Earlier this week, Drew posted his thoughts about Ron Paul allegedly not being allowed to speak at the Minnesota Republican Convention. After reading his post, I’ve got a couple things that I’ve got to respond to:

Rumor has it that the powers that be in our beloved party will not allow Congressman Paul to speak at the convention. Is it just me? Or is this cause for pause? Is it possible that leaders of the party of Abraham Lincoln (a rather odd duck in his own right) feel it is their province to deny the delegation a chance to hear for themselves what this grassroots phenom is all about? Who do they think Ron Paul is, Sue Jeffers?

Frankly, Ron Paul shouldn’t be allowed within the walls of the convention. He’s far outside the mainstream of the conservative movement on foreign policy. State and national conventions are times when political parties try painting the most positive image possible. That isn’t possible if Ron Paul speaks at the Convention because he’d be the only story that the media would cover.

As a delegate to that convention I would like to hear Congressman Paul speak. I would also like to see the rest of those courageous folks speak, who threw their hats in the ring, and have since either dropped out or suspended their campaigns. That includes Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Alan Keyes and, of course, the presumptive GOP nominee John McCain. We should at least invite them all.

Having Alan Keyes speak at this year’s convention would be a bigger disaster than having Paul speak. Both men are utterly incoherent and angry sounding. They’d turn more voters off than they’d pull in. In other words, they’d defeat the purpose of the convention. Having them speak would be a bigger disaster than having Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson speak at the 1992 Republican National Convention.

It’s one thing to welcome Paul supporters to join in the fight against big government. It’s another to let certifiable lunatics like Alan Keyes and Ron Paul speak at the state convention.

I will continue to welcome new faces and fresh blood to our embattled party. I have neither supported nor resisted the incredible Ron Paul movement that has threatened to revitalize the republican party this year. But the more those in high places resist the mere thought of Ron Paul, the more I want to hear him out.

I’ve heard Ron Paul in the debates. His ideas are incoherent. During a New Hampshire debate, he said that we could afford health care for everyone if we weren’t paying for the Iraq War. Fred Thompson jumped all over that. Here’s what he said to Paul:

“So you’re saying if we stopped printing more money, we could get out of Iraq and give everybody health care”?

Ron Paul talks about fiscal conservatism and federalism but then he whines about us not having national health care because we’re “fighting a trillion dollar war”. How can I take him seriously after that? If you want to “hear him out”, go watch his YouTube videos.

Personally, I’ve heard three lifetimes full of Ron Paul. That’s about three lifetimes too many.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Taking Issue With Drew”

  • Bill says:

    This is what stood out to me the most, as a paraphrase, of course:

    “It’s one thing to welcome Paul supporters — that is, their money and their votes — to join in our so-called “fight against big government” (that is, the way we pretend to be against big government so these guys will vote for us, then do just the opposite once we’re in power). It’s another to actually let Ron Paul, the man who brought in about a million new Republican voters and donors, speak at the national convention, or anywhere else. That might actually RESULT in smaller government, and we can’t have that!”

    Thanks, but no thanks. We’ll just take the party back now, just like we did in 1960-64. Get a backbone, will ya?

  • Gary Gross says:

    Bill, I’m for limited government. I just don’t particularly care for the lunatic that’s leading the movement.

    BTW, that paraphrase is badly wrong. Stop attributing motives to me that don’t exist.

  • Walter hanson says:


    The reason why Ron Paul took off is because he wants us out of Iraq faster than the Democrat Left. In this case Ron Paul is a liberal Democrat. He isn’t a Republican. Furthermore if you really want to “Fight against big government” than John Mccain the standard bearer this year has done far more in that regard than Ron Paul.

    Gary is right that if Paul speaks he will be the news. Not Norm giving a speech accepting the nomination. Not the platform discussion which shows what the Republicans stand for.

    You’re just supporting a man not the party.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • Walter and Gary….

    Yes it is true that there are a lot of anti-war lefties who flocked to Congressman Paul because of his stance on the war, but if you look at the over-all record, his followers do have a point about some of his policies. HOWEVER (before you get too puffed up Bill) where I break ranks from Congressman Paul is how hypocritical he is on earmarks. Oh sure – he says that he has never voted for a bill containing earmarks – that is a true statement. What is EQUALLY TRUE is that Congressman Paul has been just as guilty of ASKING FOR EARMARKS as every other porker in DC.

    Until the day that Congressman Paul eschews earmarks COMPLETELY (as Congressman Kline and Congresswoman Bachmann have done) he has NO small government bona fides.


Leave a Reply