Diary (Diaries are not moderated)

Educate Me, Ron Paul Fanatics

By (about the author)     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group

View Ratings | Rate It


Become a Fan
  (1 fan)
Supporters of GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul seem not to want to hear any assessment of their hero. Their anger must be addressed once more.


- Advertisement -
Ron Paul supporters seem to have the thinnest of skins about any critique of their hero by anyone who is not a fellow fanatic, as I learned from their reactions to a post I made recently. Hopefully, this article will toughen their skin just a tad.

I never wrote in my post "Ron Paul is no Savior" that Paul didn't make any statements about the constitutional fiasco surrounding the 2000 presidential election. When he did make a statement Dec. 4, 2000, he only attacked Florida Supreme Court judges for making a recount decision he didn't like, raising the false canard that judges "legislate from the bench" when they rule for an argument conservatives dislike. The great SCOTUS Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said (will paraphrase here since I haven't seen the quote in several years) that "an untrained mind will assume a concept it doesn't like is unconstitutional, while a concept it does like is automatically deemed constitutional." In his statement, Paul claimed the Bush v Gore decision violated state election law and the Constitution, but never said how. Incidentally, since the case is titled "Bush v. Gore" not "Gore v. Bush" it proves Bush was the one pushing the issue to the US Supreme Court, not Gore, as righties falsely claim.

I wrote that, "I don't recall Paul coming out to oppose George Bush's ascendancy to the presidency over the rightful winner in 2000 nor do I remember him siding with John Kerry in the 2004 election when this nation had its best chance of ridding itself of the George W. Bush cancer." Making a statement in opposition to a recount order by the Florida court, as Paul did, and opposing the ascendancy by Bush without a thorough recount, as I wrote, is a distinction missed by Paulites and Paulettes who challenged the statement and apparently can't read competently.

First off; let's make one correction to common knowledge and get it out of the way. The United States Supreme Court didn't make George W. Bush President of the United States. But the Supreme Court did prevent the rightful winner from being President.

The delegates to the Electoral College put Bush into the White House. That is where Paul showed, that by failing to support the rightful winner, he is no constitutionalist and has not the love or understanding for that document that he claims.

Article II of the Constitution says that electors shall meet in their respective states and vote for president. The results shall be forwarded to the US Senate where the president of the Senate shall open the certificates and count the votes in the presence of the senators and representatives. Only then is a President elected.

This is where Paul could have demonstrated his love of the Constitution he and his supports claim he champions. He could have demonstrated constitutional integrity by protesting the illegally secured Florida votes for Bush. He was a member of the House at the counting, but apparently remained silent when he easily could have made a motion to not count Florida's votes until the rightful winner was determined by a legal and thorough recount. He did nothing.

Paul was more than willing to remain silent in order to play partisan Republican politics by installing a totally unfit buffoon of a man to the presidency. Standing up for constitutionalism probably would have done little except demonstrate that Paul cares for the Constitution, as he claims.

But, when bark came to bite we didn't get as much as a "grr" out of Paul, who preferred to put his tail between his legs and slink back to his kennel.

If he really cared about the Constitution he would have been shoulder to shoulder with Laurence Tribe, constitutional professor at Harvard University; Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist, and hundreds of other constitutional experts and scholars protesting this travesty.

In fact, if any Republican would have protested this constitutional subversion, the mini-minded minions of the mainstream media would have picked it up and broadcast it everywhere, would have printed it all front pages, it would have been common information and all would know. The fact that not a single Republican stood up for constitutional integrity indicates there was no concern for the Constitution over a hijacked election.

Most Republicans seem not to care about the Constitution, but it is Paul and his fanatical supporters who claim he champions the Constitution ~ as opposed to the rest of us ~ and is the only presidential candidate capable of restoring the Constitution to its rightful place, and that is why he is singled out for scrutiny. Paul's silence betrayed him.

Dear Paulites and Paulettes, prove me wrong.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -


***************************************************** Thomas Bonsell is a former newspaper editor (in Oregon, New York and Colorado) United States Air Force cryptanalyst and National Security Agency intelligence agent. He became one of (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Google Content Matches:
- Advertisement -


The time limit for entering new comments on this diary has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
25 people are discussing this page, with 33 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I'm not Bush fan, but the votes were counted by se... by Michael Newcomb on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 4:26:00 PM
The recount was postponed till after Sep. the 11th... by Dirk Gerhardt on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 3:29:01 AM
It would be appreciated that when you respond to a... by tabonsell on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 12:44:33 PM
How is it you expect Dr. Paul to have personal kno... by Louis Nardozi on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 5:08:00 PM
I'm at a loss to figure out exactly what you&#... by John Lee on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 5:30:22 PM
I see Ron Paul's frequent mentions on this sit... by John Sanchez Jr. on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 8:07:09 AM
In the third part of Michael Moore's documenta... by Jeanette Doney on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 5:41:39 PM
The ultimate power to select the electors from Flo... by Rolf Lindgren on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 5:44:55 PM
Although I understand your position, I find it mis... by Nim Nim on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 6:01:48 PM
This isn't enough of a reason not to support R... by Patrick Henry on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 7:08:28 PM
peakedI meant piqued. I apologize for my error. ... by Patrick Henry on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 7:14:12 PM
Thought this was rather applicable to your questio... by timlanges on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 7:13:42 PM
It appears that you have been educated.  Good... by Nim Nim on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 7:36:48 PM
He said it while speaking of the harm done by &quo... by Richard Mynick on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 8:50:51 PM
"Even in this atmosphere, however, most Ameri... by timlanges on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 9:24:25 PM
Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. This is t... by Richard Mynick on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:06:45 PM
From the statement you gave, it seems like Paul ca... by Alfred Jones on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 7:14:37 PM
The one bad thing about this article, is that I re... by Ed Allison on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 8:29:16 PM
George W. Bush did win the 2000 election five to f... by John Sanchez Jr. on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 8:23:24 AM
I thought the rightful winner was the one with the... by TJF on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 9:54:28 PM
leading news organizations, including the NY Times... by Richard Mynick on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:34:51 PM
The court ruled that Gore won, but that Gore could... by sean dulac on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 11:26:48 PM
SCOTUS' ruling said that a recount of the Flor... by John Sanchez Jr. on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 11:46:48 AM
Seriously, is this an attempt to get some attentio... by mike ma on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:03:44 PM
I think people like Bonsell (the writer of the op-... by sean dulac on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 11:16:49 PM
Tossing a literacy insult toward an entire group o... by Sherry Spire on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 11:37:07 PM
Pointing out once instance where Paul did not make... by Tim Paul B on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 3:21:40 AM
First off :) there was no clear winner in Florida ... by David Monk on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 6:27:05 AM
The fact that Ron Paul has been excluded from the ... by Luchi on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 12:32:21 PM
Here's an education. How about instead of kno... by Brian Carroll on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 1:12:05 PM
is that in all the counting and recounting, nothin... by Watching on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 3:40:20 PM
Geez, has it been 8 years already!?!Why would you ... by mentormatt8 on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 1:14:23 AM
... I was going to step in and explain that in det... by Steven Leser on Tuesday, Jan 1, 2008 at 2:59:21 AM