applies now. Interfere in the conflicts of the world and you’re bound to make an enemy. The complexities of the issues of conflict don’t negate the principle. We backed Osama Bin Laden in the Soviet-Afghan war and later, he turned against us as we meddled in other Middle Eastern conflicts.

    What Ron Paul brings to the debate is a call for reason and a return to the principle of the rule of law. This is exactly what the American people really want, but like you, many haven’t figured it out, yet.

    It’s not too late. You need to do more research on Ron Paul and the Libertarian/Constitutional platforms he champions. I suggest you start with learning about the monetary system. Read “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin or watch the video “Money As Debt” on Google. You need to connect more of the dots.

  24. Andy said

    Seems like somebody is afraid of Ron Paul and his message of freedom, peace and prosprrity.

    Thanks for the blog, though. It will help with Ron Paul name recognition and people will do their own research.

  25. Ok author, here’s the problem with your article and your logic:

    Modern conservatives want to separate the spheres of foreign policy and domestic policy and refuse to see the same principles as they apply to both.

    Ron Paul’s war view is not “simplistic”. He has never stated that things will be great if we leave, he simply refuses to shoulder the blame for the chaos that may come because that, in his view, ultimately is because we went… not because we left.

    The aftermath of Vietnam is a good case example. There were some immediate problems and killing when we left, but in the long run both nations are better off than if we had stayed. Furthermore, the dire predictions of chaos and regional toppling by Communism made by war supporters at the time did NOT come true.

    It is unfair to intervene militarily, cause chaos and then blame those who opposed our ever having gone in for the chaos because they want us out. It also pre-assumes something that I don’t think you can make a reasonable case for… that if we stay there WON’T be chaos.

  26. How is it that conservatives like the author of this article understand that Big-government never solves the problems it sets out to fix in domestic policy, but somehow in foreign policy they are magically super-competent?

    Its inconsistent! Big government intervention is not the solution domestically OR in foreign policy. Limited, Constitutional government is the correct approach for BOTH!

  27. I thought for most of the last few years that the really interesting fight for the soul and the future of this country would take place within the Republican Party. The Dems are boring and hopeless — they lack ideas and any understanding of economics or the basis of liberty and rights.

    I did not know Ron Paul would kick it off but God Bless him. Here he is and here we are. Let the fun begin. This thing is NOT going away. Repubs can either jump on board and see the party revived or they can resist and see it die.

    Most Americans are not left or right, they are broadly libertarian and want to be left alone. A minority of busy bodies and cheerleaders make the most noise on either side an we pretend there is a difference between say, Hillary and Rudy. Whatever.

    Keep picking on Ron… The more people hear about him, and especially the more they hear FROM him, the more they like him!

  28. I’ve been a conservative Republican for well over 35 years.

    You don’t know what your are talking about

  29. jp said

    Constitutional dunces,

    The Constitution says in Article I, Section 8 that “congress shall declare war”

    It does not give exact details on how, just that congress is to do it, the end. It doesn’t say the document they vote on must have “declare” in the title. the “Iraq War Resolution” is a declaration of war….

    well actually its not, its an extension of the first Gulf War. Which if you have a clue about any of this you know the current war wasn’t a new war. The First Gulf War ended in a Cease Fire agreement, Saddam violated it over and over, each time was a case to resume hostilities which we eventually did ….

  30. jp said

    you have to think Ronald Reagan was a horrible president to support Ron Paul. That his foreign policy which was based on INTERVENTIONISM, including in the middle east…was the wrong way to go.

    Ron Paul is morally repugnant, we’ve tried his childish, sophmoric FP before…after WW1. The Nation stuck its head in the sand and let evil grow and ignored the warnings of Churchill. It led directly to the rise of Hitler(who never attaced us) and WW2, one big blood bath.

    after WW2 we learned from our ways and abandoned appeasement/non-interventionism. Its what kept us from leading into the mother of all blood baths in a direct confrontation/WAR with the Soviets.

  31. Concerned Citizen said


    You must be from the south because the alleged “conservative” principles on which you are focused are straight out the southern social conservative Democrat play book. You must also be relatively young; otherwise, you would know that the south was filled with Democrats that held these same values less than twenty years ago. They all jumped ship and polluted the GOP! We can thank Barry Goldwater’s “Southern Strategy” for destroying the party of Lincoln.

  32. Oh where to start, OK let’s first start with his pro-life voting record. Ron Paul voted no to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, not just once but twice. This would be the bill that would prevent someone like a school counselor or planned parenthood from taking your teenage daughter across state lines to get an abortion. Then there are the following bills he also voted no on: Motherhood Protection Act (Substitute Amendment), Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, Substitute Amendment to , Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999, and Child Custody Protection Act. Hmm… looks pretty pro-life to me [sarc]. On defense, he has voted no to every major defense appropriation bill that has come down the pike. So, soft on defense. Tell me where “strength through peace” has worked anywhere around the globe. Try asking Spain what peace bought them? The only reason Ron Paul has an (R) after his name is because voters in Lake Jackson and Baytown wouldn’t vote for a libertarian.You can put perfume on a pig, but in the end, it’s still a pig. So you can call Ron Paul the Pope if that’s what you want, but you and I both know that Ron Paul is not, nor ever has been a Republican so just stop fooling yourselves. History lesson, what party platform did he run on the last time he ran for President?

    As for your Concerned Citizen: Democrat, that’s funny… I was a Republican long before the yellow dogs were.

  33. Lukas said

    There will always be “dangerous times” as you say, sir. We need to set an example of contending with it in diplomacy and peace, not preemptive occupation. And that IS why we need a man like Ron Paul to Lead in these times.

  34. Dick Bush said

    This guy supports Mit Romney. That say’s it all. Has anyone ever researched the morman religion. If Paul is kooky then Romney is insane. Joseph Smith was a con man shiester. It’s historically documented. His religion is just like Scientology. Insane. I think Ron Paul’s kookyness is fine compared to Romney’s insanity.

  35. Lady Liberty Crying said

    Wow funny using terms like Islamofascism, linking to a book by Podhoretz ( one of the most dangerous and bloodthirsty NeoCons) complete with comparisons to Hitler and WW2 for a group of men that operate out of a cave. Then we don’t even bother catching him at all. This is how the right went wrong…by listening to a bunch of 1960’s liberals who have nothing better to do than socially engineer the ME under the rubric of terror. This something they wanted to do before 9/11 for the defense of Israel and control of resources even piplines now in Afghanistan. Anyone who can’t see this is delusional.

    Ron Paul is EXACTLY the right candidate to get us out of the blood feuds and historical vengence miring us in deeper in the ME like Podhoretz wants. It was totally the wrong way to go. That is using imprecise language to: (1) provide cover for fighting nation states when AlQaeda is not state funded (2) label all ME terrorists as threat to our homeland when they are not.

    [quote]Even Ronald Reagan had this to say after the Marine barracks bombing ( This was an act of war not an acto of terror as it was a military target).

    “Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines’ safety that it should have. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 Marines would be alive today.”– Ronald Reagan’s Autobiography

    I have to wonder which candidate or GOP party hack created this site.

  36. Brie said

    You are a moron. Ron Paul is the ONLY REAL republican in a field of wannabes, sell-outs, and fools. This site is disgusting and anyone who sponsors it should come right out and say exactly what they are — terrified that republicans might actually want to get back to what it means to be republican. Smaller government, lower taxes, personal liberties… what is so wrong with that concept?

  37. Nathan B. said

    I hope that Ron Paul stays in the race as long as possible so as to have some impact upon the discussion and debate leading into next year’s election. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate willing to question the Bush doctrine on foreign affairs.
    Here is an overview of some of the more important items to which Ron Paul pays attention:

    1. Leave Iraq.
    2. Against the Patriot Act.
    3. Has 100% score on the “American Taxpayer’s Friend” index.
    4. Against “Big Government,” and voting records corroborate this.
    5. Seems to have an almost obsessive focus on the Constitution.

  38. DCUPtoejuice said

    This is an excellent article. The war is the defining issue of our times and Ron Paul is advocating a risky strategy in pulling back from our military involvement in the middle east. Unfortunately, the writer does not acknowledge the fact that the alternative strategy, currently underway, also risks similarly disastrous outcomes. Both strategies risk greater conflicts in the future, the question that the article leaves unaddressed is the only relevant question, and is one that the Republican leadership refuses to debate. That question is; what is the best strategy to deal with the threat to the U.S. coming from the middle east? The current policy risks over-extension of our military leaving us vulnerable to unexpected attacks in addition to the many costs that war incurs. In my opinion, this is a dilemma, not a clear decision as you would suggest. I voted for Bush because he preached a humble foreign policy and I will vote for Ron Paul for the same reason. Speak softly and carry a big stick.

  39. jrh said

    This article was obviously written by someone nieve enough to believe that this war is actually about terrorism. We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We are there to make a profit and extend our empire. If we truely feared terrorism, we’d have Osama by now, but the neo-cons would like to keep him out there as a threat, because fear is the best way to control the population. It’s obviously worked with you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: