Sunday, November 25, 2007

Personal Aside: The Paul Gottfried Article on Ron Paul.


Paul Gottfried on Ron Paul.

Paul Gottfried is a venerable commentator and scholar of the Right who is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, Pennsylvania and a former Guggenheim scholar. His columns are distributed by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation which used to disseminate Joe Sobran until Sobran lost his health. I’m going to cite Dr. Gottfried here but to read his column go to

Gottfried a distinguished writer who, believe it or not, was writing for conservative publications when I was a wee broth of a lad, has a high regard for Congressman Ron Paul as expressed in his column entitled “Their Worst Nightmare.” It appears to Dr. Gottfried that the neo-cons’ worst nightmare is that Ron Paul will run on a third party ticket in 2008 which…given Paul’s new celebrity and prowess at raising funds on the Internet…would elect Hillary Clinton, with Paul occupying roughly the same force as Ross Perot did in 1992 to elect Bill Clinton.

I have heard some libertarian followers of Dr. Paul express the view that the election of Clinton is a necessary expedient for the country to absorb preparatory to its turning to the right. Without Clinton turning off the electorate with another liberal presidency and the Republicans continuing their weak approach, some libertarians have told me, the election of a true liberty-oriented candidate such as whomever would be Paul’s successor in 2012 would not be achievable. To use historical allusions, one libertarian put it this way to me: “I hate to use this analogy but it is apt. The Communists saw the need to elect the Bolsheviks with Alexander Kerensky in order to win later with Lenin. There is some thought that Hillary would be the Kerensky of this movement, so alienating the electorate that the election of a Ron Paul philosophically committed libertarian conservative would come naturally later.”

I would ask your comments on this feasibility and in particular would welcome those who support Dr. Paul to give me their views. I understand that he has said he would not run as a third party candidate again. Let me ask these questions: (1) Do you think that the phenomenal rise of Paul as a grassroots candidate which is far different than his Libertarian candidacy before…with access to money and publicity…should cause him to change his mind? Specifically were you to advise him now would you urge him to consider a third party run if he does not win the Republican nomination? (2) Do you agree that he should do so even if he takes a sizable chunk of conservative votes away from the Republican nominee and causes the election of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

Let this be a plebiscite. I look forward to your views for in all seriousness I would imagine this view is far from impossible. Thanks. Try t to steer away from vitriol against each other and concentrate on being an analyst.


  1. The Honorable Dr. Ron Paul has stated repeatedly he has no plans to run as an Independent. He plans to win the Republican nomination. The GOP should review the latest Zogby Poll (
    The Zogby analyst says Honorable Ron Paul IS the "Strongest Contender to Beat Hillary". PERIOD!

  2. 1) He should reconsider 3rd party depending on the results of primaries and polls. If polls after the primaries show that he pulls, say, 25% then yes, he should revisit his decision

    2) I am a libertarian/conservative mixture who usually picks Republicans as a matter of practical politics. This time I don't see the difference between Hillary and the Republicans being big enough for me not to "waste" my vote on Paul. In other words, I value his potential 3rd party run and the message it will send (assuming it is a substantive run - see above) more than the damage it will do to Republicans.

  3. Like writhing, squirming, and slimy intellectual snakes they sit up for hours late at night looking for ways to throw rocks at Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan or anyone else that dares to challenge their failed ideas. I remember when Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire... The next event Koppel on Nightline did a hatched job on him along with others.

    What the don't realize is that the public is not as dumb as they think and many are on to their games. The internet has made that possible.

    Unlike Perot, Ron Paul has been in Congress for years and has a definable track record that really spits in the face of the neo-conservatives!

    Maybe the neo-cons should exit the Republican party and start their own third party!!!!

    Perot was self funded. Ron Paul is deriving his funds from many many grass roots people. The internet has been a boon for him.

    The people are responding to Ron Paul's message and they are supporting his campaign. Sorry neo-cons and Rockefeller Republicans.... you dumped on the social conservatives and they have found a home with Ron Paul.

    So go on and hire all the aging pundits you want with all their Russian Revolution Trotskyite theories. It does not mean anything because the public has put them on IGNORE!

  4. If a strong third party effort that puts a Clinton into the White House and whacks the GOP is such a good thing, then we should have already entered the promised land after Ross Perot's 1992 candidacy. Instead, we got eight years of Clinton and two terms of Bush. And now, we're supposed to believe these same people that it's a good idea to help another Clinton win the presidency? When exactly is this suicide strategy going to pay off? About the same time the CUBS win the World Series???

  5. I'm an Illinois Ron Paul supporter and giver. My answers and analysis:

    1) Tom, as noted earlier the Hon. Dr. Paul says he has no plans for a third party run. I would not recommend that he go back on his word.

    Dr. Paul is ineffectively attacked as "not a real Republican" because of his 1988 run. This is laughable on its face and like saying Ronald Reagan wasn't a "real Republican" because he (Reagan) was once a Democrat. (Interesting side note--Dr. Paul was the first Republican congressman to endorse Reagan in 1976.) Were Dr. Paul to say he is now considering a third-party run would divert from his rising primary support and give fearful party hacks limited ammunition to dissuade Republican primary voters from supporting the good Doctor.

    2) In light of my counsel above, no. But were he to not take my advice, yes.

    But Tom, I cannoy understand your concern with taking conservative votes from the Republican candidate and throwing the election to the radical liberal democrat. Did you not endorse Randy Stufflebeam for governor in 2006? Did you not publicly express fear that you had only cost Topinka some 16K votes? Did your efforts give us another term by our boy wonder governor in hopes that the Illinois GOP would learn a lesson and be better in the future?

    Why the fret if Dr. Paul were to do what Randy Stufflebeam did in 2006? The fear seams disingenuous.

  6. Under Illinois election law, Ron Paul would barred from filing as a third party candidate after running an unsuccessful campaign as a Republican in the primary.

  7. Peter,

    The difference in Illinois is that a Judy win would have pointed all the fingers to her and the Illinois Republicans as the root of all evil. Now, this mess is undeniably Democratic.

    As you can see, they are beginning to eat their own. Hopefully the Illinois Republicans can coalesce and begin to run some serious campaigns for county and state-wide offices.

    Nationally the stakes are higher; there are United States Supreme Court seats at stake.

    SCOTUS appointments impact culture; and I feel, as I am sure many do that frequent this blog, that the culture is deteriorating.

    In the name of all that is holy have the recent Ralph Nader campaigns taught us nothing?

  8. I don't believe the danger of Ron Paul taking votes away from the Republican nominee in the general election were he to go third party is significant, because I think that even absent Ron Paul the Republican nominee would never win. This is based on 70% plus of the public being against the war. So even if there were no third party candidate at all I don't believe the Republican nominee could get more than 30% in the general election, regardless of who he is.

  9. I would not advise Dr. Paul to run on a third party ticket unless the nominees are Hillary and Rudy. There is very little difference between those two and it would be difficult for conservative folks, other than the neocons, to vote for either. That would give Dr. Paul a much better chance of actually winning. Cultural and fiscal conservatives would be pushed aside with either of them. At that point Dr. Paul would be representing a clearly different political philosophy. Although I’m a Republican, if Hillary and Rudy are the choices there isn’t much to choose from: They both look the same in a dress.

  10. Certainly I would like to whack the RHINO's and me-too Republicans in the head with a third party vote. However, as noted by Mr.Graf, the Republicans were whacked in 1992 and 1996, and it resulted in Breyer and Ginsburg, and a host of lower level judges, none of whom have anything close to an originalist understanding of the Constitution.

    Whatever Dem is the nominee will be nominating judges in that fashion. Say what you will about GW, but the judges we have gotten under his Presidency have been very good.

    I am unsure that Giuliani will pick judges as well as GW, given his woeful understanding of constitutional law. I am 100% sure that any Dem will pick awful judges, and set us back that much further from overturning Roe v Wade, et al.

    Outside of his foreign policy, I have no beefs with Ron Paul, but the judicial stakes are too high for a third party candidacy on the right. If Rudy (or any other Repub) wins and if they tank on judges, then the time will be ripe. But that's a lot of ifs.

    Cowboy Wally

  11. Tom,

    I believe that the link to the Gottfried article no longer works.

  12. It does not matter what happens in the primary. If Ron Paul does not win I will not vote for the Republican. They are no different than the Liberal Democrats. In fact to me they are worse because they spend like drunken sailors and have the same platform as the Democrats but act as if they are different.

  13. Click on the website below. There are MANY MANY people who agree with what is being said there. WHY aren't they listing to the network new? WHY aren't they reading the newspaper? It is because they are fed up with what is there. The American Public, especially those in flyover country and those in school have seen the change in America and are upset with both the conventional Republican party AND the Democratic party..... why is that? Could it be that they firmly distrust in their gut what has been going on with the elites in Washinton, DC... Could be that they are fed up with Wall Street engorging themselves at the expense on Main Street. The ratings are steadily slipping for the networks and the readership is declinging for the newpapers..... WHY IS THAT?

    It is that the people has had enough with the cute crowd and they will not take it any more. Click on the website below and see why others are concerned to.

  14. Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of Stormfront and the rest of the neo-Nazis. And he refuses to repudiate them. He has a long history of association with crypto-racists. As for his alleged purity, he is the leader among Texas Republicans in getting earmarked appropriations.

    I'm not tremendously happy with any of the Republican front-runners; but any of them would be better than any of the Democrats. Even Giuliani makes the liberals foam at the mouth.

    As to welcoming the bad so the good will appear in reaction... The description of the Communist actions in 1917 Russia is garbled. They had nothing to do with the February Revolution: Lenin was in Switzerland till the Germans sent him home later. Of course they weren't satisfied with the "bourgeois" Kerensky government, but it was a step in their direction, which they took advantage of.

    The better lesson is what the Reds did in Germany in 1929-33. They undermined democracy, attacked their Socialist allies, and welcomed the Nazi takeover, on the grounds that Nazi oppression would drive the People to rise up in true Revolution. That didn't work out, did it?

    Clinton isn't just wrong-headed, she's power-hungry, ruthless, cunning, self-righteous, and thoroughly corrupt. If her gang gets in, there may never be another real election in the U.S.

    Almost certainly the Clinton Democrats will use their power to crush conservative talk radio, censor bloggers, intimidate, co-opt, or crush business interests, whip the press into line, dismantle conservative think-tanks and institutes, and suppress conservative activists. Can you say SLAPP? "Fairness Doctrine"? "IRS Audit"?
    They will pack the judiciary, and John McCain will see how much his deal to preserve the judicial filibuster is worth (nothing). Federal money by the billion will flow to "non-partisan" activist groups that are hand in glove with the Democrats. Vote fraud will be rampant, and gerrymandering will be extreme.

    It'll be winner deals and dealer wins - forever.

  15. Efforts to revive paleo-conservatism via a third party run have been tried
    several times and have always ended in
    disaster-as witness Pat Buchanan's brilliant but ultimately futile hijacking of Ross Periot's Reform Party
    in 2000. (Pat ended up with about 1/2
    a percent of the vote.) Ron Paul should
    stay in the Republican Party and help the Paleos get a toe-hold for the future. He should also concentrate on
    grooming a succesor for the future, since he is 72 years-old and this is undoubtedly his last hurrah. Now I've got to get back to smoking pot and beating up Jews, being a typical Ron Paul supporter of the kind you thought you saw in the ball-room of the Hyatt Regency.
    Dave Wade
    P.S. Is Dr.Gottfried a typical Jewish
    Nazi who smokes dope? He must be-he's for Ron Paul!

  16. After reading your post, I googled "stormfront" and "ron paul". It took me to the Stormfront discussion forum where someone posted their support for Ron Paul based on his Libertarian stance. So does that make Ron Paul an extremist? Does that make Libertarians Nazi's? Sorry but it doesn't. There were post topics about poetry, martial arts, home schooling. Does that make all home schoolers extremists? Get off it Rostrom with your trite little smear. Go join Tucker Carlson who set up a prostitution house owner in Nevada and some of the whores to "support Ron Paul". Reuters picked it up and said that Ron Paul has prostitution house support... but they failed to mention Tucker Carlson's involvement. For all I know Rostrom maybe you were the one who posteded on the Stormfront sleazy website. Maybe if you stay up to three in the morning you can come up with a more profound smear... I am sure that you and others are working very hard to do so!

  17. At the following link:

    there is a balanced discussion about Ron Paul and the support he's getting from white supremacist groups. It sure doesn't sound like Ron Paul is trying to appeal to these groups, but many of their members like his message. That doesn't make him a white supremacist or racist.

  18. I laugh when it is brought up because when I turn on Def Comedy Jam which is a non-black media exec produced African American comedy show ...all you hear is the most vile demeaning language coming from the mouths of the performers. The N word...... OH the N word..... worse than the F word.... well on that show BOTH were used every other word not to mention the most demeaning of words for women. BUT its OK..... because it is coming from African American comedians.
    Talk about the "back of the bus" what the African Americans don't realize is that the big money boys have turned their back on the black areas from Gary to Detroit to Flint to Cleveland and on and have warmed up to the neo-slaves, the undocumented hispanics who are becoming the "supremacy" group in many areas. But lets wave the flag of "white supremacy"..... what a joke... what mind dead people to unduly worry about. It is like going to Appalachia and worry about some "good ole boys" rednecks making booze in a shack and driving around with some bare foot broads and a hound in a pick up truck.... Just a big SO WHAT... but it raises money for the NAACP who raise a lot of money by looking for nooses hanging from rear view mirrors. What would Al Sharpton do without it?

    But then what about the real problem of street gangs that is still out there and is minority? Illegal guns, drugs, violence... can we talk? Crypts Bloods Latin Kings Vice Lords and central american gangs and Russian gangs......DOING REAL CRIME day after day and NO ONE CARES!!!!!

    No they take the RICO laws and go after the ANTI ABORTION GANGS when they stop access to abortuary...... now there's a group to be afraid of!!!!!! Some dear ugly frumpy feminist may be denied her abortion!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOO horrors!

    In the case of Ron Paul "white supremacy" is one of those well worn smear words that come from the intellectual elites tired old box of lables....

    I am sure that Ron Paul will get "tarred and feathered" by worse as the days go on! He should have gotten his campaign money from People's Republic of China or for George Soros.... that would have made him a HERO..... Oprah would have endorsed him then!

  19. Until a few days ago, Stormfront's Web site featured a big banner ad for Ron Paul. Stormfront's proprietor, Don Black, donated $500 to Paul. David Duke posted a Ron Paul essay on _his_ Web site a year ago; it's still there (i.e. Paul never demanded it be taken down). Vanguard News Network (venomously anti-semitic) loves Ron Paul. And Paul does nothing to repudiate these elements.

    None of this proves Paul is a racist or a Nazi. What it shows is that he doesn't get it - doesn't understand that these people are _poison_. Just like the Hollywood Left doesn't get it about Communists. Association isn't guilt, but it is tolerance.