Tuesday, September 13, 2011

American Spectator Goes Bonkers in an Attack on Ron Paul

American Spectator's David Catron is simply over the top on this one. Twisting facts in a manner that would make Baghdad Bob proud. Catron writes that Ron Paul is a " slippery Beltway operator."

That "Ron Paul is a fraud of the first order." That Ron Paul's "pattern of hypocrisy is by no means limited to party loyalty."

So why does Catron call Dr. Paul a "slippery Beltway operator" and a "fraud of the first order"? Because: "The sordid reality is that his loyalty to Ronald Reagan lasted only so long as it was politically expedient ."

Is Catron serious? Is this how desperate the Ron Paul haters are getting that a move that is obviously made on principle is called "politically expedient." Read Ron Paul's letter about Ronald Reagan and why he briefly left the Republican Party.  Does that sound like a political Beltway operator?  Ron Paul leaving the Republican Party, when the Party was in power, and when  it could have been very easy for Dr. Paul to cozy up to Ronald Reagan, is the last thing that  should be labeled "politically expedient." I

As for Catron's charge that Ron Paul  "has frequently supported....government intervention." Catron provides this absurd evidence:
[Ron Paul] ...voted for [a] price-fixing scheme that every libertarian worthy of the name has denounced -- reimportation of pharmaceuticals from foreign countries with rigid price-control regimens. This, as Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute has pointed out, "would import foreign price controls on drugs."
Clearly, Ron Paul was simply voting based on free trade and the fact that the U.S. should stay out of the business of foreign countries. Should we ban imports from any country that implement economic controls?  OPEC sets oil supply quotas. Should we ban OPEC oil from the U.S.?

Catron then closes with an attack on Ron Paul's use of earmarks. Dr. Paul has eloquently explained that his use of earmarks does not increase spending, that the funds would otherwise be used unconstitutionally by the executive branch.

But, hey David, if you think Ron Paul is such an unprincipled politician, who exactly would you match up against Ron Paul as an example of a more principled politician? With your clear revulsion at the thought Ron Paul, you must see more principled politicians walking all around Washington D.C., but David just name me one.


  1. The cesspool of MSM commentators is unlimited and the fury lies of the deadbeats toward Mr.Paul will grow. The message has been clear and understandable by the average Joe now and the elite now wish to try to dumb down the population again. Dr.Paul has let the genie out of the bottle, and the ruling elite is scared. And from Lew Rockwell today...


  2. Nothing makes my day like a weak MSM hatchet job on Ron Paul. This certainly qualifies; hell, this is textbook.

    Such an article proves two things: 1) they fear his growing popularity, and 2) they can't debate on the issues.

    Ron Paul 2012

  3. It's a sign of weakness and desperation when a hit piece such as this is commissioned.

    It's appearance and lack of anything of substantive value probably intended to be a fire-break to staunch an expected crash by Perry.

    Obama is sinking like a rock in the polls. Worst economy since the 1930's which he now owns at least as much as Bush. Even Cheney is more popular than Obama. Yet the Repug's haven't got anyone but Perry - a re-washed Dem who ran Al Gore's TX campaign. And the hit-piece wants to hang Paul for his principled stand when he left the Repugs.

    Paul is one of only three members of Congress who isn't owned and acts on anything other than expediency.

    His anti-war and anti-FED stances make him a deadly threat now that the urgency of both of these issues has become evident to so many. If they can't kill him with yellow-journalism (which as this latest demonstrate they have NOTHING on him), and his popularity continues to grow, they'll have to resort to other means.

  4. I just wanted to echo a comment by "Jed" over at the Spectator explaining the Medicare Part D vote.

    "Your [Catron's] comment about Medicare Plan D is as deceptive as Paul's attack ad on Perry. Paul did vote for a measure to modify it, but he voted against the plan itself while other Republicans embarrassingly supported it. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll669.xml"

    It would appear the the original plan was passed in 2003 (Paul nay, and there were modifications in 2007 (Paul yea).

  5. From the American Spectator web site:

    " David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert".

    Oh, well then.

    Appears, perhaps not coincidentally, to be a Perry supporter.

  6. I couldn't even take this article seriously....Yawn.

  7. Calling Ron Paul a "slippery beltway operator" is absolutely laughable. It's like saying that Jackie Gleason is secretly a prima ballerina. The image so far afield that it leaves us rolling on the floor. If there's anything Ron Paul supporters are frustrated with, it's that Ron Paul isn't MORE slippery. We'd like him to finesse a question now and then in these debates instead of just blurting out that people should be alllowed to injest heroin if they want to.

    It's interesting that the American Spectator has chosen to attack Ron Paul on his strength which is his integrity. That is the most dangerous part of the Ron Paul message. Why vote for any of these other jerks when what they say has no resemblance to what they will do once elected anyway?

  8. Ron Paul has always scared the crap out of Progressives and Neocons. He's the petulant guy that is always trying to expose the charade that both beleive in with all their hearts. He's the guy that tells you there is no Santa and that the government screws up nearly everything it tries to fix. How do you tell people, without making them angry, that many of the things they've been told all their lives about government that they accept almost as sacrosanct are just not so? The fact that so many feel the need to respond to Paul's message means his message is getting out and that is a good thing.

    Barring some kind of miracle, there is no doubt we will stay the Neocon/Progressive course by either reelecting Obama or electing one of the Neocon hopefuls. That will ensure that the collapse will take place and many of Paul's words will prove prophetic just as his words from 2008 have. That is what will be the impetus for real change.

  9. And it begins. I saw this coming a mile away; A man of ideological consistency will ALWAYS be held to a much higher standard than one who's positions will shift with the wind depending on the situation. I'm convinced that the tendency of intellectually lazy pragmatists to tear down anyone who maintains a principled and well thought out position stems from some deep psychological self-loathing.

    Ironically, I've seen all these attacks on Paul on Anarcho-Libertarian websites from commenters who think Paul doesn't go far enough to limit government or from those who take the position that because he's part of the government, he's part of the problem. If the MSM wants to attack him this way, they can get most of their dirt straight from his most solid base. Fortunately for Paul, he appears to have very few skeletons to expose (the "racist" newsletters will be the next big story, and in my opinion, the only time he did something that he thought was politically expedient), and these attacks will fall flat.

  10. don't even bother arguing with these guys. arguing with them assumes that you think they're being honest. they're not. do you not think they read the letter that paul wrote when he left the party and stopped supporting reagan? of course they did. if you read that letter, it's quite obvious why he left, and if they're not complete morons, they understand it too. and i dont think they're complete morons.

  11. it doesnt matter .ron paul will not get elected.the time has not come yet.the zombies are still growing in number.it has to get far far worse before it can get better.in the meanwhile invest wisely ,own gold yada yada.this is just a natural cycle.fiat money isnt going to die silently.a ron paul type of person is too far ahead of his time. so he is indeed a prophet.

  12. what a pile of cr*p. at first i thought he was jocking...

  13. Glad you smacked this idiot down. The American Spectator is getting humiliated left and right by Woods and Wenzel, so no wonder they are so mad that a politician who represents those views is becoming more and more popular!

  14. When a person or group of people want to do as they will --regardless of laws, procedures, or logic that would dictate otherwise -- loyalty becomes the most prized characteristic one can hold to be around the person or group. When a protestor comes along who suddenly balks at the actions taking place, that protestor has to be demonized as disloyal by the person or group to try to keep others from following -- even if the person or group is deviating from their stated purpose or morals. This is the broader interpretation of "patriotism [i.e. loyalty] is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

    Ron Paul is obviously acting out of loyalty to principles rather than loyalty to any man or political party. That can't be tolerated from those who would do as they please rather than even follow the U.S. Constitution.

  15. I know Ron Paul, but who is David Catron?

  16. It's news to me that the American Spectator is MSM!

  17. doesn't matter...sadly, dr. paul will never be allowed to be president even if the people wanted him to be which they are too stupid to do!!!

  18. Ron Paul is behind underground fracking for gas and destroying all the water that we drink

  19. It is interesting that, somewhere along the way, TAS has become part of the MSM. When I first subscribed, in 1980, it was considered by most as an "underground" newspaper out of Bloomington, IN. TAS took positions against the MSM and its candidates and office holders that were unprecedented in the day. However, I will admit that, over time, TAS moved toward the MSM, moved physically to inside the Beltway, and moved to cozy up to mainstream Republicans. In doing so, it did become more mainstream. And, I suppose, an argument can be made that it is now part of the MSM.

    As for Dr. Paul, he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in this process because he is everything Catron says he is not. He is an honest, principled, forthright leader, and such cannot be tolerated by a system dedicated to purchasing candidates to do the bidding of the monied interests. Ron Paul is the single best Presidential candidate since Pat Buchanan, and he has as much chance of winning as PB did--zero.

  20. So Ron Paul is responsible for destroying America's water supply? First, you will need to produce evidence that fracking causes an negative impact on water supply. A few anecdotes of people whose water is sulphuric is NOT evidence. There are a thousand reasons why that particular well could be sulphuric. You will need hard metrics proving that fracking is the cause of the impact. Second, you will need to produce evidence that Ron Paul is behind fracking. A vote to support free enterprise does not make one responsible for all fracking.

  21. Is it the "American Spectator" or the "Neo-con Pontificator?"

  22. I'm waiting for one of these "principled conservatives" to explain how they could crow about being in favor of freedom from government economic interference while at the same time they would like the governmnet to interfere in all our private activities.

  23. These people who write these articles are so ridiculous. Will they ever stop? NO! I don't think so.

  24. I work in oil and gas. Fracking takes place between 7200' and 2 miles deep.

    Water is found between the surface and about 1000'.

    There is no possible way that any contaminate could seep 6000 feet into the water table. The well is steel/cement/steel design, air tight, and cannot leak or the process doesn't work.

    Feel free to continue to attack fracking. You'll end up looking just a stupid as Al Gore over AGW.

  25. In response to Anonymous (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/09/american-spectator-goes-bonkers-in.html?showComment=1315929977741#c7095458789718307607)

    The reason to argue with them, especially on their own website(s), is because there will be a LOT of undereducated voters frequenting their site(s). If their side of the story is the only one voters are exposed to they will own the minds of those voters. Just take a look at our last presidential election for proof.
    Obama never made any *concrete* promises, but was continually hailed as some sort of savior and a great leader. McCain actually was a leader but never even got the time of day from mainstream media. Heck, even the other Democrat candidates got the shaft in favor of Obama.

    My point is, if no one speaks out the public will believe the only voice it hears.