I often tell people that I am a “Reasonable Extremist”. When I tell people that, what I mean is that my views may seem far right, but that I can be reasoned with. I can be a strict Constitutionalist, wanting government to be at it’s very basic needs, but I also understand that you can’t just do things without the will of the people. No matter how far to the Left or Right you might be, or even if you’re in the “middle of the road”, insisting it’s your way or the highway is an “unreasonable” approach. This is what we got from the Kool-Aid drinkers on the Left, who despite what the majority of America wanted, shoved their Healthcare reform down the throats of the American People. We put people into power who were unreasonable, just as Bill Clinton was when he tried to push “Hillarycare” down the throats of the American people.
The big difference between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama is that Bill Clinton was pragmatic, understanding that without the will of the people, you’ve got nothing. After the 2004 Republican victory, Bill Clinton’s approach was much more reasonable. True, he held onto some liberal views and he tried to advance them, but he did so by trying to get the American people on his side on each issue and only publicly advanced issues that he had the will of the people on his side. Bill Clinton’s Presidency will be remembered in a good way, or not at all.
Obama’s presidency still hasn’t generated an end to war, has produced a much hated healthcare law (except by unreasonable extremists), and let’s face it, Ronald Reagan would have turned the economy around by now. Yet, there are still people who will wade through hypocrisy by praising Obama as a great President, even though he’s been worse on issues that these people once railed against.
Sean Hannity tried to warn us by citing that Obama had many radical connections, but he warned us in a wrong way. His question was why is Obama associated with all these radicals like Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, and Reverend Wright. The reality is, we all know some radical, but being radical doesn’t necessarily mean the person is a bad person. We all have the guy in the family, at work, as a friend. The correct question is, why are all these radicals so impressed with Barack Obama? Which brings me to my next question, why are so many radicals attracted to Ron Paul?
In Dianna Chaney’s first post at our sister site in Ohio, she talked about how she lost so many friends because of their unreasonable ways, Ron Paul or nothing. That they don’t merely agree to disagree, but are willing to sacrifice everything in the process. They want us to question everything we’re told, but at the same time, they want us to believe everything that Ron Paul says.
At first I was very impressed with the enthusiasm among the Ron Paul supporters, and I was captivated by much of his beliefs, but four years later I’m asking myself, did somebody spike the Kool-Aid? What I’m seeing more and more from this group of people is a serious lack of comprehension. That their vision is so blurred that they’ll criticize others for being less than perfect while praising things on their side that’s much worse. I’d venture to say they’ll even criticize people who have done nothing wrong, that not joining their ranks is the great sin. Normally I would feel the need to point out examples, but either you know what I’m talking about, or you’re drunk on the Ron Paul
Still, I can’t resist giving a fine example of a friend of mine who worked for years building his credibility, but spent 4 hours throwing it away. My friend runs a website in Louisiana and would hold onto standards, making sure that everything he put out was absolute truth, but then used his credibility and became a joke because of his support for Ron Paul. In the Caucus, several slates were paid for by the Ron Paul campaign, Slates 1 and 7 were among them and had the same exact people on the slates. My friend, knowing this, put out a flyer that stated Slate 1 was Mitt Romney’s slate. Slate 7 was Ron Paul’s slate, and he put the name of his website on it, and called it an “unbiased voter guide“. If I were still a Ron Paul supporter, I’d be furious with my friend for taking away the legitimacy of Ron Paul’s victory in Louisiana. Did Ron Paul win because of that voter guide, or did he win outright? Nobody knows, but Ron Paul had a good chance of winning despite that flyer. So my friend unnecessarily destroyed his own reputation and put an asterisk by Ron Paul’s victory. Instead of realizing what he had done, gloated about it. That’s not the friend I once knew. It wasn’t enough for him to just be a Ron Paul supporter, he had to drink the Kook-Aid.
Instead of being irate with my friend, many Ron Paul supporters are justifying his actions, heaping praise on him, and quite frankly, approve of much worse actions than that which they criticize. One of my conversations with a Ron Paul supporter about it, I’ve been criticized as crying because Ron Paul won. Believe me, I’m not crying because Ron Paul finally won an election. In politics, you win and lose. I’m not questioning the legitimacy of the Ron Paul victory, I’m questioning the integrity of my friend, in which I feel that he intentionally attempted to use his credibility to fool people into voting for Ron Paul. In short, I feel as if he lied to people, and I believe he did so knowingly.
When Ron Paul supporters defend my friend’s actions, they do so with incoherent arguments, justifying this action because other people have done similar but legitimate actions. It wasn’t his flyer, it was what he put on it that is so disturbing. But, I digress.
I’ve seen enough extremism and irrational behavior coming from Ron Paul supporters that I have to ask myself, why does Ron Paul attract so many extremist, radicals, and Anti-Semites? Why is it that when somebody uses the words “EdJEWcate” and “GradJEWation”, I can safely assume they are a Ron Paul supporter? Why is it that when somebody talks about foreign policy as if Israel is the only other country, you can safely assume they are a Paulistinian? And why is it, that Ron Paul attracts more than his fair share of irrational people who hold the highest standards for everybody else, but believe it’s perfectly fine to hold no standards for those who support their own candidate? And why are these so called Republicans more willing to let Obama continue his radical agenda, rather than gain some of what they want? Do they not know to never let the perfect become the enemy of the good?
I love my country, and because I love my country I stay away from the Kook-Aid, and I dare disagree with anybody, including the candidates that I support. But I am also reasonable and understand that it’s better to send Conservatives to congress and force a President Mitt Romney to be conservative, than it is to give Barack Obama another chance of shoving his tyranny down our throats. If only a Paulistinian could be reasoned with, they’d understand that it’s better to lose the battle and win the war, than to win the battle and lose the war. They might win battles, but they’ve already lost the war. The sad thing is, they’re so drunk on spiked Kook-Aid, that they are being enslaved and don’t even know it.