If you believe RP's service in the mid 60's is his only qualification for POTUS, I can understand why. As a politician, he's never accomplished anything or led anything. Huckabee has. He's been in the trenches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q5tgbbTTuw I agreed with this guy 100%. Even though RP is Christian (maybe even racist) etc he won't force what he believes on to the public. He goes by the constitution 100%. He as a person doesn't agree with abortion, but he will make no law banning it. It's stuff like that, that shows integrity. That guy discusses Mike and him wanting to ban smoking. I don't care how Mike feels about smoking, if I want to do it, I will. If a bar wants people smoking, it's their right to do so. In a free market that bar will close down and go out of business if the bar's customers didn't like smoking. Why the hell should I have not do something because Mike Huckabee feels I shouldn't? That's not democracy, that's fascism and that's Mike Huckabee.
Ron Paul is not a racist, that's slander and has been addressed numerous times. Going back to the Reagan Years, Paul has published numerous papers and even a book addressing Racism. His personal record is very clear. And that is why he draws a large segment of the minority vote.
Remember old, grouchy white men know more about who is racist than the minorities who are supposedly being attacked with racism do themselves
That all depends upon who has been doing their research. Being Black or Jewish doesn't suddenly make a person omniscient.
Nor does it make them stupid and unable or unwilling to research To say otherwise IMHO would sure sound like the true racists are the ones saying the minorities don't see RP as racist because they didn't do research, you know because they'd have to be either to lazy, to dumb, or? The only ones I hear droning on about RP being racist is a few anti RP hacks.
Yet those that I have, the only ones who are fully against him are racist 'my own experience locally' I find that funny... I also don't see where he comes from people calling him racist with the exception of left wing publications that normally right wingers would not take for a grain of salt. I find that hillarious to say the least.
That is a 'supporter' hardly links RP to having the same thoughts.. Bush had some very similiar supporters that have already been pointed out, sure hope you don't believe that makes Bush a racist now do you? Been over this so many times, anyone who is for total freedom and liberty will bring the scum of society as well. Would you rather not live by the constitution, and total freedom such as legalizing drugs because a few bad apples will latch onto the freedoms as well?
You're mixing your arguments up a wee bit too much for comfort. I am merely pointing out a few of the folks who are calling RP a racist, to see if they match your proposed stereotypes.
Not mixing in the least In my personal experience, the few who have been totally against RP have come off as racist to me. The only publications I have read that call RP a racist is a few left wing publications from Texas, who some small time republican publications ripped off during this election. Then you of course have the white power people who try to latch onto RP, they do so as it's obvious anyone for total freedom will benefit them as it will benefit everyone. That is not mixing anything up These people are not my personal experience, they also are not any sort of real publication. They are a hate group who have supported others in the past, it does not make someone racist simply because this group has latched onto a candidate. ---edit Wow I also suggest you read some of the comments, pretty obvious the white power people do not see him as racist either. They only like a few of his stances, nothing more.
Some people have to project their racist views onto others, to cover up for their own candidate's problems. Personally, I find those that make excuses for obvious racism, but not man enough to stand up against it, to be the biggest racists of all. Posted in 1993. Another excellent article, complete with sources. Someone who claims to seek the truth and need facts might be interested in this one. Or not!
I'll do this dance again. If you have read any of Paul's books, speeches or OP-EDs, you would know that is not the way he writes. I'm not just contesting the subject, I am contesting the writing style. It's completely different from how he pens his own pieces. You will rarely find him referencing external sources in this manner, or personalizing his articles. You can compare the writing styles here, http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html Here is Dr. Paul's response from Texas Monthly (Oct 2001) This blog post is simply a hit piece with a lot of incorrect information. So much so, that one has to seriously question any of the assertions made in it. This is my favorite one... Apparently the author is totally unaware of the 1964 Republican candidate for the Presidency. The authors of that blog are far left conservative haters. It's the old, "Ron Paul is supported by kooks". Which is fine. I know I'm not a kook, and I know that the thousands of grassroots are not kooks. But feel free to keep knocking us and posting the slander you derive from blogs. I remember when lorien was so adamant that Paul was paying Alex Jones, until the blog he sourced fessed up that it didn't know how to read an FEC filing. We'll see you, and HuckaChuck, in the primaries.