In March of 2008, Ron Paul was one of only five Republican House members to vote for overriding President Bush’s veto of a ban on torture. Here are his remarks in support of his position:

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=12509

I don’t know how many links it takes to trip the spam filter, so I’m only posting one. Googling ‘Ron Paul torture’ will yield other examples of his speaking out on this issue, some as early as 2004.

Surely, callousness toward the mistreatment of the mostly non-white, non-Christian captives of the ‘war on terror’ is the most important manifestation of bigotry in our country today. For those who really care about such matters, I would think Paul’s courageous stand on torture would be more important than some ancient history about newsletters.

I understand your anger . . .

Anger? Your word, not mine.

he hasn’t gone out of his way to denounce them enough to shed that image.

Letting others publish over his name was a lapse of judgment that Paul’s political opponents will always be able to use against him. No amount of groveling will change that.

Rattling that ancient skeleton is fair enough as politics goes. I still say expressions like ‘anti-semitic feel’, without specifics, are sleazy innuendos.

Of course there are people who think opposing aid to Israel, or wanting to shave one dime off of aid to Israel, is ‘anti-semitism’.

David – I understand your anger at my sentiments. And I don’t think Ron Paul personally is racist or anti-semitic. But he does have a history of tolerating people who hold those views (ie, his newsletter), and he hasn’t gone out of his way to denounce them enough to shed that image. It may be completely unfair, but that is a common general perception of him, and it prevents him from drawing a larger group of supporters.

[Ron Paul] has too much of a truther/anti-semtitic/crazy feel about him.

Such sleazy insinuations discredit the person who makes them, not the person they are aimed at.

You have no evidence Paul has said or done anything ‘anti-semitic’, so you claim a ‘feel’? Please.

They should have ample power to destroy anybody in the GOP whom they really don’t like.

Limbaugh destroyed McCain so effectively that he was reduced to accepting the Republican presidential nomination. And Huckabee was left with nothing to do but host a television show.

“completely disregard the Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck/Fox News wing of the party” means opposing the major ‘spokesmen’ of the party. They should have ample power to destroy anybody in the GOP whom they really don’t like.

‘promise to reign in spending’ – there’s a GOP politician who doesn’t promise that every day?

‘reign in foreign military exploits’ – boom, that knocks that GOP politician down to Ron Paul levels of support. The base loooooooooooooooooooooooves them some fireworks, and knowing that real, almost human brown people are suffering adds that something special that Hollywood CGI just can’t provide. The military-industrial complex – well, enough said. Other factions, IMHO, enjoy lots of war, because the president as wartime leader can get more done than as a civilian president. Pork goes down better with a thick slathering of ‘support the troops’, ‘whose side are you on?’ and ‘you want the other side to win!’. .

‘give the states freedom to handle so much of what the government has taken via the commerce clause’ – as we’ve seen (abortion, gun control, lawsuits, etc.) this lasts only until the states start ‘misusing’ their freedoms :)

I don’t have the cites to hand, but IIRC the whole reason that political scientists and sociologist say this is that it is in fact a persistent phenomenon. People’s attitudes get substantially fixed, and change slooooooooowly.

Not to keep going back there, but I think it is being forgotten. The regional breakdowns are the things that should really be scaring the GOP. GOP popularity is so intense in the South that it fudges the national numbers. There are presently no Republican House of Reps members from the northeast. That is truly incredible. And though Brown won MA, he seems to be more the exception proving the rule.

The next American generational/cultural line runs through the Nineties. People who came of age on this side of it struggle to make sense of the pre-1968 conventions of the GOP ancien regime.

I’m just at the end of Gen X and have a bunch of friends who are older Millennials and also have worked with Millennials in school and youth groups.

I think this pretty much reflects what I see. Millennials are much more non-interventionists than other generations. Socially more liberal and generally for government programs. But the Millennials that are conservative tend to be of the more libertarian variety except even those aren’t complete against gov’t.

With Dems staying in Afghanistan that is going to continue to bleed Millennials. That and if Dems continue to be unsuccessful in getting their domestic goals made.

I do think the GOP will have a hardtime in 2012 and if they do win it’s without Millennials help. Which is sad for me since I really would love to see a fiscally conservative, non-interventionist or at least pragmatic foreign policy and a socially moderate candidate.

Generations do go in cycles though Millennials tend to be more like Boomers than Gen X, so in 2018 we will start to see our first Gen Zs voting, maybe with two bad wars and a mismanagement of government from both sides, we can finally see a candidate like what I described above.