Ron Paul
Ron Paul needs to be vetted. Funny that the "mainstream" media isn't bothering.
Well, some of us are doing that job for them.
Story here.
After FDR died, the new president, Truman, kept Wallace as secretary of commerce. With the war over, however, Wallace found himself in a tough spot. Troubled by the onset of the Cold War, he was driven to speak out on September 1946, and denounce the new threat to world peace: that is, the threat posed by America and Truman to that amiable peacenik Joe Stalin. Shortly thereafter, Wallace was removed from his position.
Importantly, Wallace was far from finished. Like Ron Paul, Wallace steadily denounced American foreign policy, as pursued by both Democrats and Republicans—and he pursued the presidency.
Like Ron Paul, Wallace would not let those World War III seeking “Imperialists” working in the interests of “British Colonialism” get off easy. (For Paul today, replace the words “Imperialists” with “Neo-cons” and “British Colonialism” with “Israel.”) And when Stalin would do something unpleasant, such as take over Czechoslovakia in February of 1948, Wallace would explain that it was Truman’s fault. Wallace blamed America first, in spite of the blatantly aggressive actions of an obvious external enemy.
(...)
If it isn’t obvious by now, what had happened was that Wallace had been duped, and much to most of his party was controlled or influenced by the Communist Party. It took Wallace two more years after suffering a humiliating defeat in that election, and watching as the so-called Progressive Party backed the communists against American troops in Korea, for him to realize what was going on, whereby he denounced his own party and resigned.
Ron Paul may very well be a latter-day Henry Wallace.
So is he worth the risk?
Pick someone else to carry the Republican nomination for President. Not some arrogant, cranky appeasenik.
C'mon... drink the kool-aid!
1 comment:
I have long argued with friends and acquaintances that libertarians and conservatives have much in common but there are some real differences as well. Foreign policy is probably the best example and the difference helps explain libertarianism's lack of electoral success in America over the years. I think the libertarians are wrong about a lot of things but I have to admire their ideological consistency in demanding the least intrusive government possible in both domestic and foereign affairs.
I'm a little curious about the attention Paul draws from conservatives given the unliklihood of Paul winning the Republican nomination. I can't decide if Paul's detractors overestimate his chances of success or whether they're simply happiest when identifying threats to their world view.
Post a Comment