What is it about Ron Paul that turns the entire repub establishment against him?

[Skip Intro]

I have a friend who is a Paul supporter, and a long time Repub. He is a member of several official Repub facebook groups and listens to right-wing radio regularly.

Recently I have been exposed to both the facebook groups, and the talking heads on the radio. They all have been in non-stop Paul-bashing mode for a couple of weeks now, going so far as to not only attack Paul for everything imaginable, but to attack the entire state of Iowa regularly as well.

Now I know Paul has been attacked here as well. But this is a Dem forum, and I expect that.

My question is, what is it about Paul that puts the Repub machine into such a tizzy? What do they fear so much about him and his ideas that they would go to such lengths to marginalize him? What real threat do he and his supporters pose to the establishment that would make stopping him goal number one?

[bigwillq]

1. He's more crazy than they are?

[FarLeftFist]

47. He has 1 good idea, and that is 1 good idea too many for the GOP. Must have 0 good ideas.

[savalez]

78. lol

[Cosmocat]

58. Because he IS what they SAY they are

Don't mistake this as me saying he is some great man.

But, Ron Paul IS the BS that the "conservatives" have spewed for the last three decades.

THEY know they don't mean it, and it is all BS to win elections.

Paul BELIEVES it.

[Enrique]

67. you nailed it

he highlights their hypocrisy. He's saying, ok, if you really believe all that stuff you're saying about small government here's what it means, it means no Civil Rights Act, no Social Security, no Medicare, no drug wars, no regular wars, no nothing.

[Larry Ogg]

65. He's a rouge right wing nut job that thinks he fuck shit up on his own. n/t

[joshcryer]

2. US Politics summed up in one word: electablity.

Every.single.damn.election.we.argue.about.electablity.

The Pugs do it, we do it.

They're terrified of Ron Paul's crazy shit being aired, and know that he hasn't a chance in hell of ever being elected by the American people.

[craigmatic]

3. foreign policy and drug policy.

[Bombtrack]

33. exactamundo n/t

[AlinPA]

46. Exactly.

[Uncle Joe]

74. That's it, Paul threatens at least on the surface, the military industrial complex and

the for profit prison industry.

There are two things that Republicans love and live for, money and disenfranchising potential poltical opposition, the so called "War on Drugs" and neverending wars abroad curtail their ability to do both.

The corporate media know this as well and they're afraid of him for the same reason.

Having said all that, I'm convinced Paul is a racist but if he didn't on the surface oppose both continous war and the "War on some Drugs" the Republicans would overlook his more shady side.

I do find it tragically ironic that in spite of Paul's racism, he seems to be the only major candidate strongly coming out against an obviously, De Facto, racist drug war.

[nevergiveup]

4. Simple

The "entire repub establishment" loves war.

[Liberty Belle]

5. he doesn't support the military-industrial complex.

Think how much money will be lost to defense contractors and the Congressmen they buy if Paul were to win and refuse to start more wars, and slash defense.

[tabatha]

6. bingo

[jeff47]

12. Close, but not quite

He doesn't support the Fed. Yes, the MIC is large. But nowhere close to the money coming out of the fed.

[deacon]

15. in a nutshell. n/t

[NNN0LHI]

35. If he doesn't support the MIC why in the hell did he vote to invade and occupy Afghanistan?

Didn't he know who he was supporting by doing that?

Are you suggesting he is an idiot?

Don

[ProSense]

41. Well

"he doesn't support the military-industrial complex."

...I don't buy that propaganda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=110106

I mean, why isn't the Defense department not on Paul's list of agencies to eliminate?

[zipplewrath]

42. Because he believes in defense

The common mantra among libertarians is that the DoD is for the defense of the US here at home. Shut down overseas bases and keep the Navy off our own coast. They won't eliminate it, but they will restrict it beyond anything we've seen since we fought the Barbary Coast War.

[ProSense]

57. Again

"They won't eliminate it, but they will restrict it beyond anything we've seen since we fought the Barbary Coast War."

...Rand Paul proposed a bigger war budget than Obama (and bragged about it).

[jimlup]

7. He is external to the mainstream...

And the mainstream will not permit deviation.

They are making up for lost time. Previously they had just ignored him. But since that hasn't been working they have to repair the damage in their propaganda. It is hard for them as any half-thinking Republican will realize that he is ideologically exactly what they claim to want.

Except perhaps for the isolationist stuff. That I think freaks them out as most of the American people probably desire that too (when pushed on it so it would depend on how you asked the question.)

[jeff47]

8. Ron's governing philosophy would be disastrous to the big money folks

And the Republican party will not do anything bad to the big money folks. That's the party's real constituency.

[sarcasmo]

53. Bingo ^^^^^^

Big money won't back Ron Paul and they love magic undies.

[opihimoimoi]

9. mistrust those who are not controllable......Ron is loose cannon

[Prometheus Bound]

22. Yes.

[killbotfactory]

10. He doesn't want to use the federal government to shove jesus down our throats

He just wants the states to be able to do it individually.

[spanone]

11. he's really not a republican

[The Genealogist]

13. Because even they are smart enough to know he is poison

Sure, the Republican establishment wants to dismantle the US government, institute serfdom, and give trucks full of money to the rich. However, Ron Paul would be fine with that, but wants to do far more than even the Republican establishment would. Someone around here, can't think who, refers to him as that crazy old uncle everyone has (paraphrasing here!). The Republicans are happy to drag him out at the family reunions, so to speak, because he is colorful, but they would never let him be head of the family.

[coalition_unwilling]

24. I think I may be the one who started the 'crazy family uncle' meme about Paul, in the

sense that he'll go on at length on these paranoid rants that have very little connection to reality. Every once in awhile, though his rant will stumble seemingly by accident upon a truth (like the fact that the Iraq War was based on lies). But who wants to listen to the entire rant just to get the few nuggets of truth buried within it?

[The Genealogist]

77. It is an apt analogy

He has his paranoid, bent rants and never hesitates to go off on one, except when he is too busy denying that he goes off on them, ex. his racist newsletters. And I too see a couple of ideas that are palatable in those rants sometimes, as much as I hate to admit it. I think they are palatable ideas not because they come from him, or that his worldview is valid; I have come to find the ideas valid through a totally different path of inquiry and ethics. But too, I see how the other Repukes treat "Dear Unca Ron" and it looks like how the crazy uncle is treated. Bring him out at the "family reunion" (the debates) and let him babble on, but of course never seriously let him be head of the family (nominee). Of course, it doesn't hurt that Ron Paul LOOKS like someone's crazy uncle, either. Thus, I really like the analogy.

[deacon]

14. He doesn't support war and they don't like him preaching against war to young GOP voters. He is

corrupting their youth.

[book_worm]

16. to be honest the establishment went after Gingrich far more than they did Paul.

[Motown_Johnny]

17. he wants to spend less on the military, the pukes can't stand the thought of that

add in legalizing drugs and the man isn't just unacceptable, he is hated

[jberryhill]

18. Not everyone annoying is a "threat"

All this will Paul run "third party" talk is beside the point. There are a bunch of parties in various states who will nominate Ron Paul (with or without his instruction or approval), so he WILL be on the ballot in some places in the general election.

He uses the GOP primary as a vehicle to promote what is effectively a third party candidacy.

It was slimy when Lieberman did it explicitly, and it is slimy the way Paul does it indirectly. I can see why he is considered bothersome to them, but it's fun to watch.

[krispos42]

19. No bloated military means that...

...they won't have the excuse of the deficit to cut social programs.

...they won't have the ability to pressure resource-rich countries for the benefit of American corporations

...they won't have the ability to give corporate welfare to defense contractors

...they won't be the golden children of the above-mentioned deep-pocketed corporations

...they won't be able to flog American nationalism.

[Skip Intro]

20. stop making sense nt

[krispos42]

76. Sorry.

Um.... Ron Paul was secretly born in New Zealand, and he's a closet Hindu.


Shhh... don't tell anybody. I haven't gotten the original stone tablets yet.

[Ikonoklast]

79. Looks like MakingSense *was* stopped.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=278382&sub=trans

Really fooled everyone here, though.

These guys all use the same line of attack, and are all so transparent you can read Agate Type obituaries through them.

[Faux pas]

21. Because he says what they are thinking?

[MakingSense]

23. It's actually quite simple

the republican establishment shares one thing in common with us. They view the federal government as a legitimate tool for social engineering. We disagree on the desired outcome but that is the general stance. Paul does not hold this view and thus he is a threat to their desire to reengineer society toward their goals using the federal government.

[ellisonz]

25. I would say that Paul is more of a...

...social de-engineer - he doesn't just want to stop, he wants to take it back to pre-1861. What he proposes is essentially anarchy and completely contrary to the Federal Constitution.

[MakingSense]

27. I am not a supporter of his

but based on his voting record and campaign you are entirely wrong. He wants to take the federal government back to its limitations as written, there is nothing in anything he has said or done that suggests he wants to de-engineer' society. For good or bad, he wants each indvidual to make those choices for themselves.

We of course can come up with reasons all day long why this is a bad idea, but lets be honest with ourselves. There is nothing about Paul's libertiarian ideals that suggest anarchy. Libertarians support a legal authority, they do however want that authority to be minimized to purely its neccessary roles and no more because they are afriad of what such a power could do if allowed to grow on its own accord. That is not even close to the same thing as anarchy.

Understanding the libertarian view on the Constitution and as such Ron Paul's view is actual quite simple. Pick up your mortgage contract and start reading it. Is there anywhere in there that you want to allow ambiguity so that the mortgage company can have the flexability to change the agreement so as to accomplish what they view as priorities? Most of us would say no; we would want the contract to be upheld exactly as written with no reinterpretaion allowed by the mortgage company. Well that is exactly how libertiarians and Ron Paul view the Constituation as a purely legal document to be read and adhered to literally with no room for interpretation only allowing changes to the meaning to occur through the methods defined in the text. Unfortunately that method leaves us in a bind when the Constitution gets in the way of progress and must either be changed or ignored and quite frankly changing it is too difficult to justify the cost of effort.

[moriah]

29. I thought this thread was about why Republicans hated Ron Paul, not about why Libertarians love him?

Fuck Ron Paul.

[ellisonz]

32. Agreed.

Feel free to quote freely from below

"The truth is, that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation. The misfortune under the latter system has been, that these principles are so feeble and confined as to justify all the charges of inefficiency which have been urged against it, and to require a degree of enlargement which gives to the new system the aspect of an entire transformation of the old."

James Madison, Federalist #40.

Fuck Ron Paul.

[MakingSense]

54. Its the same thing

establishment republicans are afraid of him because he actual wants to do the things that republicans run their elections on with no intention on following through because they want to use the power of government to further their agenda not give it up. They are afraid that if he became a major player the people might start buying into his minimalist government ideals. Thus, why the republicans hate him and why the libertarians love him are the same thing.

[ellisonz]

31. I completely understand Ron Paul's world-view.

And I disagree with it vehemently - the philosophical difference between his views of "State's Rights" and those of the Confederacy are negligible.

"de-engineer' society. For good or bad, he wants each indvidual to make those choices for themselves."

You just made my point - Ron Paul's idea of society is no real civil society at all. If you get sick, better hope for charity, because government isn't going to help you. Fuck Ron Paul.

"Well that is exactly how libertiarians and Ron Paul view the Constituation as a purely legal document to be read and adhered to literally with no room for interpretation only allowing changes to the meaning to occur through the methods defined in the text."

Ron Paul and friends are misreading the Constitution. The Founders are quite clear about how the Constitution is to be interpreted in the Preamble, in the Three Main Articles, and in the Bill of Rights and especially the 9th and 10th Amendments. I find their entire argument about the Constitution being a "legal document" to be complete sophistry. The Founders fully intended the Constitution to be a pro-active and living social contract in declaring: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - When the Constitution is interpreted to be going against those general principles, and there is a clear conflict with the specific language, then yes, it is is restrictive, but otherwise all Three Branches of Government are given very expansive powers. This is why there is a system of checks and balances.

|| Federalist No. 40 ||

The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
From the New York Packet.
Friday, January 18, 1788.

Author: James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

-------

From the Second Paragraph:

In some instances, as has been shown, the powers of the new government will act on the States in their collective characters. In some instances, also, those of the existing government act immediately on individuals. In cases of capture; of piracy; of the post office; of coins, weights, and measures; of trade with the Indians; of claims under grants of land by different States; and, above all, in the case of trials by courts-marshal in the army and navy, by which death may be inflicted without the intervention of a jury, or even of a civil magistrate; in all these cases the powers of the Confederation operate immediately on the persons and interests of individual citizens. Do these fundamental principles require, particularly, that no tax should be levied without the intermediate agency of the States? The Confederation itself authorizes a direct tax, to a certain extent, on the post office. The power of coinage has been so construed by Congress as to levy a tribute immediately from that source also. But pretermitting these instances, was it not an acknowledged object of the convention and the universal expectation of the people, that the regulation of trade should be submitted to the general government in such a form as would render it an immediate source of general revenue? Had not Congress repeatedly recommended this measure as not inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Confederation? Had not every State but one; had not New York herself, so far complied with the plan of Congress as to recognize the PRINCIPLE of the innovation? Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction. The truth is, that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation. The misfortune under the latter system has been, that these principles are so feeble and confined as to justify all the charges of inefficiency which have been urged against it, and to require a degree of enlargement which gives to the new system the aspect of an entire transformation of the old. In one particular it is admitted that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission. Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation OF THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL THE STATES, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed by the PEOPLE, and may be carried into effect by NINE STATES ONLY. It is worthy of remark that this objection, though the most plausible, has been the least urged in the publications which have swarmed against the convention. The forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve States to the perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth; from the example of inflexible opposition given by a MAJORITY of one sixtieth of the people of America to a measure approved and called for by the voice of twelve States, comprising fifty-nine sixtieths of the people an example still fresh in the memory and indignation of every citizen who has felt for the wounded honor and prosperity of his country. As this objection, therefore, has been in a manner waived by those who have criticised the powers of the convention, I dismiss it without further observation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_40.html

Ron Paul's view is an anarchy and one that was clearly rejected by James Madison, the principle author of the Constitution, as being a valid interpretation. The 10th Amendment does not trump the remainder of the Constitution, just as the Second Amendment doesn't negate the Ninth Amendment. The Constitution does not strangle itself with a judgment that there is "no room for interpretation," that all interpretation must be done through the amendment process, if this was the case we would have stuck to the Articles of Confederation!

Ron Paul is entitled to his own beliefs, but he is not entitled to his own facts. The Constitution very clearly is intended to be an expansive, living document; I have no tolerance for the acceptability of such dissents.

[MakingSense]

55. Preaching to the choir

my point was to illustrate how he and those who share his ideology view the document. Understanding that is critical to understanding why he takes the positions that he takes.

[Frosty1]

61. Excellent OP on why Ron Paul is wrong!

[LanternWaste]

48. I believe his position on curtailing/reducing/eliminating federal civil rights laws is

"there is nothing in anything he has said or done that suggests he wants to de-engineer' society...."

I believe his position on curtailing/reducing/eliminating federal civil rights laws is, by definition, de-engineering.

[MakingSense]

56. I can see where you are going with that

but that wouldn't be strictly true. Any form of engineering of a system to achive an outcome requires taking action to adjust the system. What he is talking about is taking all the controls off the system and letting the system go where the decision making units within the system choose to take it.


Again, we can discuss all day how this is a bad idea.

[LanternWaste]

73. Removing an action is in and of itself,

Removing an action is in and of itself, an action with its own set of consequences.

[Ikonoklast]

59. Fuck Ron Paul and Fuck Libertarian Apologists.

Libertarians would a support a benign dictatorship just as long as *they* still got to do whatever they wanted.

Libertarians wouldn't care if the dictator oppresses people that have differing views, just as long as *they* are left alone, everything is peachy.

[MakingSense]

60. Just curious

are we talking about dictatorships abroad or at home? If you are talking about abroad then while I agree that libertarians would allow them to go on; I have to wonder how different that position is from the anti-war/anti-hegemony positions on our side of the isle. If you are talking about a dictatorship at home, then I think you are wrong on that one. Libertarians would be at the front lines with us fighting that kind of monster even if it were not directly effecting them at the time. The entire basis of their ideology is one paranoia not of what is nesseccessarly happening today but what may happen down the road if those in power are not kept in check.

As for Ron Paul, I think this is an area where he somewhat deviates from the libertarian ideals. He has made it clear many times that while he may not support certain military efforts, the real issue he has is procedural in that we go to war without actually declaring war. There isn't a lot we can agree with him on, but I think this is one where we should. If the situation is worthy of our involvement then the politicans need to fully commit to the effort.

[Ikonoklast]

70. Libertarians are basically apologists for human greed and selfishness.

If they can have a 'Strong Man' government that doesn't intrude on their selfish little insular world, they wouldn't give two shits about what happens to anyone else.

Their Rights are paramount to anyone else's, don't kid yourself that Libertarians would be out in the streets over over-reaching corporations stepping on *your* neck.

If it doesn't affect them, so what?

And as far as Paul 'deviating from the libertarian ideals', he is only a libertarian when it comes to those things that affect him personally, he has no problem with governmental interference in those matters that affect others.


Paul is a Republican, right down to the soles of his shoes.

His Libertarian claptrap attracts supporters with money, and true believers who are willing to work for him for free.

He is just as much a panderer as any other politician on the Right to the fringe when it comes to $$$$.

[LanternWaste]

75. the precise same arguments were used by the GOP in the 1930's

"The entire basis of their ideology is one..."

What specifically leads you to this conclusion re: a collective and homogenous ideology at the root of this direction of power projection?

As the precise same arguments were used by the GOP in the 1930's, yet merely called Isolationism (Neutrality Acts, The biased report of the Nye Committee, strong attempts to pass the Ludlow Amendment, etc).

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. He has one attribute that drives them

crazy, as well as most politicians outside the republican party. He might be crazy, but he is consistently crazee.

I gotta respect that about Paul, even if I disagree with him most of the time.

[unionworks]

28. FUCK RON PAUL n/t

[joshcryer]

30. +1

[Betty Karlson]

34. Paul is (here comes a list)

old-time conservative for limited state, so the overbearing social-conservative GOPers find him opposed to their ideal of peeking into your bedroom.

strict constitutionalist, hence opposed to hawkish empire-building (like the neo-conservatives want)

not afraid to speak his mind, so he makes the base more unruly than the GOP establishment wants them to be

smart (half the GOP voters prefer minds like Bush, Bachman, O'Donnell, Gingrich)

rich (meaning he can't be bribed)


The combination is downright frustrating for many Republicans

[blindpig]

36. Paul's isolationism is contrary to imperialism.

Imperialism is a necessary to late stage capitalism. Mainstream Democrats and Republicans agree on that.

[TBF]

37. That's the answer.

Any threat to the establishment will be destroyed - Paul is a threat.

[karynnj]

38. The best way to think about it is to think of Joe Lieberman circa 2003

While Paul is a conservative, a libertarian and a Republican, there is one major area where he is very far from where the rest of the party is. His foreign policy is at least as far from the mainstream Republican standard as Joe Lieberman's positions on the wars was versus Democrats. Obviously, you have seen negative posts on Lieberman.

In Paul's case, he is also out of sink on many economic and social issues.

Not to mention - saying the Republican establishment is in a tizzy over him is complete overstatement. What happened is as he became one of the frontrunners, they started to look at his past. Don't you think the racist newsletters would have surfaced if Gingrich, Cain, Romney or even Bachmann (who was never the likely candidate.) had their name on them? His vetting was no more extreme than anyone else's.

As to people horrified at the idea that he could be the standard bearer, imagine there had been a Lieberman faction of the Democratic party and in 2004 or 2008 (when he did not in real life run) big enough that in a fractured vote was the frontrunner. Imagine the horror here in DU. I know I would feel my party was hijacked. Now consider that Lieberman is more mainstream Democrat than Paul is mainstream Republican. I suspect the reason both you and your friend seem to find his treatment harsh is that you like him better than the Republican alternatives.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

39. He's probably the "sorest loser" in the bunch

He's the one most likely to run a third-party campaign when he fails to get the repub nomination.

That would put a stake in the heart of repub hopes for 2012.

They need to crush him so bad that he won't think about running.

[ProSense]

40. It must be

"What is it about Ron Paul that turns the entire repub establishment against him?"

...because he pretty much agrees with them on everything

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002111290

[boston bean]

43. the good christians want the end times

and pauls stance on not giving israel $$ to expedite armageddon has them all in a tizzy.

[Odin2005]

44. The Elites like their Corporate Welfare.

[NorthCarolina]

45. Easy, he's anti-war. nt

[madokie]

49. could it be because he's a racist, bigoted bastard

Oh I forgot that is what the pukes all are, racist bigoted bastards so that can't be it so I guess I don't know the answer

[sinkingfeeling]

50. Because he's not a 'true' Republican, but a Libertarian? Because he doesn't want

to give every single tax dollar to the military?

[JustAnotherGen]

51. Because

He shows us 'who' a Republican REALLY is . . .

And we believe him.

He doesn't keep their dirty little secrets.

[mmonk]

52. War and security issues.

Republicans typically love the idea of the security state and always support war and increased military spending.

[frazzled]

62. He's crazy and unelectable?

He's a right-wing Libertarian, so not a "true" (whatever that is) Republican.

[Eliminator]

63. Because he can't EVER WIN

It's all about WINNING for the Republicans. And they know he would never, ever, win a general election, ever. Believe me, if Ron Paul had the capability of winning, the Republicans would back him in a heartbeat, no matter how crazy he is.

[NoGOPZone]

64. He's more unelectable than Goldwater was.

In 2008 the Republicans took their worst beating in a Presidential election since 1964. If Paul is their candidate it'll be even worse than that.

[Norrin Radd]

66. Many Republican voters suddenly all became Libertarians when W

W became too embarrassing for even them. Add to that the usual Randian dupes and kids reaching voting age raised by conservatives looking for a cul--I mean, identity.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

68. Paul is operating a Party within the Party. In addition to the basic clash over ideology,

he doesn't bring anything to the table for the GOP. In many respects it's a cult of personality. The danger to the Republican Party is if he "goes rogue", launching a third Party candidacy that would drain support that would otherwise vote Republican. The GOP has some major headaches.

[LeftishBrit]

69. Probably that he's not a party loyalist. Ranging from his anti-war stance, to his poaching another

candidate's campaign staff members.

I hope they'lll ALL be at each other's throats soon.

They are ALL monsters of pure evil, and Paul is in many ways worse than most; e.g. his hatred of social safety nets

'Now I know Paul has been attacked here as well. But this is a Dem forum, and I expect that.'

Paul should be attacked everywhere! He is evil personified.

As of course are Newt, Bachmann, Perry, Romney (through self-interest if perhaps not through ideology to the same extent), Santorum, and any other right-winger whom I've missed out.

[randome]

71. He's ugly.

Inside and out.

[JackRiddler]

81. As opposed to whoever the Republicans will ultimately nominate?

[LanternWaste]

72. think the fact that he is not a part an parcel of the party apparatus...

I think the fact that he is not a part an parcel of the party apparatus (e.g., arguing for Letters of Marque rather than invasion in 2001, and criticizing neoconservatism and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and voting against (only one of four Repubs voting against) the GOP-led initiative 'Path to Prosperity') as a whole is strike one.

His lack of support (translated by the establishment as naivete) for securing America's overseas interests are strike two.

And his desire to eliminate legal tender laws, his Chicken Little routine re: hyperinflation, and his stance on Church/state separation are all anathema to the Republican apparatchik-- strike three.

Iowa's over and so is his surge into third place. From here on, it will be little more than diminishing returns.

[JackRiddler]

80. You can be certain it is not the racism, or the extreme Manchester capitalism...

as these are within the Republican mainstream. Other Republican candidates are just as bad on these scores. It's impossible to claim Paul is less racist than Gingrich or Santorum or Bachmann, and the truth is Mittens is just more sophisticated in not looking the part as he caters to the same racist base. Since 1968, a conscious appeal to racism has been central to all Republican campaigns. For this reason I wouldn't vote for any of them, including Paul.

Nevertheless, why does Paul enrage "mainstream" Republicans?

Paul says he wants to end the empire, legalize drugs, roll back the war-on-terror police state (even if he'd support state-based police states) and end the Federal Reserve (piggy bank to Wall Street).

These positions do not only enrage Republicans who otherwise have no problems with Paul's right-wing extremism. They also enrage many Democratic "liberals" who have joined in the bipartisan support for empire and war, for drug war, for the PATRIOT Act and other measures violating the Bill of Rights, and for rescuing the bankster regime with Fed bailouts and thus allowing the worst criminals to continue running the financial sector.

Above all, the bipartisan consensus not to question the permanent-warfare state is being upstaged by a right-wing maniac. That harms the self-image of the self-declared liberals who believe they are peaceful people (nothing like those armed yahoos from rural Texas!) and yet have supported wars and "humanitarian intervention."