Far from Conveying Freedom, His Group Gives a Whiff of Decadent Self-Indulgence
Appalling.For one with a long history of conservative Republican political participation…and mine goes back to the 1952 presidential campaign of Robert Taft…the rally Saturday afternoon at the Hyatt-Regency hotel celebrating Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) could not have been a greater shock. Taft, son of the 27th president, was constitutionally (and this word is used advisably) unable to demagogue. His message of hoped-for return to the policies of the past did not contain many personal incentives. In place of entitlements he advocated work, instead of farm subsidies he emphasized the free market. He accepted Social Security and few other accoutrements of the corporate state but not many. He opposed expansion of the size of government, soaking the rich, a multiplicity of federal alphabetical agencies that robbed personal initiative.. He preached the hard lessons of fiscal rectitude. Most particularly in foreign policy in believed in the enlightened self-interest of America First.
His speeches were laced with statistics and legal scholarship which made his audiences apply the hard work of speculative reason. Thus his prescriptions were not simple nor applicable to a stick-on bumper sticker. On foreign policy, for instance, his “magnum opus” was a 127-page book he wrote in 1951 as a prelude to his entering the race for the presidency. It was called “A Foreign Policy for Americans.” In the book he stated in Chapter One that “I believe the ultimate purpose of our foreign policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of the United States…Only second to liberty is the maintenance of peace”. P. 11. He stated that the tradition of “neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war” p. 12.
But he added, “I have always felt, however, that we should depart from this principle if we could set up an effective international organization because in the long run the success of such an organization should be the most effective assurance of world peace and therefore of American peace. I regretted that we did not join the League of Nations” p. 12–13. But the UN had failed to protect the peace. He added, “I was never satisfied with the United Nations Charter and stated my criticism definitely at the time. The fundamental difficulty is that it is not based primarily on an underlying law and an administration of justice under that law. I believe that in the long run the only way to establish peace is to write a law, agreed to by each of the nations, to govern the relations of such nations with each other and to obtain the covenant of all such nations that they will abide by that law and decisions made there-under” p. 39.
By the time you finished the book you were filled in completely on the complex thought that Taft had given to international affairs. He rejected the manipulation by which FDR maneuvered us into World War II. Whether Pearl Harbor came as result of presidential manipulation or incompetence he did not offer an opinion—but he stated that once involved in the war he supported the winning of it in the shortest possible time.
With respect to the Korean War which was being waged at the time he wrote the book, he insisted that the action of President Truman was unconstitutional. “…[I]n the case of Korea where a war was already under way, we had no right to send troops to a nation with whom we had no treaty, to defend it against attack by another nation, no matter how unprincipled that aggression might be, unless the whole matter was submitted to Congress and a declaration of war or some other direct authority obtained.” But in the case of Korea, he pledged to win the war if feasible or settle it on honorable terms.
Likewise, he recognized the Communist threat and urged that the U.S. concentrate on turning it back—specifying air power rather than massive enlistment of men. P. 75. But, “while defense of this country is our first consideration, I do not agree with those who think we can completely abandon the rest of the world and rely solely upon defense of this continent. In fact, the very thesis of an effective control of sea and air by the free nations requires that we do interest ourselves in Europe and the Near East and North Africa and the Far East so that Communist influence may not extend to areas from which it is still possible to exclude it by many methods other than land armies.” Pp. 77–78.
However, he questioned and voted against the North Atlantic Treaty and NATO. While the president had the right to send troops to Europe, NATO was a different matter, the creation of “an international army, apparently established by twelve nations, with a commander who is appointed by the twelve nations.” He added: “It seems to me perfectly clear that the president’s power as commander-in-chief does not extend to the delegation of that power to a commander who is chosen by any other nation or any other group of nations” (p34).
When Truman appointed General Dwight Eisenhower as supreme commander, “he exceeded his authority” p. 35. “When the president undertook to carry out that recommendation he usurped the powers of Congress. He had no authority to carry out that particular agreement made at Brussels without submitting it to Congress” p.35.
Why do I go into this ancient history? Because the role of Sen. Taft was and is at great variance with that of Rep. Ron Paul whose demagogic phraseology appeals not to conservatives—but, apparently if Saturday’s meeting was any indication—to a sweaty group of boisterous, screaming, jumping up and down in place, obese youth (obviously from hours spent huddled before computers), shaggy, unkempt, hirsute, noisy, obstreperous, rambunctious and raucous. And that’s before we consider the male contingent.
Why the great interest in this element of youth for a 72-year-old man who, were he to be improbably elected, would be easily the oldest president at 73 and 77 when he would complete his first term? A candidate who touts congressional term limits but who has served nine terms already and under unique Texas law will be running for reelection while he runs for president either as a Republican or nominee of the Libertarian party?
The answer is clear. The message that this candidate brings in one of self-indulgence, ideally suited for the mob he addressed. He preaches peace now and the bringing of troops home as soon as possible—which appeals to the special interest of the group which would disdain military service as inconvenient to its proclivities. He favors abolishing the income tax which attracts the group’s interest in self-enrichment. He distributes a palm card that states a curious objective—“legalize freedom.” Legalize freedom? What does that mean? It’s obvious what it means: code for legalizing drugs which the Congressman before some selective groups advocates but which he decorously did not bring up at this meeting. But “legalize freedom” was the catchword. Every one of the pleasure bunnies in the meeting caught on.
It is the promise of self-indulgence and rather than a conservative campaign is a sop to decadence. Intriguingly enough he is on record as favoring an end to abortion—but he didn’t bring up the issue at that meeting where the youths’ hormones were raging. In place of a scholarly talk of foreign relations as was the case with Robert Taft, there was this bit of doggerel nonsense: the clear implication that we invite attacks on us by being involved on any side in the Middle East…code for support of Israel.
Another subject that never was brought up by the candidate was immigration. He has been identified with two contradictory positions on that issue in the past…one which has supported minimum control of the borders consonant with libertarianism…another which supports wholesale crack-down and the building of a fence. Someone looked over the crowd and possibly decided neither approach would be acceptable to factions of the exuberant and viscerally feeling…not thinking…crowd—so no mention was made.
There was the statement that we should withdraw from the United Nations. Fine: I for one see no need for it—but were we not entitled to a reasoned explanation as to the many reasons why? Just a bumper-sticker shout which was returned by a raucous rejoinder.
Then there came the most outrageous so-called “historical” comparison of all. The candidate said that John F. Kennedy was wise to negotiate with Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis and to agree that in exchange for Soviet missiles being withdrawn from Cuba, U. S. missiles would be withdrawn from Turkey. This was greeted by wild applause as the candidate urged this prescription to be used in our dealings with Muslim extremists. Does he or the group believe that Islamic extremists are the same kind of men that ruled the Soviet Union…men who feared nuclear destruction just as did we? Is he serious in equating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, with our past adversaries in the Cold War? Converts from Islam to Christianity must live in fear—even in the United States. Does he not understand that to a Islamo-Fascist death, often by self-detonation and death to children by detonation is to be rewarded in heaven? Views in American politics have only one equal—the insensate ranting of the Far Left, of The Daily Kos to which the Paul campaign seems uniquely suited.
But even the Daily Kos would refrain from the valedictory Paul gave the crowd: “We have been told that we have to give up our freedoms in order to be safe because terrorism is such a horrible event. A lot fewer lives died on 9/11 than they do in less than a month on our highways—but once again, who owns the highways? Do we own the highways? No, it’s a government institution, you know.” This implies that if the highways were run privately the death toll would be lower. Really? In a Ron Paul world where likely there would be no enforced speed limits?
Appealing.You can say all you want about Hitler…monomaniac, racist, genocidal tyrant…but he and his people could really run a rally. From the Munich beer hall putsch through to the end of his regime he was unexcelled. Let me say the manipulation of an already excitable, juvenile, impressionable and deliriously passionate youth audience by the Ron Paul people was unexcelled—at least among those I have observed in this country. Hitler’s meetings would involve people packed like sardines in a room that did not allow much area for expansion. That was the case here. The storm troopers would then lead a preparatory with a brief exultation by one not as articulate as the one who was to come later. That happened, too, although the deputy campaign manager and campaign managers were no slouches. Following the warm-up, Hitler’s people ran a documentary by Leni Riefenstahl, the blonde goddess who dramatized Hitler youth…who was in fact probably the greatest film documentarian at that time in the world. When the documentary…showing bronzed athletes swearing allegiance to the Fuhrer and wide-eyed young people marching joyously as far as the eye could see in perfect precision…a groundswell of music would conclude, lights would go up and someone would shout: “Heil Hitler!” and in he would come. The place would go delirious.
Leni Riefenstahl has gone to her reward and was not available—but in her place was an outstandingly produced video that featured Ron Paul saying only one sentence—this taken from the first Republican debate. “My name is Ron Paul and I am here to defend the Constitution of the United States!” Then the film’s half hour is devoted to panning crowds which are exactly like the crowd packed in the Hyatt-Regency auditorium: bearded, shaggy, pony-tailed, inarticulate, frenetic, unconcerned with ideas. The identification of those in the video with the crowd in the auditorium was perfect. The crowd was alternatively transfixed seeing almost identical representatives of themselves and, in effect, cheered themselves in a cacophony of the Imperial Self. Here was a crowd passionately wanting to have…”legalized freedom”…i. e. the freedom to smoke whatever it wished from marijuana to crack cocaine…pay no taxes…have no war…have no hassle…and not be bothered by restrictions. Were Riefenstahl around, she would have enthusiastically approved the video.
And when the video ended, a voice called out: “Ladies and gentlemen! Dr. R-o-n P-a-u-l !” And the orgy of self-indulgence exploded into an spasm of excitement. He moved into the room swiftly and a forest of hands arose in salutes and waves—you can make of that what you will.
Where Bob Taft spoke as a constitutional lawyer and fiscal scholar…one who had been to Versailles as an aide to Herbert Hoover the World War I food czar…spoke in masterly legal sentences…Ron Paul wasted no time with ramifications. Peace now…end the income tax…”legalize freedom” (we all know what that means, huh?)…don’t tax the Internet (there is a bill to apply postage to emails which is unlikely to even get a hearing much less pass—but it’s good red meat)…get out of the UN!...and “restore our Constitution” which to the crowd means only one thing—more freedom, much more freedom and not order, hell no! Not responsibility! Hell no! F-r-e-e-d-o-m which translated to it means license.
I list this under “Appealing” because I contrast it with the Taft rallies I attended and the Gene McCarthy it was brilliantly derived and entirely nutrition-free with no thought whatever beyond the sloganeering.
Finally, I wish to contrast this with the words Gene McCarthy made at a similar rally against the Vietnam War in Chicago which I attended…not as a follower but as one who knew McCarthy quite well. He began telling the crowd of youth in professorial style the difference between Vietnam and Korea. Unlike Vietnam, he said, “the war in Korea allowed us to make a quit e full moral commitment to the achievements of objectives.” Really exciting phrase, right? “I supported the war in Korea because it was a relatively clear case of aggression against a nation willing to defend itself with the support of the U. S. and other members of the United Nations.” Notice that he was far more in support of Korea than was Bob Taft.
This much I can say: if the Republicans lose the next presidential election…and gamblers’ odds are 80 to 20 it will…there will be a revolution of sorts to reestablish old principles to the party which it sadly forgot….principles of thrift…continuation of tax cuts…deregulation…and true libertarians as well as social conservatives will have says in the reformulation. Let us hope that the reformulation if it is to come following a presidential loss…will be in the mode of Robert A. Taft and not Ron Paul.
Else the Republican party, echoing the New Left, will be Left Out and go the way of the Whigs.
__________________-
Thomas F. Roeser is chairman of the editorial board of The Chicago Daily Observer.
More Ron Paul Here
http://www.cdobs.com/our-columns/a-wordwell-maybe-more-than-a-wordin-defense-of-ron-paul/
Steve says:
Carrol Quigley stated in Tragedy and Hope that "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
That goal of the group that controls the Council on foreign Relations has been achieved. We are merely given the choice between puppet (D) and marionette (R) while the puppetmasters control both. You will never see a "non-approved" candidate given any positive media attention. You WILL see them attack in the media (of which they control 95%) any candidate which threatens their control or interests.
You are a symptom of that effort.
Why not attack the political whores who have so obviously sold the people out in favor of the special interests which finance political campaigns, control the media and own the military-indestrial complex - Obama, Hillary, McCain, Gouliani and Romney?
Ron Paul threatens them, which is why we, the people, support him.
Fitz says:
Dear Mr Roeser - pleas take You head out from You a** and listen, and look what IS GOING around.
Dr. Paul is last hope for America before it will fall to international monetary dictatorship where few have ALL and rest have nothing.
I grew up in then Soviet Union - my father was sent to Siberia and my family endured some other atrocities from that communist regime.
But now I look around and see the same persons (like mr Chertof - name means devil in russian) - running Russia to that dreadful state - are running America and ALL the signs are same only time is different...
Dan Kelley says:
Huey Long, Father Coughlin and Doctor Townsend were supposed to be the last hopes too.
We managed to survive without them.
This too will pass.
John Lambrechts says:
You refer to Ron Paul's speech as "demagogic phraseology". My Dad attended the rally and was skeptical at first because his kid was supporting him but he said, "this guy actually explains his stances and why he thinks the way he does". The reason he gets excitement is because he doesn't dance around the issues. He has a reason why he does he things the way he does, THE CONSTITUTION. And thanks for insulting EVERY female there, you are quite the gentlemen. You also called all the youth there obese. Look in the mirror (http://www.tomroeser.com). And too bad the catch word is "Hope For America".
Thanks for insulting the 1000+ in attendance, you ought to call yourself a journalist for that one.
Rick Fisk says:
Has anyone seen the author's picture? Who is he to call anyone obese?
Furthermore, if Ron Paul's and Robert Taft's foreign policy are so greatly at odds, why did he decide to smear Ron Paul and his supporters as Hitler-like rather than actually point out their differences?
Seems like it would have been a better use of the space here rather than allow it to be devoted to lies, smears and ad hominem.
John Delano says:
Comparing those that are promoting freedom to fascists whose goal was to take away freedom shows what perverted thinking Mr. Roeser has. Roeser obviously wants to use the state to shape people into his ideal.
Roeser's attack on Paul for not mentioning certain issues shows Roeser's lack of research. Paul has addressed these issues recently in other speeches. Time limits what he can talk about.
mike says:
Freedom from gov't interventions. He must've taken that page right from Hitler's book right?
Kevin Houston says:
If Thomas Roeser honestly thinks Ron Paul is manipulating _us_ he is a fool.
I have news flash for you. Ron Paul (nor his campaign) are running the show.
_We_ (his supporters) are the ones who:
+ Joined a meetup group.
+ Donated millions last Qtr
+ Donate more millions this Qtr.
+ Show up at straw polls.
+ vote in Faux Snooze's Debate.
There is no coordination. We are fully aware of Dr. Paul's position on abortion, med MJ, and everything else. Not only are we aware, but we approve.
Welcome to the ICE age, (Internet Changes Everything) and watch as the latest r[3VOl]ution in communication brings changes as profound as the printing press, or the television.
This is not age of 30 second sound bites. This is the age of in-depth research and full disclosure.
How can Mr. Roeser hold the view that we supporters spend all day & night in front of our computers, while at the same time he believes we are woefully ignorant of all the good Doctor's positions?
We've been to wikipedia, we've been on a thousand blogs where someone tries to paint Ron Paul as a Nazi. We've seen all the debates, and analysed them to death.
The neocons are not afraid that Ron Paul will get the nomination and lose - they are afraid he will win.
Mark my words, if Ron Paul wins the nomination, George Bush, Karl Rove, and all the other neocon traitors will endorse Hillary Clinton (or whatever democrat is nominated) just as they have endorsed Democrats against Ron Paul in his congressional races.
Later.
Chris says:
So you're equating a guy who believes in limited government, limited government power, federalism, and sticking to the letter of the Constitution of the Republic with Hitler.
This has to be one of the most pathetic, illogical, barely coherent rants I've read in a while.
I mean, you can call his belief in the Constitution quaint and unrealistic, if you like, given how routinely our leaders violate the letter and spirit of the document they swear to uphold, but to even bring up the fascist totalitarian Nazis in the same breath as that of a neo-Jeffersonian is absurd and dishonest, Sir.
Phil says:
Tell me true. How much did "they" pay you to write this tripe? One hopes they greased your pocket well, because you sure didn't enhance your credibility as a writer with this one.
Doug Ritter says:
Lew Rockwell sez:
"Our message is 'the State shouldn't run our lives and justify its own expansion based on fear and hysteria', and his take-away from that is 'isn't that just like the Nazis?' The utter befuddlement and naked contempt are jaw-dropping."
Rebecca says:
As freedom loving patriot and the sister of a solider in Iraq who supports Ron Paul, I demand an apology. You sir, are out of line. Would you like to know the real reason there is so much excitment about Ron Paul. It is because for the first time in my twenty three years in this country I have a politican that rejects govenment as the solution to life's everyday problems. I have a politcian that does not promise to do "good things" with my money, rather let me keep it and decide how best to spend it. How radical and Hitler-like! You should be ashamed of yourself and I hope you have trouble sleeping at night knowing you defend a system that would send my brother off to his death to fight a war based on lies.
Albert from Detroit says:
Now I know why so many newspapers are called 'rags.' What a sickening waste of words. Search for this man's picture. He is a bloated blob, most likely angry that he had a rough time moving through the mass of people to get to the line for Elephant Ears.
Jason B says:
From the first paragraph that mentions Ron Paul, it is clear that the author of this article simply does not like Ron Paul. The rest of it is equaly sad, a man who supports freedom and extreamly limited government is like Hitler because people at his rally are excited? Right.
Bob Shipp says:
This article by Mr. Roeser is an embarassment both to The Chicago Daily Observer and to its readers. It does not even rise to the level of well written propaganda, being both poorly researched and unconvincing.
Mr. Roeser, you may not be immediately aware of it, but you have just earned yourself the scorn of any remaining true journalists who work at your paper. When you notice the other writers glancing at you, realize that the expression on their faces is not admiration. It is puzzlement at how a person of your talent could reach a post of some distinction.
As for Dr. Paul's various political positions which you distain, please note that they are all - every single one - in strict conformity with the provisions of the US Constitution. If that somehow insults you, please visit Arlington National Cemetery. You may explain your views to the 300,000 patriots buried there. Please feel free to tell them why the Constitution which they died for is not, in your opinion, even worth keeping.
My God. Who would have thought that treason could become so banal?
james schroeder says:
This guy (Roeser) obviously doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
He thinks himself enlightened, but his inability to understand some very basic and simple concepts of liberty vis-a-vis the state show how profoundly unenlightened he truly is. Sadly though, he represents the ignorant mindset of millions Americans. His representation of opposition to the income tax as nothing more than a desire for self-enrichment -- as opposed to both liberty from, and a defunding of the ENORMOUS federal government... well, what can I say... he's clueless.
daveg says:
Mr. Roeser you are an embarrassment. You draw so many false analogies one can only conclude you are doing so on purpose.
You logic is “Hitler’s supporters were enthusiastic and so are Ron Paul's. There must be a connection!” Great logic, you buffoon!
You then insult people’s physical appearance. All I can say to that is you are a "small" man of poor character.
(BTW, all the RP supporters I have seen have been thin and relatively young).
And finally, you say people who want freedom are “self-interested.” I think you are very confused on this one.
It is the people who demand hand-outs from government who are self interested. And they do so at the expense of others and there work.
Kind of like you wanting to send American boys over to Iraq to die and spending 100s of other people’s money in the process. How "generous" of you to but others in harms way.
I think that is enough for starters.
Crawl back into your hole.
Robert Mayer says:
Wow, truly unbelievable. The first candidate to come along in many, many years unabashedly pushing a constitutionally limited government platform and this so-called "conservative" columnist compares him with Hitler! I'm speechless.
Dell says:
Mr. Roeser, self-described conservative, has exposed himself as a phony. To attack Ron Paul and his supporters so viciously indicates contempt for true conservatism. He should be prosecuted for character assassination for the Hitler/nazi comments published here. He might as well have compared Thomas Jefferson to Josef Stalin. Mr. Roeser, sir, you need to have your head examined.
Gene Trosper says:
Mr. Roeser, after reading your opinion piece, it's clear that perhaps you should start thinking about retirement. If you want to write baseless hit pieces, you should go work for one of Dr. Paul's opponents and stop pretending to be a journalist.
patricks says:
It's unfortunate that a crowd of enthusiastic Ron Paul supporters brings images of Hitler to your mind.
Could it be that Americans and young Americans at that, are excited about a politician? I know it may seem odd but perhaps we are at a tipping point in this country. Maybe enough of our precious constitutional rights have dissipated that we are actually getting excited about the restoration of freedom. Is it strange that the emergence of a politician with REAL integrity may ignite crowds?
I think your perception of the rally is misguided and that the freedom message (polar opposite the fascist message of Hitler) given by a great American is what powers the Ron Paul revolution!
Perhaps a sleeping giant has awakened.
Go Ron! Go!
Artur Oczko says:
Thank you for bringing me closer to a heart attack Mr. Roeser. You are a confused old man. Where do you start to respond to this? PLEASE PLEASE RETIRE AND TAKE REX GROSSMAN WITH YOU.
Edward Daniels says:
You're clearly well educated in history, and so therefore are just as clearly an idiot.
Chesley says:
Mr. Roeser,
As a life long, church going conservative, father of two, manager of a small business where I work about 60-70 hrs a week, I have to say you are way off base here. I am not the type of person that likes to get loud and in your face and do a lot of shouting so that no real conversation can occur. I speak on a daily basis to those I am around about why I support Ron Paul. But I will not condemn the exuberance displayed by my fellow RP supporters. An oft repeated phrase touted among conservatives is that the only thing necessary for evil to prosper is for good people to sit quietly and do nothing. The good people supporting Dr. Paul's campaign realize they can no longer sit quiet, as much as they may wish to. Your stereo-type of a Ron Paul supporter is somebody who would be loathe to leave the dull glare of the MAC in front of them, yet here they are, marching up and down streets, making signs, handing out flyers! How contradictory your statements are! I guarantee yo that Dr. Paul's supporters are not ignorant on his stances concerning abortion, immigration, or drug prohibition. Many of his supporters may not be in complete agreement with all of his stances. But they know that they are supporting a candidate that will actually do what he says he will do, and he has a 20 year record in congress to prove it. i think you would find a lot more mindless following in the camps of the other candidates running. To follow these others, you would have to ignore Giuliani's record on guns, Romney's record on abortion, Thompson's record on campaign finance laws (and abortion) McCain's backpedaling on immigration, Hillary's fence straddling on the war...the list goes on. Where do Dr. paul's supporters have to ignore his record?
This ridiculous article shows that somebody out there is actually scared! Our founding fathers knew that fear would always be the biggest enemy to freedom. Whether it comes from the left or the right, fear is used against us to take away our freedoms. The internet is facilitating a debunking of our fears and a surge towards freedom.
Dr. Paul is not picking his supporters, he is not trying to appeal to any voting block. There is no way that he could control the diversity of the crowd that he attracts, because they are attracted by the message of freedom. Other candidates attract voters by pitting them against each other, rich vs. poor, minority vs. non-minority, Christian vs. Muslim. Personally, I am sick of the lobbyists, special interest groups, warmongers and class warriors running this country. Aren't you?
Artur Oczko says:
By the way, they are not cheering the man, they are cheering the ideas. These fine supporters would turn on RP in an instant if he were to suddenly support having a federal reserve or if he decided he believed in foreign aid.
JR says:
The Hitler card? The Hitler card? A guy who wants to diminish the role of the state is Hitler?
Pulling the Hitler card is an admision of defeat.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you, then you win." Gandhi
Dave M says:
The message of freedom angers those who support the growth of the state - even those who call themselves "conservative."
Attacking the people at the rally for their appearance and excitement? The last resort of a dying breed.
How about you spend some time talking with these disgusting ogres to find out what they know about the problems we face today, Mr. "Journalist?"
Ask them about the harm done to their economy by a central bank. Ask them about foreign policy (of which you still seem to be your "Rudy Blinders.") Ask them about health care...
Then go to another politicians rally and ask them the same questions.
Michael says:
I feel a lot more comfort knowing that a candidate like Ron Paul, who has no 'will to power' draws this sort of adulation than I would at seeing such directed towards a Bush or a Clinton or some other immoral demagogue.
Jeff says:
Wow! It is rather invidious that you resort to attacking the appearance of Ron Paul supporters.
Sam says:
Wow. Er...where did they dig up this hack. Freedom is popular, but it sure seems to scare the heck out of a certain class of, well I hate to call
this cretin a journalist, lets call him a writer. (Sorry if I insulted the writers out there.)
Kenneth Fichtner says:
Is this the work of a politically motivated hack or of the Chairman of the Editorial Board for the Observer? I can't quite tell. One would suppose that such amateur and obvious emotion attacks would only be put to paper by a hack with no skill at all in even the subtle use of manipulation, but lo and behold we see quite plainly that it is indeed this man (nothing seemingly gentle about him) named Thomas F. Roeser.
Curious this.
Henry Bahl says:
What a bunch of nonsense. Tom Roeser has a skewed view of current events that are flawed to say the least. And yes, setting a limit on road speed is stupid and will not have any relevant effect on accidents. Recently a town in Germany removed its traffic lights after a comprehensive study found, that by removing them, the roads actually became SAFER. This idiot also almost certainly believes that more gun control will result in less gun crime, despite study after study disproving that vary claim. Ultimately, Tom Roeser is typical in his misunderstanding of the world; he thinks that if the small group has just a little more control over the larger group, by threat of violence that is, everything would be better. Otherwise, the large group would digress into a populace of mass slaughter and egregious rights violations. For to him, the reason everything is so wonderful today is because of intense regulation and control, and things could only get better the less say you have over your own life. Eventually, in his dreams maybe even Tom himself guides us through the perfect existence, with of course, a gun to our heads.
Jared Held says:
Unless any of your elected public servants in washington, dc propose a constitutional amendment to remove gold or silver from our currency or propose legislation to return gold and silver to our currency they have all violated their Oath of Office.
Ron Paul is the only elected representative who honors his Oath of Office.
Chris S says:
Funny how fat tits here has the nerve to try and insult others by calling them "obese".
What is it like to live in a glass house?
B Reyes says:
This is a depressingly bad and inaccurate piece of writing. How do you have a job with such ineptness?
Comparing Ron Paul to Adolf Hitler? What reality are you living in? Whether you agree with him or not, comparisions to Hitler only make you look stupid.
And to call the people at the rally obese? Sir, take a look in the mirror.
Do yourself and your readers a favor, write a piece that isn't full of errors and outright contempt.
FakeSpotter says:
This guy is clearly not real. The majority of this piece reads like lines written for Grampa Simpson that ended up rejected at the writers' meeting. I'm surprised there wasn't a statement to the effect "Hey, Ron Paul Supporters! Get off my lawn!"
If in fact, the unthinkable is true, and this is NOT a parody, then PLEASE stay away from deodorants with aluminum! (http://tinyurl.com/gqev)
Michael says:
This article clearly gives voice to a visceral reaction to the enthusiasm of a crowd with which Mr. Roeser feels no kinship. That much is understandable. To jump straight to a Nazi analogy is such a flagrant act of detraction and calumny that Mr. Roeser should immediately seek out absolution in a confessional.
Chris S says:
This guy can't even put a tie a necktie properly and yet Paul's supporters are unkept.
Make sure to wear the clip on one next time it is picture day, I'm sure you have plenty of those.
Grant says:
Well, it looks like rampant paranoia is no longer the exclusive purview of the fringe Left.
You are as pathetic as you are dishonest, sir.
Theodore Terbolizard says:
Respect to Thomas F. Roeser for his eloquent attempt at using free speech in a modern age. Unfortunately for Roeser- as the comments here clearly indicate- he has no innate sense of public reaction in a web 2.0 era to obvious smear or hit pieces like this; Roeser sadly serves himself up as the ranting fool and gets publicly bludgeoned. Perhaps this sort of societal awareness he seems to lack is what he means when he derisively uses the term 'self-indulgence' to describe a very in-tune elder statesman, Ron Paul from Texas.
Mike says:
You say, "His Group Gives a Whiff of Decadent Self-Indulgence". Try looking in the mirror you bloated has-been. Your breed is dying out and a new generation of passionate, liberty loving Americans is taking your place.
xer says:
First the ignore you: Folks in the media did that for the first 8 months of the year.
Second, they ridicule you: Then you called him a long-shot, a crack pot, etc.
Third, they attack you: This piece can only be described as a smear attack. I learned in debating that if a person resorts to personal attacks then they loose.
I find it interesting that part of your argument involves someone personal appearance. I know many Ron Paul supports. They are people from college students to retired truck drivers, highly successful businessman to home schooling moms. The one thing I can say about them is that they are a highly diverse group of people.
Most politicians will say whatever is needed to get elected. Ron Paul says what he believes because he believes it. He's been saying it for over 20 years. The people are finally ready to listen.
I think that is what scares you the most.
We are informed without the newspaper. We can think for ourselves.
Folks, don't worry about this fellow. Newspapers are loosing money. Not because of the Internet but because readers can see through this garbage and don't want to waste their money on the product. Keep writing this way sir, you will write yourself out of a job.
What should also be interesting to note is the comments are well written. That disproves your opinion of his supports.
Oh, and back to the top.
Fourth: You win.
Matt Walker says:
"Comparing those that are promoting freedom to fascists whose goal was to take away freedom shows what perverted thinking Mr. Roeser has."
Exactly. Hitler didn't want his people to have freedom- nor did Pol Pot. Ron Paul wants to restore our civil rights, which will come by obeying the Constitution and bringing back sovereignty. How is this Hitlarian? Hell, scheming elitists and warmongers won't like it but the people will.
I don't see what's so appalling about being against the Patriot Act., Real ID Act., open borders, the war in Iraq, nation building, the IRS and the worthless/costly war on drugs.
It's like night and day and I urge people to see this. If we want to act as a global police, we will slowly lose our rights in order to maintain this destructive lose/lose policy. Come to think of it... Hitler wanted to become a global regulator. There's the material for your next article, which I hope will be at least somewhat accurate.
You're a pathetic example of just about everything that is wrong with our country.
Bryan says:
You are comparing Ron Paul, a limited government idealist with the Nazi's? Are you talking the same NAZI's that were totaltarian, authoritarian, and wanted unlimited state power?
How in the world did a supposedly educated person like yourself reach that conclusion?
And you media types wonder why people are leaving your newspapers and TV programs to rot in the newsstands for less biased internet sources.
Get a real job you shill.
infragreen says:
Look at all the flack you've caused Mr.Thomas F. Roeser !!!
Could they ALL be internet-spamming nerds?
Or just your typical FED-UP Americans, who are sick of big government wars and waste, and the pretentious idiots in the AP like yourself who look down on us as?
I consider myself in the latter Mr. Thomas F. Roeser d-bag, and I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.
The Primaries, if they aren't rigged, should tell all.
Bob Shipp says:
At his website http://www.tomroeser.com/ Mr. Roeser asks why the comments here are so negative.
"Tell me if criticisms of any of the other presidential candidates in this website have gotten such belligerent response No. Why is that?"
Here Sir, is the answer.
People who support doctrines based on the US Constitution - the document that all military members and political representatives swear an oath to uphold - find it incredibly offensive when you compare supporting the Constitution with supporting Nazism. Your uninformed rantings place American patriots, true conservatives, old school Republicans and every member of the US military in the same camp as Brown Shirts and Nazis.
You show your utter contempt for the principles that created this country, yet have the gall to ask why you are receiving such vitriol. Shame on you!
Mark C. says:
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
greenwaverob says:
Great article, Mr. Roeser. Thank you for showing the establishment's true colors. Keep the hit pieces coming.
"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."- Ghandi
Jonathan Townsend says:
Dear Author,
Sir, I suggest you vote for Mr Taft. I personally believe he would make a poor president. I will have to check and see but I think being dead will disqualify him as a candidate. If you can find a living candidate with a more consistently constitutionalist voting record I would like to see it. If you can stand the smell, I think you should take another look. Compare his ideas to the other living candidates.
"Will the Real conservative please stand up".
Ben Schroeder says:
It is clear from your article that you went to this rally without the slightest clue about Dr. Paul, his ideology, or his positions. Dismayed by the enthusiasm exhibited by his followers, the best you can come up with is to compare the man who wishes to see the government reigned in by the Constitution to Adolph Hitler. Words cannot describe how moronic this is. I am reminded of an old saying, better to let people think you're an idiot through silence than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. That sound you hear is what's left of the traditional conservative movement laughing uncontrollably at your desperate attempt to smear a candidate whose popularity is steadily growing.
James says:
I'm sick of reading old world journalists equating 'reasonable, or complex, or nuanced' with 'statist in any grasping way shape or form'. The rotten and obsolete ideas these kinds of people hold, will die with the cancerous, parasitical system that invented them.
Statism cannot compete with real progress, and so these torch-bearing luddites come out swinging with their crude, makeshift, government-issued thoughts.
But I understand. In your industry, it's much easier to quote some crank 'authority', than it is to go digging for the truth. In a Ron Paul world, the government can't magically solve everything, leaving you with some real work to do. Get back in your hole, lazy journalist.
Tom says:
Roeser likes speaking for us rather than observing Chicago daily. Way to make this unheard-of newspaper seem reallllly credible!!!
Gabe says:
Anytime a writer so emphasizes the hedonism of his political enemies as in this article (e.g. "self-indulgence", "inconvenient to its proclivities", "self-enrichment", "pleasure bunnies", etc.), you may be sure the writer is among the most dastardly the human race has to offer.
J. P. Stroud, Jr. says:
The criticism of
Ron Paul's political
philosophy, as
delivered by the
svelte, non-self-
indulgent Mr.
Roeser, identically
applies to that of
the founding
fathers. They, too,
by his own rules were a pack of
screaming, decadent
Nazis. Why is the
insistence that the
federal government
follow the rule of
law, always, seen by media hacks as the
mark of radical
extremism, Nazi or
otherwise?
Paul says:
This is a "shaggy Nazi-like" rally?
http://tinyurl.com/3cuo4l
http://tinyurl.com/34orgk
http://tinyurl.com/2mk567
http://tinyurl.com/2or3cq
Give me a break silly person!
Richard Carpenter says:
Tom Roeser sounds like a man who doesn't have any fun, doesn't have any charisma, and hates those who do, especially Ron Paul.
Chris says:
RP supporters dodge military service? Actually I'm a Marine (Fox 2/4). Thats more than I can say for Giuliani (the 3 time draft dodger) or his son, or Romney, or Huchkabee, etc. etc (except of course McCain and Hunter).
AB says:
I didn't know Taft was for the concept of the League of Nations. He wouldn't be today, if he'd seen the UN. Taft at least, would have learned something new in 56 years.
Shane says:
This author is a "hit whore", i.e. he purposely seems to write meaningless tripe with inflammatory attacks to beef up his web site traffic.
And I know a lot of other veterans who support Ron Paul, as well as some active duty personnel.
Of course, some people who actually avoided military service project their faults onto others.
BW says:
Tom, you need to talk to your friend Thomas Fleming at Chronicles Magazine. He can inform you about Ron Paul. Then you can correct what you wrote.
Ben says:
I read "Because the role of Sen. Taft was and is at great variance with that of Rep. Ron Paul..." and could only shake my head in bewilderment.
I suggest to those interested in true "conservative" foreign policy (a group of people that may or may not actually include Mr. Roeser) that you read "The Republican Road Not Taken: The Foreign-Policy Vision of Robert A. Taft" at <http://www.independent.org/publicatio...>
Then do some research on Ron Paul's actual foreign policy positions. Read what he has written over the years, not just take in a few sound bites. Sites with such info include <http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/>, <http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-...>, and <http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_P...>
It is left to the student to find any meaningful differences between their two overall foreign policy positions.
Much is made about the libertarian leanings of Ron Paul's supporters. That Mr. Roeser would try to characterize such notorious individualists as fascists makes as much sense an the MSM talking about how Ron Paul's support comes from a tiny handful of well-organized people, when those who know libertarians understand that as a group they are as easy to herd as cats.
I have read many articles about Dr. Paul's candidacy over the pest few weeks, but this is my first post to any blog. But as I sit here jet-lagged in Moscow, I couldn't pass up the irony of posting support from here to "Legalize Freedom" in America.
As a Republican, I am a proud contributor to Dr. Paul's campaign. You should be, too.
joe says:
I was a conservative activist in college and ran a independent conservative newspaper on campus. I remember the favorite tactic of the left was to label anything they did not like as "nazi". I almost every way the "new" right behaves the exact same way as the left I fought 15 years ago. They now believe the government is the government is our savior both her and abroad, we need to police the world, and the Constitution and states rights are irrelevant since "9/11 changed everything". Hey, that type of massive centralized carte blanch power might actually have a lot in common with Nazi Germany.
joe says:
I was a conservative activist and ran an independent conservative newspaper on campus. I remember the favorite tactic of the left was to label anything they did not like as "nazi". In almost every way the "new" right behaves the exact same way as the left I fought 15 years ago. They now believe the government is our savior both her and abroad, we need to police the world, and the Constitution and states rights are irrelevant since "9/11 changed everything". Hey, that type of massive centralized carte blanch power might actually have a lot in common with Nazi Germany. As a conservative activist who believes in small government and freedom, Ron Paul is the only choice.
John Powers says:
Paul,
Yes, I have read the comments, and there some occasionally articulate ones, but the profanity and insults must stop.
I'll repeat, if Ron Paul wants to compete in politics, and his supporters want him to get elected, then behaving like adults on another person’s forum would be a great first step.
The idea that being "passionate" (sounds very Obama-like to me, btw) about a candidate gives license to being profane to those that disagree with you is mind numbing. Why not work for your candidate, rather than against others?
JBP
Cinco says:
Wow, this is the most unprofessional piece of journalism I have ever read.
First, your hypocrasy is astounding. How does Dr. Paul's message of peace and freedom in anyway compare to Hitler's message of hate?
Second, Dr. Paul doesn't have to explain his slogans to us; because, most of his supporters have read most of what the man has written in his 20+ years of experiance.
Third, Iran is a very small threat to the U.S., and Iran could even possibly become our "friend" if we would quit trying to overthrow the Iranian government every 10-20 years. How much of a threat to our national security was Iran in the 50's when we overthrew their government? How much of a threat were they in the 80's when we allied with Saddam and gave the Iranians mustard gas and serin gas?
The same people that have lied to us for the past 60+ years are the same people who are lieing to us now. All the 'Republican/neo-con' journalists who promoted this rediculous war are just trying to save face.
One last thing, because I have the feeling your readership is declining. Notice how this was probably the most read story from your online paper, smart business would dictate that you may want to write more about Dr. Paul. However, journalists just aren't that smart...
Jordan says:
Mr. Roeser was obviously reacting viscerally to the aesthetic of Ron Paul's supporter's enthusiasm--equating it with the kind of "Cult of personality" that seems remeniscent of fascist movements. This isn't an unreasonable perception--there is quite a lot of euphoric hero-worship surrounding Ron Paul's campaign, and this does tend to blind the critical faculties, but this is an understandable reaction to a genuinely honest man finally telling cynical Americans to have hope and faith in the foundational principles of our system.
Most of Roeser's complaints are pure smears--his personal emotional response of disgust at seeing a social phenomenon he views as intrinsically dangerous. unfortunately, this is not at all an intellectual rebuke of Ron Paul's campaign or message--just a sentemental revulsuion, and therefore, quite inadequate as a critique.
Sir, you're reaching deep into your own prejudices and pre-conceived biases in the way you describe the supposed appeal of Dr. Paul and the motivations of those who support him. I know first hand that the enthusiasm is real, and it is informed. We are not New Age Aquarians sir, we are the remnants of Jeffersonian idealism, and we appreciate and understand the foundational principles of classical liberalism. Our over-enthusiasm my be off putting to you, but we are the torch bearers of American Liberty as it was Intended.
I'm reletively sure you spoke to no one at the rally in person, or you would have gleaned a very different perspective.
James E. says:
Wow. The overwhelming support of Dr. Paul shown here is really heartening after reading the attempted assassination piece here. Gives one actual hope for freedom as opposed to what this country is gradually moving towards.
R.David says:
Comparing people who wants government out of their lives to nazis who wanted total government control? We know who the nazis would support, and it wouldn't be Ron Paul.
You wouldn't even make a good Goebbels. This article is a turd.
Jet Trego says:
What fun! I love all this commotion!! I've put a sticker on my car ( First time ever, and I'm 50) and my daughter now says that I'm "obsessed with Ron Paul". I finally have a candidate that I (and others, as well, apparently) can be WHOLE-HEARTEDLY IN FAVOR OF. That may be a "first" as well.
RP08
Steve Landon says:
Tom, in all fairness I would agree with you on the "sweaty" portion of your assessment of Ron Paul fans - at least where it pertains to the initial group to walk into the hall when the air conditioning was not on. I for one can say I was sweaty at the beginning, but by the time Dr. Paul got on stage it was acceptably cool in the hall and I stopped sweating. Thanks for caring.
Brian, again says:
John Powers, take that log out of your eye before you condemn anyone else.
Your employee Thomas has performed the most ridiculously insulting hit piece on Ron Paul in history. It might have effectively poisoned a few minds if there were no internet and people were slaves to your organization's opinion, but in today's world it will suffer the natural condemnation which it so justly deserves.
What courtesy do you expect when you have given none?
Good grief.
Fascist Nation says:
To sum it up: I knew Taft. Robert Taft was a good friend of mine. <sniff> And you, Mr. Paul, are no Robert Taft. <sniff>
Mark Call says:
The rest of the Knee-jerk Press just ignore Ron Paul. The idea of a man who actually honors his Oath of Office clearly disturbs them.
THIS piece, however, is just simply idiotic. Even as propaganda it can't be taken seriously enough to be a real insult to intelligence.
Oyate says:
What has this old fart contributed to republican society since his buddy Taft kicked the bucket? Nothing, that's what. The old guard is obese and dottering, caved into imperialist values and utterly morally bankrupt. They hate us because they are the jaded status quo and we represent real change. Sorry Thomas F. Roeser, the movement has gone out of the country club and into the country.
Bud says:
Perhaps my own standard is too narrow to be of practical use in the political mud-slinging arena, but before I compare anyone to Hitler, I like to be sure that person preys on or attempts to drum up mass hysteria in regard to the evil nature, or cultural threat, presented by any of the children of Abraham.
Also, the person needs to have demonstrated a willingness to commit acts of genocide against semitic people.
How many other Republican candidates do you have to choose from who fit this profile, and how is it that you pegged the only one who absolutely does not?
Orwell, anyone?
averros says:
Mr.Rosen - you did Ron Paul an invaluable service by showing pretty clearly, for everyone to see, what his opposition is.
You're the classical case of pot calling kettle black.
Mark Freedom says:
The ridiculous and insipid commentary by Mr. Roeser in his comparison of Ron Paul to Nazi's is beyond the pale. Mr. Roeser is nothing more than a sad and pathetic character-assassinating neo-con like the rest of the RINO's (Republican's in Name Only)competing for the White House. In fact, Ron Paul is the only Republican capable of beating any of the communists the Democrats serve up. Amazing that Mr. Roeser has forgotten what real conservatism means. He should do a little research.
Simon says:
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
For Ron Paul supporters out there, don't waste your time and effort on this article. Instead, support Ron Paul by donating all you can at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Davy C Rockett says:
Ron Paul is becoming a bigger threat by the hour, by the minute, and by the second.
I laugh at these anti-liberty socialist that can't fathom a government run effeciently and by Constitutional Rule of Law.
There days of big nanny government are coming to an end, and there scared cause they can't live without a debtor nation government taking care of them from cradle to grave.
They are such big wussy they're even afraid to protect themselves.
Unfortunately, they can't see they've been brainwashed into believing Unconstitutional policies of our government over the last 50 years. Lead around like a puppy dog.
Our forefathers would have laughed at these people and their socialist addictions and cowardess.
Oscar Goldman says:
All I can say is that on you I wish a flare-up of acid reflux (from a night of heavy crow-eating) during election night when Ron Paul blows away his so-called competition.
Kent Van Cleave says:
Thomas F. Roeser's article offered a promising historical background, but that unfortunately turned out to be just pretext for a logically and morally bankrupt attack on Congressman Ron Paul.
Conservative Republican candidates have always received the support of Neo-Nazis, racists, and theocrats. Does that mean those candidates support any of those agendas?
Liberal Democrat candidates have always received the support of illegal aliens, welfare queens, and philosophical socialists. Does that mean those candidates support any of those agendas?
Libertarians (such as Congressman Paul) have always received the support of libertines who confust the libertarian message of "freedom AND responsibility" with "freedom FROM responsibility." Does that mean Ron Paul is a libertine?
Please note that Dr. Paul has been drawing tremendous support from disaffected liberals, disaffected conservatives, unrepresented libertarians, anti-corporate-abuse Greens, unrepresented Constitutionalists, orphaned Reform Party folks ... etc., etc.
In other words, Ron Paul appeals to ANYONE who prefers freedom to tyranny and the rule of law to the law of tyrants.
Roeser should be ashamed of himself -- and should get on board the Ron Paul Freedom Train.
Bushman says:
Did you see ole' Tom's site?
He threatens that the site
tracks IP addresses and will
Prosicute defamitory postings.
Big fan of free speech...
Kinda' sad when you can't
take a little of you own medicine
eh? Tommy boy?
Pleasure Bunny says:
You forget the fact that Ron Paul being elected is in our interest. Not all of us are idealists. I hope you are starting to learn that young people do not support the republican party. Soon we will uproot it from the inside out. It is only a matter of time. Hopefully it happens soon so your children and grandchildren can go to walgreens and purchase narcotics at reasonable prices. For I am sure anyone raised by you suffers from a depression so great one could hardly bear to live without losing a sense of reality.
Bushman says:
Correction,
*Ahemn* Defamatory.
And while it didn't
say prosicute, it said
"turn over to the
Authorities"
His site, his rules, but not
very good form for a press man.
Richard says:
Mr. Roeser has delusions of relevance.
But hey, it's all good, it just keeps the Ron Paul/freedom conversation active.
Karl says:
What sort of personal gain motivates you to tell such terrible lies about this man and his followers? You make claims that we are liberals, Hitler youth, and drug addicts. I am none of these things, sir, and your blatant disregard of the truth suggests that you have alterior motives that are more important than unbiased reporting. Please go to hell.
Steven M says:
Mr. Roeser,
Many of the people you met at the Ron Paul rally were probably politically active for the first time ever. As a conservative, you should be thrilled that a message of small government and liberty lit a fire underneath them.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who is bringing new people into the Republican party. Through this campaign, I have found a greater understanding of social responsibility and cooperation.
Joe says:
Glad to see that we both want the same thing, but if Ron Paul can deliver it, don't disregard him simply because a handful of his followers can be arrogant or selfish. Why shouldn't we be selfish with the rights our government is denying us? Don't wait for the clone of Taft to come save us. Ron Paul is as close as it's gonna get. Let's fix the problem now.
Todd Brendan Fahey says:
Tom Roeser: Member, Chicago committee of the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS:
http://www.wlsam.com/showdj.asp?DJID=...
'nuff said.
John Powers says:
Fred,
We are not going to be in lockstep with each other on this, nor with the local media in blacking out campaign appearances by Ron Paul. Here stands the reputation of the Chicago Daily Observer, we actually attend a newsworthy event, and write about it.
Regardless of the matters of politics (and Tom and I disagree about the Ron Paul campaign) we have an opinion and will publish it. If that is our reputation, so be it. We will not blackout newsworthy events, period, regarless of whether you are made uncomfortable by our coverage.
JBP
Richard says:
Wait...a bunch of hairy women, fat slob men, screaming wildly in their delusional hope of winning something they have no chance at?
I think you took a wrong turn and ended up at a Bears home game!
Seriously, you could go anywhere in that scummy city and see fat smelly kielbasa-chomping, piss-beer-swilling morons. Why single out a Ron Paul rally?
Also, cubbies will choke!
Hey, I see why the old fart wrote this article...gratuitous insults are damn fun!
Cedric says:
Ahh, This answers all the Question as to WHY..."Tom Roeser serves on the Chicago Committee of the Council on Foreign Relations"
/Ignore on
Class dismissed!
An Observer of the Observer says:
If I were from Mars and happened upon this combox, then read the article, I'd say that the Ron Paul supporters demonstrate far better than poor ol' Tommie Roeser that Roeser has pegged the Ron Paul supporters about right. What a bunch of ad hominem and vitriol you guys spew forth. If I were an uncommitted voter and I saw this outpouring of support for Ron Paul, I'l run as far as I could from anything to do with Ron Paul. You guys are your own worst enemies.
The only place that rivals this combox for puerility is the Daily Kos [oh, well, occasionally Free Republic :), as much as it hurts me to admit it.] If you folks really do want to help Ron Paul, for God's sake, learn some civility.
John Howard says:
Of all the dishonesty in this article, perhaps the most dishonest remark of all was that Ron Paul's supporters are "unconcerned with ideas."
It is clear that the author is himself unconcerned with ideas or he would not have written such a mass of insulting dishonesty.
To compare Ron Paul's rallies with those of Hitler is evidence of a sadistic fool looking desparately for attention.
For commenters to suggest, after this pile of rhetorical dishonesty, that it is Ron Paul supporters who need to learn civility, is hypocracy on stilts.
Steve Landon says:
110: Surely you understand human nature. If someone makes an attack against you our your character your instinct is to defend yourself (and possibly counterstrike).
The people posting here are only a very small subset of the thousands of Ron Paul supporters who have read this story. It is inconceivable to me to expect all of them to have the discipline to bite their tongues. We Ron Paul supporters do not speak for the campaign or the candidate. Any observer that lets the actions of a few supporters influence their vote more than the issues at hand deserves the fate they find themselves in should another candidate be elected.
observer of the observer says:
Dear Steve Landon,
No, I would not expect all of them to bite their tongues and be disciplined. My observation had to do with the fact that about 95 % of them were undisciplined. If I were from Mars, it would tend to persuade me that Ron Paul's supporters are a rather undisciplined, vituperative lot. Like I said, comboxes this full of vitriol are found mostly at places like Daily Kos. If I were Ron Paul, I'd rather my followers not be compared to the Kosovites.
A word to the wise ought to be sufficient. If you truly love Ron Paul and wish to advance his campaign, put a sock in it, already.
Observer of the Observer says:
Or, Steve Landon, to illustrate my point in another way: remember the rioting Islamists who destroyed things and killed people to protest cartoons that said Islamists were violent and destructive? They proved the point of the cartoons by their own violent reactions. They gave exactly your response: but the cartoons were sooooooooooo unfair to us, so we are right to react murderously.
Fast forward: Tom Roeser, the Paulines say, was grossly unfair to us. We will prove how badly he mischaracterized us, when he said we were outlandish rabble, by behaving outlandlishly rabbilious.
Tom can now rest his case. Methinks the Paulis protest too much and too ad hominemly.
Observer of the Observer says:
Ryan, I assume you meant me? Do you not grasp how you just proved my point? You cannot respond with some sort of thoughtful counter, rather you call me a name. Which is what 95 % of the Paleo-Paulites have done to Tom Roeser.
Do you truly not see that you just dug your hole deeper?
I may be a lot of things, but idiot I am not. Nor have I called you any names; just pointed out that you confirm Tom's assessment of Paul's followers again and again and again.
If I were a follower of Ron Paul, I'd want to get started ASAP on some damage control. Instead, you write "you are an idiot."
May I ask how you know that I am an idiot? I'm tempted to point out that "it takes one to know one" but perhaps you have another means of discerning that I am an idiot.
Ben says:
Observer of the Observer says "You cannot respond with some sort of thoughtful counter, rather you call me a name. Which is what 95 % of the Paleo-Paulites have done to Tom Roeser."
Is 95% an accurate number?
As a check, I divided up the 108 responses so far from Ron Paul supporters posted here into 3 categories: Polite Disagreement, Strongly Challenging, and Insulting.
My analysis could certainly be disputed as biased, but here are my results:
Polite Disagreement: 56.5%
Strongly Challenging: 20.4%
Insulting: 23.1%
23.1% is a lot less than 95%.
Given that I consider the original article was Insulting, I think the number of non-Insulting responses actually speaks very well for Ron Paul's supporters.
David says:
When I read "The Fountainhead" as a young man, I thought that Ayn Rand's depiction of assassin journalism was such a grotesque and unbelievable caricature of reality that I found it so inept as to be hilarious. Mr. Roeser's column proves me wrong, however, so I suppose Rand gets the last laugh on me after all.
ObserverObserver says:
Ben, am I correct to assume that you support Dr. Paul? If so, is it just possible your 23.1% is a tad biased? It would be nice if we could ask a Martian.
But have it your way. Let's stipulate, as the lawyers say, that only 23% are insulting. All I can say is that if the remainder are challenging but polite, then with nice friends like that, Ron Paul doesn't need any scurrilous enemies. His "friends" will do quite well to discredit him.
I'm glad you assess the responses as overwhelmingly decent, strongly worded, but decent. That may indeed be how most Paulites see them.
But don't you see--therein lies the problem for Ron Paul. He already has these folks in his corner. It's the people outside whom he needs to win over.
And if they read the same replies you read and see 95% ad hominem vituperation, or see even 75 % ad hominem vituperation, your guy ain't gonna win many converts.
So it's not your assessment that counts, it's how the not-yet-converted readers read Paul's friends comments. If I were you, I'd be concerned.
But since you are unconcerned, I guess we'll have to leave it there.
Except that if I were you I'd be concerned that I'm not concerned when outside observers read your buddies comments in such a very different light than you do.
Just a friendly thought. I'm really trying to help you guys.
Steve Landon says:
Mr. Observer. Your folly is to mistaken the 108 people that responded for the total number of Ron Paul supporters who actually read the article. I would venture to say that the actual number is likely in the thousands. So, lets just say for the sake of contemplation that only 1,000 Ron Paul supporters read the article. Somewhere around 100 responded, and 20 were nasty. I was not great at math, but that puts the percentage at 2% of the Ron Paul people who read the article. I think thats entirely acceptable when confronted with the ugliness of the actual text of the article.
Jeremy Sturgis says:
You Communist Liberals must really be scared of the true message of freedom to write someting so obnoxiously outrageous and false. Either that or I am misinterpreting your satire and sarcasm. Let's hope it is the latter for your sake.
ObserverObserver says:
Oh, now I get it, Mr. Landon. I made the mistake of not realizing that I needed a secret decoder ring to understand truly the real numbers behind the appearances. I knew there was a conspiracy going on that I had not yet caught sight of.
What a pity that only the insulting, puerile Paulis wrote in--because regardless how you spin it, what they did makes your guy look bad. If you really care about Ron Paul, then you'd be wise to organize his followers better so that the rabble portion of them don't monopolize the comboxes in the future.
Because, it does make him look bad, you know. Look, I'm trying to help you guys sell this Ron Paul character better. And, if you think about it, maybe Tom Roeser was doing the same. You guys should thank him for opening your eyes to how you come across, so you can correct it. Get busy and get that Silent Ron Paul Majority to speak up and then silence these creepy Ron Paulies who shoot from the hip.
Observer of the Observer says:
Jeremy, dear, dear Jeremy, what part of "name-calling doesn't help your cause" don't you get? Really now, tsk tsk, "Communist Liberals"--if you ARE going to reduce your response to name-calling, can you not at least come up with something a bit less shopworn?
Jamie Jackson, Salem, Oregon says:
Too funny.
Tom, I think you may just *be* from Mars, with your "Observer of the Observer" goofiness. Your obsession with other people (supposedly) wanting to take mind-altering substances makes me wonder how much of what substance *you* have been doing.
Not that it's any of my business, in the fresh air of a libertarian world. ;-)
RP 08 FTW
Fred Hockemeyer says:
John Powers,
You misunderstand me. Reporting on newsworthy events will not endanger the reputation of the Chicago Daily Observer. But resorting to yellow journalism, as Mr. Roeser has with this article, most certainly will.
This article is rife with logical fallacies and sensationalism. Mr. Roeser's total lack of journalistic integrity reflects very poorly on you and your organization. Moreso, I daresay, than a couple comments left by offended individuals reflect negativley on Ron Paul.
That's all I'm trying to say.
John Powers says:
Fred,
Fair enough, but Tom certainly has a long career of integrity, grit, and guts enough to tackle everyone from Henry Wallace to George Wallace, and still attend political rally's after nearly 60 years in the business. Sensational? You bet. Yellow? Not on your life.
So Ron (and his supporters) got a good smack by the Dean of Chicago Journalism? You are in great company.
JBP
No-NAIS'er says:
Mr. Powers,
Mr. Roeser did not REPORT on a news-worthy event. He wrote an OPINION piece. You should know the difference.
Furthermore, I see no "integrity, grit," or "guts" in this piece --just some flimsy name-calling.
Does Mr. Roeser really expect readers to find his opinion credible, after comparing Paul to Hitler? He's insulting your readers' intelligence.
Lastly, it looks as though I'm not the only Catholic who has room for improvement.
Dreepa says:
Another person afraid of the Ron Paul Revolution.
Ron is coming to NH tomorrow... it is going to be great.
http://www.ronpaulhq.com
Jerry says:
The most humiliating thing to me is the Fact that the weakest,most pathetic person on earth,is destroying America.
"Home of the brave"...not so.Just look a the Americans,watch them just stand there while the sorriest excuse ever for a human,smacks them in the face..again and again and again yet the,the Americans,just stand there and do nothing but talk.
Your Media should be taken to the barn and made to pay for their deeds.Your policeman/women are-Out of control-mindless beings incapable of making decisions on their own-they just wait to be TOLD what to do,and then they do it.
The OATH they took means NOTHING to them....NOTHING AT ALL.
Bush! of all people in the world,is kicking you asses....America is being destroyed by the worst person in the world,and a punk at that.
Home of the Brave...RIGHT!!
You can`t even whip Bushes Ass and he`s weakest scum on the planet.
The Biggest problem Ron Paul will have will be the highly Ignorant,Weak,Self Serving American people..Americans have NO IDEA of reality.
Chuck LoBue says:
No sane person, and believe me, there were a considerable number of people exposed to Ron Paul and supporters, between Millenium Park and the Hyatt,and also IN the Hyatt, could possibly have come away with the impressions that Mr. Roeser spewed here and on his blog site.
As a 55 year old conservative Republican, I am as appalled by the references to Hitler and "secret code language" as I am by the drivel coming out of this Neo-Con administration and it army of broadcast lackeys ala Hannity etc.
Even THEY have not stooped THIS low, however anti- PAUL they may be.
....the fact that these LIES and DISTORTIONS are backed up by the 'boss' here speaks volumes about the lack of 'observer' integrity.
Oh yeah, by the way, I'm neither 'fat' nor 'sweaty'.
Golly, the way Tom put it, I would have expected a slew of arrests of that frenzied mob, by Chicago's finest thugs, who are great at protecting us from female bartenders. How many of us were arrested, anyway?
Raldo says:
So when the reefer zombies start goose stepping down main street waving joints in the air and helping to shuffle Arabs or Jews or some other scapegoated class/race/demographic of people into camps, I might reconsider this piece.
I am highly offended by your libelous, vicious, hateful, ignorant, and ultimately grossly misled remarks. Someone has forgotten the purpose of our Constitutional Republic. That, or is well aware of its purpose and is working tirelessly against it. Either way, when Ron Paul becomes President I hope you don't choke eating crow.
Raldo says:
One more thing, the third time you insinuated that "legalize freedom" was a code for ending the war on drugs did not make it any more true than the first time.
The ability to choose what we put into our own bodies is only one of a host of god-given rights our "representatives" are trying to usurp and Ron Paul is trying to protect.
MakeMineRonPaul says:
ALl politics is basically tribe based. Within the tribe, people understand each others motives, and who is allied with whom. With the country as big as ours, the horse trading that results is a foreign policy is the result of a the tribe process based on a clique of elites small enough to be put into a auditorium, and most of the country would not recognize their names. This meta tribe, controls the direction of the country because the media and both parties can be bought for chump change. The real action happens in the snadows from deals made between people with power in influence. Ron Paul and his internet based campaign is not fueled from the meta tribe, or the Lobby, but from the roots. To stop him, you will have to expose your mailed fist. I was at the Illinois State Fair when the Romney goon took the sign from the Ron Paul supporter and stood on it, defying anybody to physically take him off. Well the phalanx of air conditioned Romney Buses from all over state won that day but Ron Paul supporters, in one's and twos, came from all over Illinois without any organization, got third on that rainy august afternoon. While the Romney goon squad went home in their aid conditioned buses, the Ron Paul people looked around and saw they were not alone. This is a little of the electricity Roeser saw in Chicago, and it scared them. Good.
Ben says:
ObserverObserver says: "Ben, am I correct to assume that you support Dr. Paul? If so, is it just possible your 23.1% is a tad biased?"
Of course I'm biased -- everyone is biased to one degree or another. I even said myself that "My analysis could certainly be disputed as biased." But unlike Mr. Roeser, I openly admit my bias.
To get back to the main point that I believe Mr. Roeser said he was trying to make -- the contrast between Robert Taft and Ron Paul -- Mr. Roeser has not replied to my suggestion that he try to find "meaningful differences between their two overall foreign policy positions." Neither has Mr. Powers, although his subsequent column on Ron Paul actually did take a reasoned look at some real issues.
But Dr. Paul will have an excellent chance to respond on this subject to people whom I believe actually understand the policies that Taft stood for -- The Robert A. Taft Club of Arlington, VA.
On October 11, 2007 at 8:00, "Congressman and GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul will speak on why conservatives should abandon nation building and wilsonian democracy spreading, and return back to their non-interventionist and America First roots."
<http://roberttaft.org/>
I plan on being there and, to keep Mr. Roeser happy, I'll try not to sweat.
The Dave says:
The author clearly couldn't make the slightest attempt to research Paul's stances. Did he really expect a campaign rally to be on the level of an academic speech?
Ben says:
Just to document Dr. Paul's appearance at the Robert A. Taft Club in Arlington, from the Washington Times:
"More than 300 enthusiastic supporters, most under the age of 30, turned out last night to hear Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul discuss foreign and monetary policy in Arlington."
<http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs....>
See also
<http://roberttaft.org/paul.htm>
and videos at
<http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.as...>
and
<http://thenewliberty.com/?p=345>
I'm sure Mr. Roeser wouldn't mind knowing that I did sweat a bit, as it was rather warm in that room with all those people crammed in.
Bill Baar says:
Taft's Dad, the US President and Supreme Court Justice, was a Unitarian and was President of the National Unitarian Association. Few Unitarians know that anymore (I think) as many know little of the Church's history.
Anyways, I think Ron Paul is going to pull votes that otherwise would have otherwise gone to Kucinich. Mostly because the Primary in Illinois is going to be a bore, Kucinich is a bore, and Ron Paul generates a lot of noise and that feels like excitement.
Both Parties are going to reformulate and confront the dilemmas Brink Lindsey has neatly laid out in his book "The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America's Politics" http://www.amazon.com/Age-Abundance-P...
We not longer have the politics of scarcity practiced by the old Liberals but are now into the conflicts of managing freedom and moral choices.
I think it's going to be a tougher go for Dems rather than the GOP, but a reformulation is a coming for sure and you've hit on many of the issues from Ron Paul's campaign. Paul has captured many of them.