Ron Paul has released the following attack ad against Rick Perry, in which he depicts himself as a Reagan Republican and Perry as a Gore-supporting Democrat. Watch it and then I’ll explain how it exposes the essential hypocrisy of “Doctor No”:

Did you notice how the ad shows shot after shot of the good doctor posing with Reagan as if they were comrades in arms, and claims that he “stood with Reagan”? Well, as it happens, Ron Paul quit the Republican party in 1987 and said he was doing so because of Ronald Reagan:

Knowing this administration’s record, I wasn’t surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party … I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.

Here are a couple of facts that the good doctor leaves out of his slimy ad. Rick Perry was a Democrat when he supported Gore in 1988 (23 years ago). And, if you’re offended by that, let me remind you that Ronald Reagan himself was once a Democrat before he saw the light.

Both Perry and Reagan eventually realized that the Democrat Party was drifting ever leftward and abandoning the principles that had once made it great. So, they switched to the party that more closely followed their ideals and those of the founders.

One more thing: Ronald Reagan would never have run an ad like this against another Republican. He would have considered it a violation of what he called the “Eleventh Commandment.” Ron Paul is, and always has been, a fraud and a hypocrite.

Comments 5

  1. sector7 wrote:

    I think it just means that Reagan didn’t follow his own positions after getting in office that he stood behind as a candidate. As he does today, Paul stands on principle when he left the Republican party. I also believe the only reason he is running as a Repulican is because the two party system won’t allow a third party to get elected.

    Posted 06 Sep 2011 at 7:34 pm
  2. Ajayz wrote:

    Ron Paul supported Reagan’s campaign promises, not what he actually carried out. When he started to build up our deficit with his huge arms building programs, and expanding the ‘Imperialism’ of the US, Dr. Paul re-examined Reagan’s positions that he did an about face on, and true to his beliefs (and the Constitution) had to resign the party. I admire the man for having the b*lls to stand up to the Repubilcrats, and staying true to his beliefs, which he will do once elected. We need a man of virtue and honesty more than ever in these pressing financial times.

    Posted 07 Sep 2011 at 9:54 am
  3. MonkeyIncognito wrote:

    I will have to agree with the two comments above. Ron Paul is my congressman and he is anything but a fraud. I am not a presidential Paulite, but he is a principled man. I will give you some insight, there was one fraud from my adopted home state, but it sure wasnt Dr. No!

    Guardasill, TTC, Bob Perry, Borders. Goodhair has a lot of ‘splaining to do. That being said, any of these guys are better than President Obama.

    Posted 08 Sep 2011 at 10:55 am
  4. Diogenes wrote:

    “Ron Paul is my congressman and he is anything but a fraud.”

    How, then, do you explain the above ad that claims he “stood with Reagan,” when in fact he abandoned the man when the going got tough?

    How do reconcile his claim to be a libertarian when he favors reimporting pharmaceuticals from Canada, which is essentially an endorsement of government price fixing?

    Posted 08 Sep 2011 at 11:43 am
  5. MonkeyIncognito wrote:

    Remember, Regan was of the Goldwater conservative mold. He believed that conservatism was an offshoot of libertarianism. Ron Paul stood with Regan for 7 of his 8 years and the letter is pretty clear on his concerns about the growth of government and Regan’s expansion of questionable welfare programs and government agencies. This government largesse still bother me as a Reagan uber-fan.

    As far as drug reimportation, I believe he was looking for a way to even the playing field among nations. Since many pharmaceutical companies end up increasing prices in the US to cover loses by countries that put price controls in place, by allowing re-importation, there would be more pressure for: 1 those countries to allow price increases to balance demands, and/or 2 the FDA to use more sense in their pharmaceutical oversight. Although I don’t agree with his stance, I understand it.

    I don’t think any of this makes him a fraud. I am upset that he is not running for congressional re-election but he would be a great senior advisor for the republican that takes the presidency in 2012.

    Posted 08 Sep 2011 at 3:25 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *