January 1, 2012

"Ron Paul Flips Out Over Accusation That He Believed 9/11 Conspiracy Theories."

Says Laura Bassett in HuffPo.

I despise that sort of overstatement. Go ahead and listen to the video at the link. Ron Paul got testy and aggressive, but he didn't "flip out," that is, he didn't seem crazy or out of control. Bassett hypocritically indulges in exaggerated speech to describe exaggerated speech.

57 comments:

Alex said...

Why would a left-winger try to trash Ron Paul? Doesn't the left believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories? Or do they hate Ron Paul's economic libertarian-ism so much that he must destroyed? I have a hard time figuring lefties out sometimes.

America's Politico said...

Iowa is important in our nation's POTUS election. It is imperative we defeat Obama. It is impossible to defeat a sitting POTUS.

Paul is a loony. It is a joke (on GOP) that he has followers.

Santorum could not even win his re-election. No one has endorsed him from Congress. No one likes him.

Perry, Newt, and Bachmann are nobodies and will remain that way.

Huntsman is a traitor. He should not even be on the GOP ballot.

There is only candidate that is able to win. Only one can defeat Obama. He is Romney.

Support Romney. All we need that he has a great VP (Jindal or Christie, as examples). Then we are back in business at the White House.

Please do the right thing on Tuesday. Go for Romney. Remember: You have to make GOP look good by winning. Do not go for false prophets (Paul, Santorum, Newt, Perry, Bachmann or Huntsman).

Thanks!

Cedarford said...

I think Ron Paul would be preferred to be marginalized by his own "pure conservative heart" whackadoodle theories before allowing lefty liars from marginalizing him on crazy stuff he never said or some non-PC stuff in his newsletters he never wrote.

Alex said...

Ron Paul is an egotist who cares more about himself then the Republican party. Fuck him.

America's Politico said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
America's Politico said...

All:

Imagine if the newsletters were written by Romney.

You would have a field day. You would ask that he step down from the race. NPR, NYT, PBS, CNN, etc. would be after him 24/7, 365.

Paul gets a free pass - why? I want a total, laser-like focus on his writings.

This is serious time - election is a serious affair.

We do not want false prophets hanging around. Paul is one.

traditionalguy said...

Dr Paul doesn't ever flip out. His bedside manor is the epitome of a self controlled man who has no passions and no feelings while he operates on men's minds with his perfected paranoid suggestions.

Watching Dr Paul in action is seeing The Banality of Evil in our time.

edutcher said...

Have to agree with Alex (I know...).

The Lefties have nothing to lose hyping Congressman Tin Foil.

rcommal said...

Diminishing via hyperbole: a hot theory cycling through this election season.

Alex said...

Ron Paul reminds me a bit of Dr. Mengele with his lack of emotion as he goes about his evil business.

Alex said...

Diminishing via hyperbole

Practiced by American politicians since 1788.

rcommal said...

I don't want Chris Christie to become vice president. I want him to finish his current term as governor of New Jersey and at least part of his next one. I still think that's his best move, all the way around.

rcommal said...

Practiced by American politicians since 1788.

Yes, I know. Exactly

America's Politico said...

To be honest, I am scared of Tuesday and then of NH primary. By then we will know if GOP has any chance in winning the WH.

If Romney loses IA, he will hang by the thread (assuming Santorum or Paul will win).

If his margin in NH victory is decreased by surge of Huntsman and Paul, he is then effectively screwed.

The primary will be long and Romney will be brutally beaten.

During the General, Obama and his fab-Chicago team will have Romney for breakfast. The defeat will be bigger than Mondale.

So, all depends in IA and NH.

Oh, GOP voters in IA: Do the right thing. Give Romney the victory.

Make Paul suffer, give me the 3rd or 4th spot. Put Santorum and Perry before him.

Make me happy.

EDH said...

Ron Paul is dangerous like that tin foil wrapped baked potato left in the oven a few days.

In Texas...

Why the concern with baked potatoes? Baked potatoes that have been wrapped in foil have been linked to cases of botulism. Clostridium botulinum spores can survive the baking process and the foil wrap seals the potato preventing oxygen from being present. In this environment, and at the right temperature, spores on the potato can germinate and grow - producing their deadly toxin.
Several cases of foodborne botulism caused by foil wrapped baked potatoes have occurred including a large outbreak in 1994 in Texas. In that outbreak, 30 people were affected.

The Crack Emcee said...

Oh, what's it matter? The stupid cult leader is still a liar. He shouldn't even be in the running now.

But then, he's not alone in that respect.

We, all, should be so ashamed,...

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

I don't despise the look of this Bassett gal.

Anywho, we can add her to the list of young gals who've riled the vortex. BTW, who--if these young v mature disturbances are represented by vortex imagery--is the warm front, and who is the cold?

AJ Lynch said...

The Huffpo blogger, calls herself a reporter. That's too funny.

timmaguire42 said...

Ehh...a journalist misrepresenting a political opponent to make him look bad. So what else is new?

She's probably gunning for a byline in the New York Times.

edutcher said...

rcommal said...

I don't want Chris Christie to become vice president. I want him to finish his current term as governor of New Jersey and at least part of his next one. I still think that's his best move, all the way around.

Probably right, but Christie's been auditioning for the part.

America's Politico said...

Presidential elections are serious affairs. Thanks to Romney that he knows it. So does Christie.

It is close to impossible to defeat a sitting POTUS. The last time it happened was GHWB. But, he had a bad team, and a bad VP. Yes, a bad VP.

Romney needs a great VP. Someone who just fires up the GOP voters and excites the independents.

Christie is one such person. Yes, he is one such person.

Personal goals are to be put aside when one thinks of a greater cause. When you listen to Romney or Christie, can you even doubt (for a mere second) that they do not love their country, that they will not sacrifice personal goals....Never. ever.

Other VP would be Jindal, who can rally the Perry supporters to vote for Romney. Plus he can decrease the minority support for Obama.

But, we are thinking ahead. As I mentioned, IOWA is the most important. If the GOP voters there are stupid and make Paul the victory, this is all a pipe dream. Say hello to 2nd term of Obama.

Levi Starks said...

I just found a very progressive web site that detail some of RP's positions.
Among other things he would legalize the sale of un-pasturized milk.... Oh the horror.

America's Politico said...

And, I forgot: GHWB endorsed Romney. (So did Dole.)

In fact, Romney reminds me of GHWB. I think Romney has the makings of a great President. I just hope he gets through IA and NH. Else the entire deck of cards fall...

Lem said...

I notice some hesitation in that denial.

I don't believe Ron Paul.

Toshtu said...

Ron Paul is weird. Genius or not, he's weird. Same with Gingrich. Imagine them sharing the ticket, what optics.

Romney is the default candidate, his VP pick will be crucial. Whoever he picks will be a future presidential candidate.

Lucien said...

Seems like Paul did what he wanted to do, which is to establish that the claim and the conspiracy theories were to be rejected immediately and out of hand, rather than serving as the topic of serious discussion.

Was his language as clear as if prepared earlier -- no -- did he succeed in what he wanted to do -- yes.

chickenlittle said...

Probably right, but Christie's been auditioning for the part.

I think that Romney/Christie would be way too East Coast. Obama could easily outflank that team. Nope, not inclusive enough.

John said...

One would assume that Paul and his views are best known to his constituents in the 14th district in Texas. He seems to be pretty well liked, judging by election results.

One would think that if he was really kooky, or "evil" as someone described him a few notes up, or "racist" he might have some difficulty getting elected and re-elected. Yet, since 1996, his first run in this district, he just keeps getting bigger and bigger majorities. Numbers that are huge even for an incumbent. This is in a district that is 25% black and hispanic. This in a district in which the newsletters have been an issue in every election. Here's how he does, according to Wikipedia:

96 51% (first term)
98 55%
00 60%
02 68%
04 Unopposed
06 60%
08 unopposed (won primary with 70%)
10 76%

I wonder if we plotted this on a graph we might spot a trend?

If he is so kooky, why does his support keep increasing? If he screwed the people of Galveston, as someone suggested in another thread, why does his support keep going up?

He must be doing something right.

Other than '88 when he was the Libertarian Party candidate, I don't think he has ever lost an election. Not counting primaries in 2008.

Not bad for a loony, kook, homophobic, anti-semitic racist old codger supported only by Paulbots.


John Henry

America's Politico said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

BTW: I just watched the clip. It sounded like he handled it just about right.

Note where the charges come from, as highlighted in the clip. Eric Dondero, formerly Eric Dondero Rithouse. As I said in an earlier thread about Dondero, Google him. There is stuff on him posted as far back as the 90s. See how credible he seems. See if you would believe him if he said that the sun rose in the east this morning.

He also said, in a radio interview last week that he works as a contractor circulating ballot petitions for candidates and that he is currently working to get a candidate on the ballot in California. When asked, he would not say what candidate. Probably safe to assume that it is not Paul.

John Henry

America's Politico said...

Why has no one from the Media asked Paul these questions?

1. Congressman, you are 76, how can you run against Obama who is 51? If you run, will you also run for a 2nd term?

2. Congressman, you voted against the Congressional medal for Pope, Mother Theresa, and many others. Do you regret these votes?

3. Congressman, you have been in Congress for many terms. Apart from your legislative success in getting a house in Galveston named as historic, what other legislative accomplishments do you have?

4. Along the same lines, Congressman, if you have not been able to have at least a few legislative victories in the House, how can you convince the GOP that you will be able to make the changes you want in the White House? Who are your allies in the House GOP? Do you have any?

Etc. This guy is a loony. He should have been politically finished by now. I sometimes wonder if the Press is full of idiots or if GOP voters are totally clueless and deserve to lose each and every election...Why is this loony even running?

Levi Starks said...

To see how what a kook RP is I only need to look at his supporters, 1) my mother in law and the folks that live in her retirement community.
2) Young energetic college aged people,
3) and of course the really deranged men and women who've volunteered serve in armed forces.
4) Top it off 50something men like myself who won their own home and haven't missed a day of work in 20 years.
Who knows... maybe he is a kook,
But it seems like you're doing yourself a disservice to just attack the man, and not try and understand why he appeals to the groups of people he does.
Of course I'm sure I get some kind of psycobabble about how his supporters harbor some subliminal need to be brain washed, because in the end we're just looking for an excuse to break out our tin foil hat.

mythusmage said...

To some people "loosing control" means expressing emotion.

somefeller said...

I despise that sort of overstatement.

Me too. Normal people respond with some degree of forcefulness when they're being accused of something or if they care about a topic. It's lame to call such responses meltdowns or flip-outs unless they involve inappropriate screaming or real loss of control of emotions. Some writers like to use that crutch when they are in spin mode. Hugh Hewitt comes to mind as an example of a writer who likes to do that and whoever wrote the headline of the Huff Post story (don't assume the story writer wrote the headline - editors usually do that) appears to be another example.

John M Auston said...

Overstatements are standard practice for the Left. My favorite so far was when NPR's All Things Considered used the word "horrific" to describe the nude pyramids and other Fratboy-like pranks of Abu Ghraib. "Horrific".

I wanted to say to the 'reporter':

"No, honey. That word is reserved for things like the ovens of Auschwitz, the Gulag Archipelago, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, Mao's Great Leap Forward. Stuff like that. "So lets dial it back a bit, huh?"

rcommal said...

John M Auston:

Your chosen word for "the ovens of Auschwitz, the Gulag Archipelago, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, Mao's Great Leap Forward" is "horrific"? Horrific? That's it, the very thing, the very perfect word choice?-- Horrific?

How tame, how lame, and it's clear that you and I don't think even close to the same.

What a pitiful use of words. Pfuie.

rcommal said...

John M Auston:

Honey, the word "horrific" doesn't even begin to describe "..the ovens of Auschwitz, the Gulag Archipelago, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, Mao's Great Leap Forward. Stuff like that. ...

WTF?

John M Auston said...

rcommel says: What a pitiful use of words. Pfuie.

Really?

hor·ri·fic/hôˈrifik/
Adjective: Causing horror.
Synonyms: horrible - dreadful - frightful - terrible - grisly

hor·ror   [hawr-er, hor-]
1. an overwhelming and painful feeling caused by something frightfully shocking, terrifying, or revolting; a shuddering fear: to shrink back from a mutilated corpse in horror.


Yup, I'd say 'horrific' belongs in a discussion of Auschwitz (ask the troops who liberated it), but not in one of Abu Ghraib.

Carol_Herman said...

He's not going to "flip in" either

Ron Paul is coasting on the story telling abilities of the old media. Dan Rather can't understand why he's not back at C-BS.

Because the BS keeps flying.

rcommal said...

Jesus, John M Auston, you're actually in collusion over the use language with the very people you were trying to disparage.

---

I say ignore both, if that's how cheaply expression is valued.

grackle said...

If he[Ron Paul] is so kooky, why does his support keep increasing?

Home district popularity does not necessarily translate into national popularity. If the contrary were true Nancy Pelosi might be President right now. In her home district she received 71.9% percent of the vote in 2008, 80.2% in 2010 – a wider margin than Ron Paul in both elections.
.
http://tinyurl.com/35posr5

Patrick said...

Why is the national media cozy with the Ron Paul racism?

frank said...

@ Alex: " I have a hard time figuring lefties out sometimes."
I have the same 'problem' with women. The difference is figuring out women is so much more enjoyable.

frank said...

* I meant to say: "trying" to figure out women.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Again, there are crazy uncles everywhere that are jealous of Mr. Paul.

There is alot of supposed material and thought-analysis of Mr. Paul's state-of-mind. standard fare for the MSM apparatchik.

I look forward to this type of analysis, someday, of our current president.

Tank said...

Full Court press from every direction now to keep Paul out.

Why?

He is the ONLY candidate who is a real advocate of change from the current corrupt bankrupt empire we are not driving over the cliff.

Therefore, he must be destroyed by left and right. He is more dangerous to the left. He believes in freedom, they don't. The right talks about freedom and small gov't, but watch what they do, not what they say.

Ann, like most, is watching the distractions, and will be seat belted in as the vehicle leaves the road.

Tank said...

Ha freudian slip.

Not = now.

John said...

Grackle,

You are quite right that home district support and national support are two different things and dependent on different factors. For a Congressman, constituent services may be the most important factor. Paul's office is apparently excellent with such things as helping with missing SS checks and the like. For a president, not so much.

If I gave a different impression, my bad.

What I was trying to speak to was his constituent's view of him. Their view seems like it will be less filtered by the media and more influenced by personal knowledge.

Seems to me that if he really was kooky, his constituents would know it and someone would challenge. If he really was racist, given the large minority population in the district, he would have problems getting re-elected by such large majorities. Winning with a 76% majority? That is high even for an incumbent.

If you look at Paul, his positions are not really kooky. Sound money, strong defense, reduced spending, reduced criminalization, reduced govt influence over our lives, budgets (18 months now with no budget) and so on.

All the things the Republicans say they are for.

What makes Paul a "crazy old kook" who must be destroyed is that he means it and if prez would try to do it.

He must be destroyed. There are too many rice bowls at stake.

John Henry

JackOfVA said...

I believe it comes down to this ...

If you believe that incremental fixes can solve the problems our nation finds itself in, then Romney is your choice. Trim the federal budget from 3.6T to 3.4T, up the tax take a bit and hope for the best. Romney will cut deals with the Democrats and drag enough Republicans with him for these incremental changes, most of which will be more of the typical Washington smoke and mirrors solutions.

If you believe that incremental fixes might have worked 8 or 10 years ago but that we are now past the point of no return, and a radical change in the size and scope of the federal government is the only chance we have to avoid economic collapse, then Ron Paul does not seem to be such a bad idea. Or, perhaps Michele Bachmann as an alternative.

As a matter of simple mathematics, if the current rate of increased government spending is projected, and to that is added the statutory promises for future benefits, the tax take for all governments (state, local and federal) has to reach absurd levels, in the 70-80% of GDP. That's not going to happen, so something must occur to prevent from occurring. One possibility is that our elected officials acknowledge the problem and fix it by a massive retrenchment in size and scope of government. Another possibility is that we continue along the present path until the economy detonates. In the best case, we go into a shabby decline something like the UK before Thatcher. In the worst case, it's more like Mad Max.

John said...

Welcome back, Byro/j/Debbie

New and improved! Now with 47.2% more anonymity and 15% more nuts for rich bloggy wierdness.

John Henry

Jay said...

Ron Paul is a nut.

His supporters spend an inordinate amount of time poo-pooing his nuttiness.

Paco Wové said...

John-

I don't think many mainstream Reps. would consider that Ron Paul favors a "strong defense" policy.

John said...

Paco,

He does favor a strong military and a strong defense. The emphasis is on defense, though.

He does not, and opinions vary, think that "defense" includes having troops stationed all over the world. The troops in Korea, for example, are more for S Korea's defense than ours. they are often called a "Tripwire" because if NK invades, they will guarantee that we will be forced to get involved.

Ditto the troops we had in Germany guarding the Fulda Gap, or the 6th Fleet in the Med, 7th Fleet in WestPac.

Or the new African Command where we are putting troops in Africa.

You may think it is a good idea to bomb Iran now, as the other 5 seem to.

And so on.

We could differ on how best to defend the US. You may think these are a good thing. Paul doesn't and I am not sure, though I lean towards Paul on this.

But if you look at his record he has always supported the military.

He is also the only major candidate to have served in the military. Gingrich, Romney were both prime draft bait back in the day. Both managed to avoid serving.

Perry served, of course. But is he a major candidate anymore?

John Henry

BJM said...

@AP

It is impossible to defeat a sitting POTUS.

Hello? 1968? 1980? 1992?

BJM said...

Ron Paul has a Mr. Magoo or deer-in-the-headlight look that momentarily washes over his face until his brain kicks in with his position/answer to a question.

Could simply be age, but it's creepy.

Eric said...

If you believe that incremental fixes can solve the problems our nation finds itself in, then Romney is your choice.

It really doesn't matter who is elected president. Not only are we not going to get drastic change, we're not even going to get incremental change. The president simply doesn't have much power over the budget.

The problem is with the electorate, not the person in the oval office. People don't want to pay for the services to which they feel entitled, and as long as that's true we're going to be hopping and skipping down the path to ruin.

grackle said...

If you look at Paul, his positions are not really kooky. Sound money, strong defense, reduced spending, reduced criminalization, reduced govt influence over our lives, budgets (18 months now with no budget) and so on.

I agree that “kooky” is not a precise description. I would rather use the phrase “dumbfoundingly wrongheaded.” The issues cited above, which most conservatives support, are only part of the story. There’s the matter of the racist newsletters and his views on foreign policy, 9/11 and Islamic terrorism in general. I’ve read that half his support comes from liberals. Ever wonder why?

If you believe that incremental fixes can solve the problems our nation finds itself in, then Romney is your choice.

What I believe is that Obama should be defeated. The rest is window dressing. I would even vote for Ron Paul over Obama.

He[Ron Paul] does favor a strong military and a strong defense. The emphasis is on defense … The troops in Korea, for example, are more for S Korea's defense than ours.

And that’s a bad thing? To defend S. Korea who would be immediately taken over by the rabid N. Korean regime if the US had no presence there?

Ditto the troops we had in Germany guarding the Fulda Gap …

Really? No US presence in Germany after WW2? Allow Germany become a Communist satellite to the Soviets? No democratic reunification of Germany?

… or the 6th Fleet in the Med, 7th Fleet in WestPac. Or the new African Command where we are putting troops in Africa.

My reading of history is that Isolationism is nearly always a disaster in the end.

You may think it is a good idea to bomb Iran now, as the other 5 seem to.

Obama lost the Iran issue early on when he agreed to talk to Iran without conditions. The mullahs knew then that they didn’t have to worry about Obama. That they could stall and develop nukes all they wanted with near impunity. This perception of Obama’s willingness to appease and comply was reinforced when Obama declined to support the mass rallies protesting the corrupt elections of 2009. The mullahs are so confident now that it was found out that they casually plotted to assassinate a foreign ambassador in America back in October.

Once Iran nukes up a nuke race will occur in that region. After a couple more Islamic nations acquire nukes to provide some cover I believe there is a good chance that a nuclear event will happen in the US. A “dirty” nuclear device, an EMP strike, a portable device detonated in a big city – something along those lines. Anything like that would be devastating.

Bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities? I wonder what the reaction would be here in the US. If Obama were to do it I believe the Left and the MSM would probably find reasons to support it. A sad but necessary action would be the theme. An unlikely hypothetical, I admit, but fun to think about.

We could differ on how best to defend the US … But if you look at his record he has always supported the military.

Really? I’ve looked but I can’t find much red meat on this subject, other than general statements of support on Paul’s website. Support the military by bringing them home and keeping them at home? Sounds like an old anti-war meme from the Vietnam War era to me. Is there a politician that DOESN’T claim to support the military?

He is also the only major candidate to have served in the military.

I too like politicians to have military experience but it’s no deal breaker for me.