TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
American Spectator Goes Bonkers in an Attack on Ron Paul
American Spectator's David Catron is simply over the top on this one. Twisting facts in a manner that would make Baghdad Bob proud. Catron writes that Ron Paul is a " slippery Beltway operator."
That "Ron Paul is a fraud of the first order." That Ron Paul's "pattern of hypocrisy is by no means limited to party loyalty."
So why does Catron call Dr. Paul a "slippery Beltway operator" and a "fraud of the first order"? Because: "The sordid reality is that his loyalty to Ronald Reagan lasted only so long as it was politically expedient ."
Is Catron serious? Is this how desperate the Ron Paul haters are getting that a move that is obviously made on principle is called "politically expedient." Read Ron Paul's letterabout Ronald Reagan and why he briefly left the Republican Party. Does that sound like a political Beltway operator? Ron Paul leaving the Republican Party, when the Party was in power, and when it could have been very easy for Dr. Paul to cozy up to Ronald Reagan, is the last thing that should be labeled "politically expedient." I
As for Catron's charge that Ron Paul "has frequently supported....government intervention." Catron provides this absurd evidence:
Catron then closes with an attack on Ron Paul's use of earmarks. Dr. Paul has eloquently explained that his use of earmarks does not increase spending, that the funds would otherwise be used unconstitutionally by the executive branch.
But, hey David, if you think Ron Paul is such an unprincipled politician, who exactly would you match up against Ron Paul as an example of a more principled politician? With your clear revulsion at the thought Ron Paul, you must see more principled politicians walking all around Washington D.C., but David just name me one.
That "Ron Paul is a fraud of the first order." That Ron Paul's "pattern of hypocrisy is by no means limited to party loyalty."
So why does Catron call Dr. Paul a "slippery Beltway operator" and a "fraud of the first order"? Because: "The sordid reality is that his loyalty to Ronald Reagan lasted only so long as it was politically expedient ."
Is Catron serious? Is this how desperate the Ron Paul haters are getting that a move that is obviously made on principle is called "politically expedient." Read Ron Paul's letterabout Ronald Reagan and why he briefly left the Republican Party. Does that sound like a political Beltway operator? Ron Paul leaving the Republican Party, when the Party was in power, and when it could have been very easy for Dr. Paul to cozy up to Ronald Reagan, is the last thing that should be labeled "politically expedient." I
As for Catron's charge that Ron Paul "has frequently supported....government intervention." Catron provides this absurd evidence:
[Ron Paul] ...voted for [a] price-fixing scheme that every libertarian worthy of the name has denounced -- reimportation of pharmaceuticals from foreign countries with rigid price-control regimens. This, as Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute has pointed out, "would import foreign price controls on drugs."Clearly, Ron Paul was simply voting based on free trade and the fact that the U.S. should stay out of the business of foreign countries. Should we ban imports from any country that implement economic controls? OPEC sets oil supply quotas. Should we ban OPEC oil from the U.S.?
Catron then closes with an attack on Ron Paul's use of earmarks. Dr. Paul has eloquently explained that his use of earmarks does not increase spending, that the funds would otherwise be used unconstitutionally by the executive branch.
But, hey David, if you think Ron Paul is such an unprincipled politician, who exactly would you match up against Ron Paul as an example of a more principled politician? With your clear revulsion at the thought Ron Paul, you must see more principled politicians walking all around Washington D.C., but David just name me one.
Posts
