A funny little post authored by Goldy the day before Election Day is worth brief discussion now that balloting is behind us. Goldy seems to think Ron Paul's Internet millions are the result of Paul mining some untapped vein of the GOP base. Allow me to disagree, vigorously.
Ron Paul's support is made up of roughly three categories. One, true Libertarians like oft-candidate and Sound Politics commenter Bruce Guthrie. Despite the "R" next to his name, that's Paul's true political persuasion. And just as the Naderites of the Green Party don't quite fit into the Democratic coalition in full, true Libertarians find some agreement with Republicans, but in the end don't quite match up.
Two, a motley collection of Oliver Stone-like, conspiracy infused loons. The allegiance of the 9-11 Truthers to Paul is but one example of this phenomena.
Three, disaffected liberals, disgruntled with all the serious major party candidates yet drawn to Paul's virile anti-Iraq war, near isolationist foreign policy views.
On that last point, look no further than the interest of the Stranger's Eli Sanders with the Ron Paul phenomena. Sanders's article doesn't miss the fact most of Ron Paul's supporters aren't actually Republicans.
Indeed, Ron Paul's best showing in a scientific national or early state poll is his 7% showing in a recent New Hampshire poll [pdf warning] - the Granite State being as fertile ground as Paul is going to get given its libertarian roots. Funny thing about that survey though, the crosstabs show Ron Paul's following is built largely on self-described liberals. Specifically, Paul pulls in 44% of liberals but only 6% of conservatives planning to vote in the GOP primary.
Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a lion of the Republican base.
UPDATE: Yes! The Paulites are out in force. Karl Riddick at #1 in the comments takes the award for most profane Ron Paul comment of the year at Sound Politics! I heart you too, Karl. Which reminds me, I've never been called a "skanky neocon bitch" with a hankering for "midget whores." I realize Dan Savage called me a "sicko" and all, but come on. I don't like midgets in that way.
Which of course is another reminder that Ron Paul's supporters are not exactly the GOP base. Their cornucopia of comments around the blogosphere tend to speak for themselves. Hint: most of them don't make other people want to support Ron Paul.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 08, 2007 07:20 PM | Email ThisPlease keep poking the Ron Paul supporter bee hive. It's great!
Posted by: M. Sanchez on November 8, 2007 07:56 PMDr. Paul's message is so powerful that he is rebuilding the Republican Base. More importantly he is opening the eyes of many Americans to the economic issues that basically haven't seen light of day (on a broad scale) until his campaign began.
I also believe that his campaign is in its infancy.
The current crop of candidates don't possess the political courage and most don't grasp the complexities of our monetary policies to put themselves in a position to ask these kinds of questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAwvlDJgJbM&eurl=http://disinter.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/ron-paul-educates-bernanke-stock-traders-cheer/
I thank God that he has risen to the challenge.
Posted by: David on November 8, 2007 07:57 PMKarl, you are posting on the wrong blog. Try Horsesass.org or (.com) if you like a bit of action.
Jordan has a reasonable response, and one that I will look into with respect for the poster.
In other words Karl, find another place to spew your 4 letter words.
Posted by: Chris on November 8, 2007 08:00 PMOn all those dirty liberals that aren't true Republicans, perhaps we can call them Paul Democrats. I've never heard anyone disparage Reagan for the ability to attract a large segment of the opposition. In any sane world this should be lauded.
He shares very similar views with Sen. Robert Taft (Mr. Republican) who was a non-interventionist and called for small government. Taft was very respected within the Republican community and was very close to getting the nomination (but eventually lost it to Eisenhower).
He shares very similar views with Sen. Barry Goldwater (Mr. Conservative). Barry Goldwater was more libertarian than Ron Paul is (mainly on the abortion issue) and he WON the nomination of the Republican party! He was one of the most influential voices of Republicans of the last half-century. Even his son, Sen. Barry Goldwater, Jr., has endorsed Ron Paul for his 2008 campaign.
Ronald Reagan, who was a huge advocate of smaller government, lower taxes, etc., is the most popular Republican president of our times. He endorsed Ron Paul when Ron Paul was preaching the same things back in the 1970s and 1980s. Ron Paul ran Reagan's Texan delegation back in 1976 and was one of only four congressmen to support him at the time. No other candidate running can state that they were endorsed by Reagan, at least not that I know of.
Should these people not have ran as Republicans but rather Libertarians?
Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Andrew Napolitano, - even the former head of CIA's bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer, etc etc etc. all support Ron Paul.
So you keep railing that he is a libertarian, no conservative! But I'd say he's more conservative than people like Rudy. Rudy's a liberal, yet apparently he's Republican. So you can be a liberal Republican, but if you are a libertarian (which just advocates personal liberty, small government, balanced budgets, etc.)-leaning Republican, you aren't getting any support from the GOP. It's just those darn conspiracy theorist, anti-war liberals, and libertarians!
I'm sorry, but I'd just have to say that you're wrong on that. The same ideology would mean that Barry Goldwater didn't win the 1960 nomination from the untapped GOP market, but from conspiracy theorist, anti-war liberals (Republican's used to be anti-war back then), and libertarians (a party which wasn't created until the year 1976 after Nixon put us off the gold standard and had fixed rates). It's just simply not true.
Posted by: Brent on November 8, 2007 08:06 PMI've always voted Republican. Republicans are known for their libertarian rhetoric. It's just that many of them seem to have a hard time following through with it. A true conservative is a libertarian. Paul is simply a conservative Republican who actually means it when he says he is for liberty, small government, and free markets. Ron Paul is the embodiment of Republican ideals.
Posted by: Devon on November 8, 2007 08:06 PMThompson: The former lobbyist, and current member of the Council On Foreign Relations only got 6% of the votes from conservatives surveyed. And, of the "front-runners," Fred carries the lowest amount of female support, a mere 3% of women.
Huckabee: Proving once again that his support for illegal immigration is unpopular with young people, Huckabee pulls in an impressive 0% of voters under the age of 30.
Giuliani: Many have wondered how a pro-abortion anti-gun candidate who marches in gay pride parades could have such success in the Republican party. Now we know. With 34% of those who described their religion as "other" or "none" backing the self-described "liberal," Rudy leads the pack in support from the unchurched.
Posted by: Kyle Brotherton on November 8, 2007 08:10 PMOn the meetup trail most of the people are former Bushites and libertarians. A couple democrats here and there that like his stance on the war and think he's a reputable guy.
Posted by: Hotchney on November 8, 2007 08:11 PMI wish the very small minority of Paul supporters who come across offensive and abrasive in the face of insult and open provocation would try to remember to ask themselves how Dr. Paul would respond in the same situation. This humble, honest man would be kind and informative.
Toward that end, I would encourage any readers unfortunate enough to stumble on this blog (likely more tonight than ever before) to begin learning about the good Dr. Paul by watching this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
Posted by: C. Wesley Fowler on November 8, 2007 08:32 PMNow Eric, I think you need to do some reading and turn off your television. Clearly you do not have an analytical logical mind like myself so the way you interpret things to be will be dramatically different then myself. I agree with you about the three type of people that like Ron Paul. A lot of people get defensive and upset as being classified as such; however, I know I do fit into on of those groups at least. Now I would like know what it is you believe in that is different then what Ron Paul believes in. And before you decide to start spouting off the things that have been mashed into you brain for the last four years for you tube. Do some research on George Bush and the positions he ran on when he got elected in 2004. I think you find quite a bit of resemblance. The only difference is that Ron Paul can substantiate his position and is dependable do to his voting history. The most important reason to vote for Ron Paul is because he believes in freedom, the principle our nation was founded on. He has voted against anything that might infringe on the freedoms we enjoy that are slowly eroding. Now people call this a "Libertarian" belief, but in reality it is true and is happening. I wouldn't even believe it if I hadn't analyzed and evaluated all of the facts before forming a conclusion. The reality of the situation is that this nation was founded on the principle of freedom and my whole life I have been told "America is the land of the free" and "America is the freest country in the world". These statements may have once been true but they no longer identify us. They identify the Netherlands and others but not really us. And we are so set in our ways that nothing will deter our downward trajectory. You are just like most people. Don't feel bad. I'm sure you don't.
Posted by: Ira Kaur on November 8, 2007 08:43 PMIn my own meetup group in Macon, Georgia, we had a meeting recently in which about 50 people showed up. Nearly all of them were Republicans and about 1/4 of them were avid Bush supporters up until about 2006. However, just like me, the Republican party and George W. failed miserably in what we put them in Washington to do - fix social security, decrease government, and stop nation building overseas. This segment of the Republican party didn't go away - in fact it isn't just a minority of Republicans, either. The only thing keeping Dr. Paul from reuniting the GOP with their base is the same mis-guided leadership that finds us mired in Iraq with 7 GOP candidates vying for the title of "Toughest on Muslims". If they'd just accept Paul they might save their party but I think their pride keep them from it.
Posted by: Christopher Burch on November 8, 2007 08:44 PMNow, if the troofers and spammers can just jam the ballot boxes on Election day like they do any online poll, they'll win in 2008.
Posted by: steve miller on November 8, 2007 08:45 PMIt could be that the Republican politicians have moved too far from their base, but we'll see. They will attempt to shore up Paul's base before he can get their support. It is a difficult task though, they are all so closely associated with the failed Contract with America, the failed run-away deficit, and the failing war on terror.
Posted by: rhys on November 8, 2007 08:52 PMAs for the Blog - head in the sand about whats really happening. Yes Dr. Paul might be defeated by the politic mechanics of the 2 party primaries but it won't be because the majority of people don't support his message. 70% of the nation are sick of the war and 80% dissapprove of Bush and the direction the country is going. The fact that the largest voting block is independents reflects how increasingly irrelevent the two main parties have become. If it is a guillani/clinton race look out as you will have half of both major parties not supporting their own candidiates as well as the independent block which should put Dr. Paul in a very interesting position.
Posted by: RP on November 8, 2007 08:54 PM
GO RUDY GO RUDY GO RUDY
Wow that guy at #1 is really a good representative of the Ron Paulian whackjobs. With his interest in everything anal, I suggest he try the equine anal blog where he can commiserate with more of his fellow travellers.
Posted by: pbj on November 8, 2007 09:06 PMIn fact, your three categories are insufficient. As Bill S. said: "there is more under heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your philosophy..."
Here is a category to add: Dissaffected voters. Yes, people alienated from the system because of cynical, corrupt politicians. This is a HUGE segment of the population, and just what the R's need if they want to take power back from the D's! You want to say these people aren't Republican enough for you? Well, that is the same, stupid thing that we Libertarians have been doing for years!!! One of the main reasons we only draw about 2% of the vote is that we define "Libertarian" too narrowly. Well, the Republicans are free to copy us, but in all humility I just can't reccommend it! :)
Here is another category Eric has missed: Young people. R's are not famous for being the party of the young, "Young Republicans" notwithstanding. But Ron Paul has young folks in droves in his supporter-base! Do you really want to say to Ron Paul, "thanks, but we don't want to appeal to young people. Kinda messes up the peace and quiet of the retirement community, don't you know..."
Well, "if when you are young you are not a liberal you have no heart, and if by the time you are 40 you are not a conservative, then you have no brains..." But Ron Paul supporters have both, and this is why they tend towards the libertarian! :)
The guy @ #1 makes us look, bad, I admit. There are wackos in every party that is "big enough." Even the R's have a nut or two. Big deal. One bad apple doesn't spoil the whole barrell, my friend.
By the way, the next "money bomb" for Ron Paul is scheduled for 12/16/07. That's the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party!
I think instead of $4.3 million in one day, it will be more like $10 million! :) I'll be donating!
Let the Revolution begin! :)
Free Minds and Free Markets!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 8, 2007 09:30 PMWrong. I think Ron Paul is going to surprise everybody next year. His fund raising windfall is just an early indicator of a cascading internet meme branching out into the broader society.
Ron Paul's message of freedom is going to draw in people from every political stripe who sees Ron Paul as representing progress for their personal policy pet peeve. Anti-war peaceniks see an immediate end to the war. Free market conservatives see a reduction of government regulation and taxes. Social conservatives see a return of local control over schools, abortion, and religious institutions. Soldiers see an end to unnecessary and unjust wars.
Pretty much the only people who can't find something they like in Ron Paul are those people who like using government coercion to force people into a particular societal mold. That basically boils down to national unions, global corporations (a.k.a. military-industrial complex), big media, and the current leadership of the GOP and Democratic parties that were put into power by the aforementioned organizations.
Ron Paul is a true populist. The Constitution is a set of shackles that limits the abuses and control of big government and their union/corporate patrons.
We shouldn't underestimate how much that appeals to everyday people.
In elections past, Ron Paul probably wouldn't stand a chance. Life was not good but not bad either. In a climate like that, the status quo would do, and the candidate with the most money won.
But in our current world now, everyday people get harassed and abused at the airport. Their kids go to schools full of Spanish speaking Mexicans. The rampant inflation has made their paychecks worth 30% less than they did just 2 years ago. Corporate run health care is moving just beyond their reach financially and paying $3.00 a gallon of gasoline just to drive on gridlocked highways pisses them off constantly. The federal government has finally become large enough that it is negatively affecting the lives of everybody on a daily basis and they know it.
When normal people hear about Ron Paul and stop to consider his message, they realize that the federal government was never meant to be as large as it is. They see that there is basis for shrinking it back to within the bounds of the constitution. Most of all they see that Ron Paul states his position clearly and honestly and *never* appears to be switching positions to align with polling data like every other talking head they see in the debates. That clarity cuts through the sound bites and commercial breaks.
When the GOP adopted the strong-arm coercive flavor of the left, they committed suicide. If they would embrace the constitutional freedom message that Ron Paul brings back to the party, they would easily take back majorities. This country is still made up of citizens that are center-right and just want to be LEFT ALONE!
Posted by: blindman on November 8, 2007 09:55 PMYou are better off saving that money for post election therapy and counselling when Ron Paul is shown to be the loser that he is.
Posted by: pbj on November 8, 2007 09:56 PMMy, the company you Republitarians keep!
Gentle Karl edited the word "Jewish" from in front of the references to neocons. Many of Paul's supporters do not.
At least Bruce Guthrie's Revolution will be well armed.
Go, Ron, Go!
Posted by: blathering michael on November 8, 2007 10:06 PMIf Paul has no support among the GOP base then how did he receive 17% of the vote in the Texas Straw Poll? In order to vote, you had to have been a delegate or alternate to a previous Texas Republican Party Convention in the past four years or a delegate from Texas to either of the previous two Republican National Conventions.
You should also go undercover to one of the meetup groups. You'd be surprised how many Paul supporters are out there that voted for Bush, at least, once.
Let me know.
Posted by: Franklin on November 8, 2007 10:12 PMrhys @ 21 is spot-on as well.
26 is an interesting post. Reading between the lines, I am guessing he is suggesting that #1 is disingenuous. Maybe #1 is not a Ron Paul supporter, but is just trying to make his supporters look bad, just like 26 can't possibly be a real Rudy fan... I'm a little dense though, and often miss sarcasm... Anyway, judging all Ron Paul supporters based on #1 is guilt by association. It is not valid.
Eric, as usual your columns are well-worth reading! Thanks for discussing Ron Paul. Lots of discussion and lots of hits! :)
Ron Paul is one of the most interesting stories of this election cycle.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 8, 2007 10:14 PMI am a citizen, just like you. I have a regular job, I commute to work in a Toyota, I have a wife and 2.1 kids and a dog.
I became a Ron Paul supporter after visiting a Ron Paul booth at a county fair. The booth was manned by people whom you could roughly classify as follows: an ordained minister, a retired enlisted man, a hippie peacenik, and a couple free-market conservatives.
What struck me as odd, was the fact that these people would be at each other's throats in any other political arena, but they were peacefully joining together under the common thread of liberty and freedom.
It dawned on me that the reason our society has become so divided and shrill is our loss of liberty. Our infighting and political hatred is a sign that our freedoms are withering away.
As we are all forced into a government-run lifestyle, based on the assumption that the government owns us, we must fight more and more vigorously to ensure that our particular viewpoint wins out and is forced onto everybody else.
If there is going to be one, all powerful, federal government with a single regulation regime for all of us to live by, who is going to decide what that platform consists of? It is going to be the person and/or party who can fight the most ruthlessly to win. If we continue on our current path and you want to know how this will end, just look at any of the corrupt governments in the third world.
But there is a way out of all this. It is to see that true liberty and freedom, springing from the the absence of excessive government control, allows us to direct our lives in the context of our own personal moral frames. It avoids triggering the primal fight or flight reflex that seems to dominate modern political discourse. It would (re)create that "great society" we were promised so long ago.
Ron Paul is right when he says that the more contentious the issue, the more local the solution. The reason this works is because if a city/county/state chooses to ban something you care about, there is a good chance that you can speak face to face with your representative and have a real chance of your feelings being heard and considered.
My state representative lives down the street from me. Three city council members live on my block. If they are doing something I don't like, I can walk down the street, knock on their door, and let them know how I feel. Do you think you would ever have that kind of influence over a congressman or senator? Nope. Congressman and Senators don't live in our everyday world, they don't share our experiences. They live in mansions in rich neighborhoods and live a leisure lifestyle. My state representative lives in my neighborhood, his kids go to our school, he shops at our grocery store and plays in our park. He gets stuck in traffic driving to Olympia. He gets our situation and he would think twice before screwing us. I don't think I can say the same for our congressman and senators.
Smaller government puts an end to the desperate fight for power. If the federal government is limited to within the bounds of the constitution, it will have so little impact on our daily lives that federal elections wouldn't matter nearly as much as local city, county, and state elections. It is the local officials that will impact your daily routine, not our President. Ron Paul is the only candidate dedicated to bringing about that reality.
Posted by: blindman on November 8, 2007 11:18 PMBut like I said in my earlier posts, I can't stand the idea of having politicians 2000 miles away in DC telling me how our school down the block *must* be run. None of them have ever been to the school or met the kids and teachers. How could the possibly know what is best for our school and my kids? It's the same for everything else too.
Posted by: blindman on November 8, 2007 11:27 PMOnce you purify the party of all the Ruby Ridge types, the libertarians, the college kids and the constitutionalists explain to me how you win an election.
Posted by: Cascadian on November 9, 2007 12:32 AMBlathering Michael @ 42, no, it doesn't interest me what they say or what wacko's support Ron Paul. I know, from what I have heard Ron Paul say and do, that he is NOT a racist. All this stuff is part of a smear tactic and I plan to ignore it, as it deserves to be ignored.
Instead, I am going to judge candidates based on their positions, their statements and their votes. So why don't we talk about some of those, eh? No more guilt by association or ad-hominem attacks. Sound Politics posters should be better than that. It is HorsesAss enthusiasts who like to stoop to such tactics, not good fiscal conservatives like you and me.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 9, 2007 01:11 AMI didn't bother to read the entire thing, since once you write "Goldy" and "think" in the same sentence, (and anyone, anywhere, should give a damn what Goldy "thinks" for what reason, again?) nothing you wrote in this post is worth reading. But looking over the comments and watching these birds fly full-speed into the windshield of reality politics is a hoot!
Posted by: Hinton on November 9, 2007 05:52 AMCall the exterminator, or maybe Blue Diamond......as the nuts are rolling out of the trees....Did you strike a #@&*?+#ing nerve, or what?
Seriously, what all this shows is a deep dissatisfaction with the present direction of the country; the problem is that we all don't agree which direction it should be heading. I am a fiscal and social conservative, but also want to make it plain to the ragheads (quietly, through diplomatic channels) that if they harm America again, Mecca, Medina, Tehran and Damascus will glow in the dark for a million years. Ron Paul wants to hide under the bed till they go away.....sounds like Hillary, Edwards and Osama Obama foreign policy to me...end of story!
Posted by: Saltherring on November 9, 2007 07:26 AM#1 - You really should go over to Goldy's blog to swear and use profanity. That's what I do. Goldy's is the place for those of us who like to attack people verbally with profanity.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on November 9, 2007 07:54 AMRon Paul is not an isolationist, nor is he weak on defense. He just thinks that we don't need to be fighting in every other country to protect ourselves here at home.
Here is a relevant link demonstrating his position on national defense:
Basically, his feeling is that if anybody seriously threatens the existence of this country, we have the military means to strike back with such force that it is a real deterrent.
Posted by: blindman on November 9, 2007 08:07 AMPretty much everything else you say is either flat out wrong or misguided. Taft was well respected, and he did have a major following. He NEVER was in the majority of the Republican party, however, and the evidence is in the very fact you stated: He lost the nomination to Ike.
And you are extremely wrongheaded about Goldwater. Selling Goldwater as an isolationist/ non-interventionist is pure nonsense. Part of the reason he lost was that Johnson painted him as being too hawkish. He might have had similar opinions on taxes and governmental issues, but they couldn't be more different on foreign policy.
Also, unlike Paul, Goldwater wasn't a wild-eyed idealist. For example, he didn't vote against every single free trade agreement because it wasn't free enough, as Ron Paul has during his entire career. Goldwater was also a loyal party man, supporting people ranging from Reagan to Nixon. That also obviously can't be said of Paul.
The differences between him and Reagan also are extremely wide. Reagan saw eye-to-eye with people such as Henry "Scoop" Jackson on foreign and defense policy, who's views are totally contrary to Paul's. You can try to spin all you want, but the foreign policy views of Reagan and Jackson couldn't be more different from Paul. Again, the whole "Wild-eyed-idealist" thing isn't there either. You certainly didn't see Reagan vetoing imperfect free trade agreements.
The fact that you cite Pat Buchannan is telling. Buchannan has always been way outside the mainstream of the Republican party, and like Paul, has run under another parties label. He's also an anti-semite. I'm not accusing Dr. Paul of this, but the fact that so many such as yourself deny the fact that a lot of very unsavory characters are backing Dr. Paul is wrong, and you miss the fact that it would seem logical that they do so.
Paul's view haven't ever represented the majority of the Republican party, nor the conservative movement. There has always been a strain of his views in both the Republican party and the conservative movement, but it has never been, nor will it ever be in the majority. Vague agreement on taxes and spending issues and some mythical version of smaller government won't ever heal the deep division in foreign policy issues, realism in politics, and pure idiocy on things like monetary policy.
Posted by: cliff on November 9, 2007 08:31 AM
2. I believe Hillary will be the next president and I DO NOT SUPPORT HER. The last debate proving that unlike her protestations that she was not some Tammy Wynette standing by her man, without Bill, she is even less than an empty pantsuit. She has made a career out of being married to Bill. No matter how one feels about Bill, he is one of the best tactitians and pols of all time. I find it quite credible that he would be helping the Paulistas to get a third party formed. There are enough anybody but Hillary voters out there to sink her candidacy. She needs either the Evangelicals or Libertarians to peel off in order to win. Dr. Dobson is urging Evangelicals not to form a third party, so who does that leave?
3. Paul has less than a snowball's chance, but he may be key to President Hillary. Barf. Barf.
Never heard of him until recently.
If he ISN'T fringe then how come those posting here supporting him appear to be so?
Posted by: Sam Adams on November 9, 2007 10:46 AMYou can get polite responses to your opinions in this same manner anytime you want by posting at HA, or any other blog where the lefties hold court. His profane, angry post does seem to bolster my contention below that many Ron Paul supporters are liberals. Even the most uncivil conservatives wouldn't think of spewing that kind of profane garbage.
I agree largely with Ron Paul on fiscal issues but I can't go along with his cut and run approach to the Iraq War. I also don't agree with his position on abortion or the general Libertarian "anything goes" position on drug use.
As I have commented here, particularly in response to Bruce Guthrie, it strikes me that Libertarians have more in common with leftists than they do with Republicans. I sense that is where Ron Paul garners the majority of his support.
In any case, only 58% of citizens actually turned up to vote in 2004; down from 67% in 2000.
That's a hell of a lot of disenchanted citizens to pick up; and Ron Paul's going to pick them up, in spite of Demoblican shills and mega-media.
Posted by: Klutometis on November 9, 2007 11:17 AMI resent characterizations of Paul supporters as left-wing or libertarian. I am anything but -- I've always voted GOP, but I am no longer a Bushite. I don't subscribe to foreign intervention, and I feel -- as all conservatives once did -- that American tax money is best spent IN America. I also worry about our spiralling dollar, and Ron Paul is the only candidate addressing root causes.
The Paul phenomenon is really not so difficult if one understands how little difference that remains between the Democratic and Republican parties. Both entities will tax you to death and expand the state, just for different reasons. Dems are the paternalists, and Republicans have become authoritarians.
It was not always so. Republican Paulites wish to return the GOP to its classically conservative roots: less foreign entanglement, a smaller federal government, fewer intrusions into citizens' lives and privacy.
How sad that this has become "kooky." Are we devolving into a nation of sheep? Has the European disease of "cradle to grave" statism at last caught on in America?
Posted by: J. Cline on November 9, 2007 11:25 AMThe Iraq War is the number one issue in the 2008 election. When the majority of voters will not support a pro-war candidate, the anti-war candidate will win, even if that is Hillary who is not really anti-war but will be perceived as such against any Republican besides Ron Paul.
So, you just have to ask yourself, is the Iraq War worth sacrificing every other Republican/conservative issue? Because if it is, not only will we still lose, but we will then have a Democratic Congress (both houses) and a Democrat in the White House. That means we will have universal health care (which will destroy our medical care completely AND ruin our economy worse than it is). They will spend on every single liberal issue you can think of because there will be no one to stop them.
Ron Paul can beat any Democrat in a head to head debate because he is left of them on the war, AND smarter than all of them on economics which every American sees first hand at the grocery store and gas pump. So, vote for a different GOP candidate at the peril of us all.
Posted by: Bones on November 9, 2007 12:01 PMGreat job Klutometis, J. Cline, Pudge, Bones and Dave! :)
They will try to say we are kooks, because they have no rational arguments against us!
If they try to say we are not Republican enough, they only harm their own cause.
Go, Ron Paul!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 9, 2007 01:01 PMGoogle Nevile Chamberlain and then come back and tell us all about "peace in our time".
You believe this to be a good thing and a reason to vote for Paul. It's not. In fact it's the only reason I would not vote for him.
Posted by: jimg on November 9, 2007 02:18 PMThe jihadis are minorities in their own communities. They have no ships or tanks. They have no nukes or chemical weapons. They have no nations backing them up. Their culture and science are mired in the dark ages of theocracy. They have as much chance of invading the US as Botswana does.
So these two situations have very different strategic dynamics. It made sense to attack Hitler, because we knew he was coming here. It makes no sense to attack Iraq because the Iraqis and the Iraqi government were no threat to Americans in the 50 states. The jihadis should be ferretted out, but this is the job of a police force, or the CIA, not the 86th airborne.
Ron Paul and I say we should issue a letter of marque against bin-Laden. One day of our expenses in Iraq would be about $1 billion. Sounds like a good price for Osama's head. It'll be collected within a year, I would guess.
Oh, and by the way, YOU say we were not at war on 9/11, but the jihadis thought we already were. Why? Because we were over there, propping up the Wahibi Saudis, sending aid to secular dictators and the Israelis, taking our elected leaders and replacing them with unpopular military dictators like Mushareff in Pakistan, and stationing "infidel troops in the land of Meccah and Medina," i.e. Saudi Arabia. Read the 9/11 report. This is why they attacked us, not because they hate us for our freedoms.
They had tried to blow up the WTC a decade before. They thought we were at war already.
We created the conditions under which the best strategy against us would be a terrorist attack.
9/11 was blowback from our bad foreign policy of the 60's through the '90's. You want to continue those same, bad policies.
I'm not a truther. Bush did not know that 9/11 was going to happen. But Bush took advantage of it to launch his war of choice in Iraq, and to consolidate his own power. In the process, he has made us LESS safe, and has eroded the very liberty that makes America strong, as well as virtuous. To this end, the jihadis may be winning, but only because of the reactions we have implemented.
Ron Paul wants to stop spending American taxpayer dollars defending foreigners and dictators who do not believe in the principles of liberty anyway, and he wants to use the money to defend US borders. We need a strong defense, not an offensive occupying force for the entire world, or an American empire.
Why the heck are we defending the Sunnis and the Shiites? I say, if they want to kill each other, we are going to have to let them, because we can't stop them! I know there are many conservatives who are happy to know they are killing each other.
It's a no-brainer to me. We need to bring the troops home to defend US borders, not foreigners.
YOUR policies are making us less safe. Your neocon policies of deficit spending on the war and the medicare drug benefit are making us less strong. Your policies of eroding our Constitutional rights via the USA PATRIOT Act, et al are making us less free.
Why won't you become a conservative again?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 9, 2007 03:25 PMNope. That's backward. Ron Paul is the only Republican who CANNOT beat whomever the Democrats nominate.
Forget the war. It's not an issue. Hillary is no less pro-war than McCain, Romney, etc. are, and the voters won't be fooled. They are not that stupid.
What is clearly true, however, is that no one advocating abolishing almost every federal program under the sun -- which I agree with! -- can possibly win in 2008.
Posted by: pudge on November 9, 2007 03:35 PMWhat then, do you suppose would be the response from otherwise reasonable Ron Paul supporters after reading what you paint with a very similar brush?
In my case, I chose "dismissive".
Posted by: Akston on November 9, 2007 04:30 PMThis is pretty typical of a Paul supporter. When the real facts don't fit, make them up. There isn't a single piece of reality in this sentence. Well, other then the fact years 2000 and 2004 had elections.
The real turnout:
2004: 55.3%
2000: 51.3%
See here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
The last time we even got close to 67% voter turnout was in 1960, when it was over 63%.
Truth be told, 2004 was the highest voter turnout since 1968.
The myth that there are millions of voters out there just waiting for a politician to "tell it like it is" will forever be the hope of kooks, nutjobs, extremists, and other assorted weirdos forever, it seems. Too bad for them it doesn't even come close to representing reality.
That strategy sure worked out well for Bush and his Administration, didn't it?
Statements like this from Paul supporters is why I believe that more that anything else they resemble unhinged far leftists. If Paulists believe we should not be in Iraq, fine. That's a valid position. Veering off into conspiracy theory territory is not going to attract rational voters.
When Paul supporters accuse Bush of having exploited the tragedy of 9/11 to "consolidate his own power" I think they are entering the paranoid looney bin occupied by Code Pink and the other fanatical puppet waving communists that actually believe Bush invaded Iraq in some kind of evil plot to establish a dictatorship.
I can't imagine taking these people seriously. They belong to the tinfoil hat brigade.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 9, 2007 05:11 PM"The jihadis are minorities in their own communities. They have no ships or tanks. They have no nukes or chemical weapons. They have no nations backing them up. Their culture and science are mired in the dark ages of theocracy. They have as much chance of invading the US as Botswana does."
You have simply deluded yourself into thinking this because there hasn't been an attacek on US soil since 911.
You don't think a terrorist could get hold of a nuke or chemical weapon and set it off in New York or some other US city? No one builds a nuclear device in their back yards, it takes nation states to do this.
By your faulty logic, we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistans which is ironically what you liberals (YES DAMN IT! I SAID LIBERAL! You ARE a liberal!)
call the "good war". If there was no nation behind the terrorists according to your logic, why go into Aghanistan?
We already tried years of ignoring them. Under Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. We got year of terrorist attacks, Beruit Barracks bombing, Khobar Towers, 1993 WTC Bombing, Somalia, USS Cole, 911. WAKE UP!!!
Gen Tommy Franks had it exactly right when he said at the 2004 Republican convention "Either we fight them over THERE or over HERE. I choose to fight them OVER THERE". But of course you and the truthers, along with "I never saw steel melted by fire", Rosie O'Donnell make up crazy conspiracy theories.
Yes, before 911 Bin Laden had declard war on us. We ignored him, at ouw own perial, because people like you urged us to NOT think out of the box. And for it we got all the terrorist attacks that happened. It is people like yourself that are always the very first to grab a megaphone after tragedies like 911 and cry out "why didn't the government do anything to stop this!" when you actively work to deny it the tools necessary to stop the terrorists. The USA PATRIOT ACT give the government the same powers it has had FOR YEARS to track drug dealers. FOR YEARS!!!
ANd for all you liars that say it is stopping people from "speaking out" I say you are liars. Goldstein is still on the air. Air America still broadcasts. I see protests over an dover on teh news every other day. The only restriction I see in our media is any good news of that may come our way out of Iraq. If we had you truthers during WWII we'd be speaking Japanese right now.
Let's talk about whose policies are making us less safe. Under the ignore them policy we got: Beirut Barracks Bombing, Khobar Towers, Somalia, USS Cole, 1993 WTC bombing and 911. Since the USA Patriot Act has gone into effect, how many US navy ships have been blown up by terrorists? How many sky scrapers have terrorists brought down?
And it wasn't "Bush's war of choice". It is funny how when Clinton was in office, the very same intelligence agency under the very same management, told us Bin Laden really was in the Afhganistan in 1998 when he shot 70 tomahawk Cruise missiles at him and missed, yet when the very same management told Bush there were WMD's, it is something nefarious. In that point alone, you revela you are nothing but a liberal.
What were the Democrat saying when Bill Clinton was in office?
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 |
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 |
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 |
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 |
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 |
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 |
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 |
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 |
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Obviously you and Goldstein are able to write blogs entries criticizing the government, so that undermines you emotional lie about stifling of free speech and the whole liberal mantra.
I give Goldstein credit though. At least he has the balls to stand up and be truthful that he IS a liberal.
Posted by: pbj on November 9, 2007 05:28 PMAnd are these same hypocrites not the same people who eagerly accuse Giuliani and Romney of "flip flopping" on issues. Sure they are. Amazing, ain't it?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 9, 2007 05:53 PMAs much as I'm dying to sit down with a comprehensive list of Ron Paul's position and compare them to the RNC platform I think I'll pass on your specific exercise.
I can, however off the top of my head think of three major issues where Ron Paul butts heads with conservative/Republican thinking:
1) His thoughts on the gold standard and getting rid of the Federal Reserve are totally outside the mainstream of the Republican party and highly antithetical to economic conservatives.
2) His stated belief that the US should close most of its military bases abroad, including in Europe and Asia, stands in stark opposition to national security conservatives and their general belief in peace through strength.
3) His opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment places him in opposition to one of the highest stated priorities of social conservatives in this election cycle.
Do you believe Ron Paul is not, in sum, outside the mainstream of thought among Republican primary voters?
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 9, 2007 06:10 PM2)When the domestic infrastructure is crumbling it's hard to justify building infrastructure and borders elsewhere.
3) Do you believe in small government and State's rights acording to the constitution or not? If no, then forget about the rational for the Supreme court or for the rule of law in general. I know you want to cut your nose of reguardless, but it's not going to leave you with principles to argue from in the future.
Conservatism is a beautiful thing. If regular conservatives drive it into a ditch in a single-car accident, someone like Ron Paul will come along and brush it off and get it working again.
There's a lot of jealousy out there against Paul. I'm not 100% on board, but his quote, "We need a humble foreign policy" is the best quote I've ever heard from a candidate for president and he's the most exciting and refreshing of all the candidates without a doubt in my opinion.
Thanks all,
New left conservative # 1
Posted by: new left conservative #1 on November 9, 2007 07:12 PM
1) His thoughts on the gold standard and getting rid of the Federal Reserve are totally outside the mainstream of the Republican party and highly antithetical to economic conservatives.
Outside the mainstream, yes, but not outside Republican thinking. There's always been a significant number of Republicans who have agreed with this. I am sure plenty of YOUR ideas are outside of the mainstream as well. (Oh, and by the way, this was part of the Republican Platform at one point, too. Sure, it was 100 years ago, but ... still Republican!)
2) His stated belief that the US should close most of its military bases abroad, including in Europe and Asia, stands in stark opposition to national security conservatives and their general belief in peace through strength.
Yes, it is in opposition to many "national security conservatives," but it is very much in agreement with a very large number of Republicans, including the Pat Buchanans of the world (please don't tell me Buchanan and his supporters aren't Republicans!).
3) His opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment places him in opposition to one of the highest stated priorities of social conservatives in this election cycle.
But in agreement with many other Republicans, including me. (And I am a social conservative too, even though I know I am in disagreement with other social conservatives on this issue.)
Do you believe Ron Paul is not, in sum, outside the mainstream of thought among Republican primary voters?
In sum, I don't know. It's hard to say. I do know that I consider Ron Paul to be far more Republican and far more conservative than Rudy Giuliani.
Posted by: pudge on November 9, 2007 07:46 PMYour attempt to lump me in with the conspiracy theorists fails and just makes you look bad. I told you, I don't think Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand. I don't think the WTC towers or any of the other ground zero buildings fell under controlled demolition. I think it was civilian planes hijacked and flown by Saudi radicals.
All the pre-9/11 attacks you mention only prove my point, that we WERE at war with the jihadis well before 9/11, and that our policies in the region were what caused the jihadis to take up arms. We were over there, setting up dictators and arming their enemies.
The fact that all those liberal/Democratic hack politicians you quote above supported the Iraq war just proves that the Iraq war was a liberal act. Remember, nation-building and spreading Democracy are LIBERAL ideas, most famously promoted by Democratic President Woodrow Wilson. So how did you foreign policy liberals take over the Republican Party?
We know that Hillary Clinton is realy a closet Hawk. Why don't you support her candidacy? I ran against Maria Cantwell because of her pro-war votes. Did you vote for Cantwell?
Real conservatives believe in a strong defense of the 50 states, not building empires and defending foreigners. Reagan's defense build-up was defensive. MAD worked, and was defensive, not offensive in it's effect and had no element of occupation. Our free market economy out-produced the soviets, and we won the cold war without firing a shot.
Isn't it better to "walk softly, and carry a big stick?" Right now we are behaving more like a bull in a china shop.
Eric @ 74, going back to a gold standard is VERY fiscally conservative. It is a limited government position that is more consistent with the Constitution. It would prevent the big-spenders from wrecking our economy with debt sold to the Chineese. If it is no longer the mainstream of Republican thought, that just goes to show one more way in which Republicans have become more liberal over the last ten years.
Ron Paul's opposition of the Defense of Marriage Act came from his support of the principle of states rights; another conservative position. So, Eric, why don't you tell me which clause in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate marriage? Or don't you believe in limited government?
Marriage should be the province of churches, not government. For centuries, the church had the power of marriage. But then government officials wanted to control it for political gain. They instituted the marriage license for many reasons, but among them was the desire to prevent mixed-race marriage. Eugenics. Social Darwinism. Yucko.
And I don't think Republicans still want to do that these days, do they?
The legal purposes of marriage can better be accomodated by civil unions for all who want them.
I love it when I get challenged on real issues. But most of the time people just call me a kook or "out of the mainstream." This proves to me they have no rational arguments against my position. So go ahead. I have thick skin.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 9, 2007 07:48 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c78sNGHowl4
Ron Paul was an early supporter of Ronald Reagan.
And Ronald Reagan returned the favor by endorsing Ron Paul on numerous occasions.
It is ALMOST an endorsement from the Gipper, himself.
Ron Paul is more conservative and more Republican than Rudy, Mitch, John and Fred could ever be.
The liberals have taken over the Republican Party, and this explains our deficit spending, and our liberal foreign policy. Return to the principles that made the Party powerful, if you want to return to power.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 9, 2007 08:42 PMNo, it isn't. Had the election been held in 2006, the Iraq War may have been an important issue--It may be the most important issues among you and the other Ron Paul supporters in 2008, but it will not be among the electorate in general. Why? Because things have changed on the ground in Iraq. You see very little reporting on it lately by the leftstream press because things are going well there.
I expect that immigration will be the top issue in the 2008 election, followed closely by the fight against Islamic extremism. Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination and Hillary Clinton will not win the presidency.
Ron Paul is more conservative and more Republican than Rudy, Mitch, John and Fred could ever be.
First, I think you mean Mitt. Second, no, Paul is not significantly more conservative or more Republican than McCain or Fred. Come on, that's just stupid. McCain is the one who always votes against tax increases (and actually voted against a tax cut just because it didn't cut spending). Fred has been on the wrong side of 99-1 votes because the bills violated the Tenth Amendment. You don't get significantly more conservative than McCain or Thompson, and neither is Paul significantly more conservative than either.
That doesn't mean both are perfect, but then, neither is Paul, who, for example, opposes what I believe are necessary measures for national defense. I won't call such views un-Republican or un-conservative, because it's just a different view. Neither view is specifically Republican or conservative. Yes, generally speaking, a conservative Republican favors staying out of foreign entanglements, but that does nothing to inform us to whether, for example, Iraq is one of those we should be involved in, or not.
Giuliani, on the other hand ... well, duh. Everyone in the GOP race is more conservative and Republican than Giuliani is. So are some of those in the Dem race, for that matter.
Posted by: pudge on November 10, 2007 11:49 PMNo, the pre-911 attacks do not support your theory, they undermine them. Bin Laden declared war on us and fought us. We pretended there was no war, no danger, "move on folks, nothing to see here" and never fought back until after 911. Michael Moore once famously declared "there is no terrorist threat". That was EXACTLY the policy we were persuing, that there was no terrorist threat.
This whole "We supported dictators and therefore it is our fault we were attacked" bit is also a key liberal talking point. We deal with whomever is in charge of a country. Your big liberal heroes such as FDR not only dealt with, but embraced despots like Stalin. The fact is the West needs oil. If the people running the monopoly store are unseemly, are you going to live like a caveman or deal with them?? Since you are using a computer whose keyboard plastic is made from oil, I presume you do not choose to live like a caveman. Ditto your cars, boats, busses and just about any electronic appliance or gadget.
You liberals are always warning how the US is going to take over the ME for their oil. Well we aren't doing a very good job are we? The price of Oil is going through the roof and the ME princes seem to be the ones reaping the profit. (LIBERAL/SOCIALIST QUEUE: Bruce, now is where you rant about Exxon and their profits and try to twist it as the US stealing their oil)
Your "we are oppressing them " theory also falls flat on its face with the simple fact that Bin Laden is simply one of the bastard children of a billionaire Bin Laden construction empire. He was not some poor peasant who was denied housing and food as part of a cruel ruling Saudi regime. Profiles of the 911 hijackers show that they were not poor or undereducated. Many of them were university educated and came from affluent or middle class backgrounds.
Just as we did not recognize Hitler as a threat pre-WWII, we did not recognize Bin Laden as a threat. Now you and others like you want to turn back time and go back to our pre-911 days.
Answer me this. If we have all our troops at home, no bases anywhere in the world, then how would the US ever be able to strike back at any adversary? Throw spitballs at them?? And if the US cannot strike back, because in the isolationist doctrine, we have all our troops at home with no bases anywhere, what disincentive is there to keep an enemy from striking us at will?? Economic sanctions???
Do this for me. Right now, look at a world map. Look at Afghanistan. Please tell me how many approaches to Aghanistan there are via the Sea and without going through another sovereign nation???
This is exactly why we need bases all over the world. In a crisis there isn't time to ask your adversary to wait 5 years while you construct strategic bases to attack them. That is just fantasy.
You claim that Ron Paul was a virtual protege of Reagan. Yet you claim the fact that we dealt with unseemly regimes is why we were attacked. Well Reagan dealt with those very same regimes. Reagan dealt with Saddam too. You contradict yourself.
The fact of the matter is that we have tried isolationism and it doesn't work. What it does is allow the world's conflicts to build up into such large ones that they become World Wars. People turn their eyes to rising dictators, Hilter, Hirohito, Mussolini. The result is entire continent's inflamed in war. This is a basic lesson of the past that some apparently refuse to learn so they adovacte ludicrous policies that will repeat those same mistakes.
Ron Paul is the Howard Dean of the Republican Party in some ways. Yeah, he can pull in lots of money off the internet from fanatical fellow travellers,but once in the national limelight, the real nuttiness shines through. Sooner or later I think Paul will have his Howard Dean moment and he will retreat back into the woodwork.
Posted by: pbj on November 11, 2007 01:28 AM"On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press core helped fill the small venue. Reporters from many major national news outlets came to the small Iowa town, from such media giants as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and CNN.
After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff '10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. "They were canned," she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton's speech. "One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask]," she said.
Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.
http://web.grinnell.edu/sandb/questions.html
I wonder if the Paul movement has help from outside the movement that they may not even be aware of?
Posted by: WVH on November 11, 2007 11:26 AMIf you just wanted web traffic, well you got it! Don't expect any more until your next Ron Paul smear.
Is it really so hard to believe that a revolution is brewing? You don't think that Americans are pissed off? Our Economy is shit.. and it's because of Big Government and Big Business.
People like you are suppose to be intelligent. Why can't you see how history repeats itself?
Posted by: Dave on November 11, 2007 05:38 PMSo, call me a liberal if you want, but please call me a "classical liberal" or a Libertarian.
We can not be held hostage over oil. Here is why: oil is a global marketplace. If OPEC decided not to sell us their oil, we would buy from Mexico, Venezualia, Russia, or the North Sea. OPEC would still need to sell it's oil, or it would just be black goo in the ground, and others would buy it. They would reduce their purchases from Mexico, etc., and leave it to us. Or, we could buy OPEC oil through an intermediary country. OPEC must sell it's oil, and these days it has little ability to manipulate prices either.
Actually, mutual trade ties make war less likely! We should embrace inter-dependence with private middle eastern oil sources. They will lobby their governments to contain the radicals on their soil. Alienating a big customer is bad for business! When goods cross borders, troops tend not to. Capitalism leads to peace, contrary to what the modern, anti-market liberals say.
Your policy of setting up US military bases all over the world is going to hurt us. It hurts the American taxpayer, and it makes the US into an occupier. Even with no foreign bases, we still have seven carrier battle groups to project US power wherever we choose! You sound as though we could no longer retaliate against an attack if we closed all of our bases, but this is crazy. We can land troops anywhere within days, if not hours, and our cruise missiles and smart weapons can take out just about any threat that has any chance of coming from the Middle east. Relax, my friend, we have massive military over-kill for self defense.
And the South Koreans, Japaneese and Germans should fund their own defense. Don't you think they are rich enough to defend themselves? Why should US taxpayers subsidize the defense of foreigners on foreign soil? I don't want to pay for that, do you?
The position above is the opposite of isolationism. It is non-interventionism. Ron Paul and I endorse free trade, and free market capitalism as a way to peace and prosperity.
What countries did Reagan invade? Not many, I'll guess. His military build-up was based on M.A.D., and was a total success without firing a shot. Reagan, like Bush in 2000, advocated "a humble foreign policy." But Reagan didn't deal with Saddam, as evidenced by Bush 1's military action, and then Bush 2's. In fact, I suspect we helped put Saddam in power, didn't we? If so, it was obviously a mistake, right?
Our Wilsonian intervention in WW ONE was a major contributor to WW TWO (in addition to the stupid and isolationist Smoot Hawley Tarriff...) If we hadn't gotten in to WW ONE, there would have been a negotiated peace during the trench warfare stale-mate. But we allowed the allies to crush the Germans, and impose demoralizing sanctions, which lead directly to WW TWO. Wilson was a liberal Democrat. Nation-building and exporting Democracy are Democratic, Liberal goals, my conservative friend. They lead to war, and the erosion of our liberties, our security and our power.
How did the liberals take over the Republican Party?
I don't know, but I do know that Ron Paul's positions are conservative, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Conservatism is a big tent, and has come to mean lots of different, contradictory things. But Ron Paul's views of non-interventionism, free trade, free markets, low taxes, low spending, states rights and the Constitution are well-within the conservative camp.
Reagan's rhetoric was libertarian, and I think he would have supported Ron Paul in this election.
If Ron Paul does explode like Howard Dean, it will be a blow for the cause of liberty and limited government. And I'll just wind up voting Libertarian.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 11, 2007 06:09 PMKeep up the GOOD WORK!!
RON PAUL 2008!!
Keep up the GOOD WORK!!
RON PAUL 2008!!
Bruce G said this:
"If Ron Paul does explode like Howard Dean, it will be a blow for the cause of liberty and limited government. And I'll just wind up voting Libertarian."
This is the real reason Paul is going nowhere in the republican party. Pubbies know that at the core, his followers are not pubbies and don't support them. The best Bill and Hill can hope is that the loons form a third party and peel-off enough votes to give her the election. Assuming that the pubbies don't nominate a whack job like David Duke, the Clintons are really scared about the "anyone but Hillary" vote and need Bruce G and his friends to support and vote Libertarian. They know that a lot of the posters here either don't regularly vote or vote for fringe candidates. They weren't going to vote for either of the major parties anyway. They need to peel-off enough votes who have voted republican in the past and prevent them from voting republican this election. The Evangelicals refused to do their dirty work. Thanks loons for helping to elect Hillary.
Posted by: WVH on November 11, 2007 06:55 PMWe had trade ties with Germany and Japan in WWII and that didn't seem to stop them. We have huge trade ties with Saudi Arabia, yet the most of the 19 hijackers were from there. So much for your theory that trade solves everything.
Please stop repeating those same talking point abot the founder being "classical liberals", it only shows that you have all the MoveOn.Org talking points memorized.
Please tell me how you are going to strike at a place like Afghanistan without going through a sovereign nation's airspace??? Again, take a look at the map - look for A F G H A N I S T A N. Do you have magical missiles that do not have to travel through a sovereign nation's airspace?? A good example of the failure of your method of carrier only military, is Clinton's failed strike on Bin Laden. He shot off 70 Tomohawk missiles at a cost of $1.3 million EACH. He only knocked over a tent and a camel. Despite how much high tech fantasy you wish to have from your armchair, the simple fact is that only boots on the ground in the area can respond decisively.
And you may think we have massive over-kill, but you obviously haven't been paying attention to China. Thanks to Bill Clinton, they now have AEGIS class guided missile cruisers.
And do you know what? In the days following 911, we didn't have enough AWACS planes to cover the airspace above the US. We had to go begging from NATO!! If you call that massive over-kill then you are rooting for Al Qeada.
We have bases all over Europe and Japan. We are not occupiers there. I do agree they should bear a fair burden for this cost. That doesn't mean we simply abandon a strategic advantage.
Furthermore, your trade theory falls flat on its face when one considers the Arab Oil embargo of the 1970's. Who will buy that oil if we do not? CHINA, that's who.
As for Reagan, I think you forgot a small nation known as Grenada. And you mentioned M.A.D. That proves my point. We had bases right on the USSR's doorstep to threaten them with land based heavy throw weight missiles. If all we had were out sea based capabilities, M.A.D would have fallen flat on its face.
Non-interventionsim was a disaster in WWII. We did not intervene, instead we had the lend lease act. But Pearl Harbor was the school of hard knocks lesson of the kind you would have us repeat.
In WWII we did not intervene when Hitler invaded the Rhineland and then took czechoslovakia.
As for Saddam, he came to power on his own in a coup. But your presumption that Reagan had something to do with it underminds your previous argument that Ron Paul is a virtual Regan protege and deserving of vote as Reagan. So which is it? Are you saying Reagan was an interventionist or not? Because you cannot argue in one sentence he wasn't (e.g. the M.A.D. argument) and then turn around and say he put Saddam in power. This is yet another reason you are a modern day left wing liberal - like Hillary, you want to have it both ways.
I said that trade TENDS to reduce military conflict. This is true, even if it doesn't always work.
The main pain of the oil embargo: long lines at gas pumps, was due to Jimmy Carter's price controls. OPEC also has less power these days because of all the other oil fields now working in the world. OPEC's market share is less today than it was. They do not have the power to influence world prices very much.
Reagan had Grenada. Done in a month. Bush has Iraq and it has been going on for about five years. Bush is no Reagan. Few will deny that.
My point about Saddam was that we should not put dictators like him in power, because the message is that the US backs dictatorship. The US should engage in "free and friendly trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Reagan made some mistakes, but on this measure he was MUCH better than Bush. No contradiction, because I never claimed Reagan was perfect.
I do love Reagan's rhetoric, don't you?
And you still are spread too thick to understand the difference between a liberal and a classical liberal/libertarian. Quite obstinate. Or perhaps you are simply unable to understand. Or perhaps you just enjoy calling me names. Oh, well. I give up.
You can lead a horse to water...
Look, you hawks are just pissed and defensive because your Iraq war is unpopular. You are afraid that even the Republicans will bail on you. Well, if so, you are right. Politicians must back what is popular or they will not gain the power they crave. If Rudy is nominated, he will move left on the Iraq war before November in order to gain power. You will hate his guts then, and decry him as a hypocrite.
Ron Paul is different. His principles have never varied, but the difference is that now public opinion has come around to his side. He can defend his principles without becoming a hypocrite in the process of getting elected.
The writing is on the wall for the Iraq war, and any Republican politician who gets too hawkish. The alternative is Hillary in '08.
Here is your choice: abandon the Iraq war or abandon hopes for a Republican President in '08 (or Jan of '09.) You can't have both given public opinion. If you pick Ron Paul, you lose on your advocacy of the Iraq war, but you win on tax cuts and Roe vs. Wade.
It's up to you, jelly sandwich man.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 12, 2007 11:59 AMAs for the oil, there may be many more suppliers but consumption has also skyrocketed. If oil was as plentiful as you say. it wouldn't be topping at $100/barrel.
And you really know noth9ing of how Sadedam came to power. He came in his own bloody coup, The US didn't "install him". Now if a nation is in such disarray that the ugliest dog rises to the top and is "the government" of that nation, are you saying that we should or should not engage with them? Because onece again, you apper to be trying to have it both ways Hillary.
So if we a nation, on its own ends up with a Kim Jung Il or a Saddam Hussein as the governing body, are you saying we should not engage in "free and friendly trade" because they are a dictatorship? Hmmm that sound dangerously like nation building.
Or do we deal with whomever is in power that has been decided either democratically or through a coup by the people of that nation however distateful that may be to us?
You cannot seem to decide.
Every Democrat candidate has already said they would not withdraw troops. I think they mean this because they know the disaster it would be.
You Ron Paul fruit loops are warmed over nutroots who think that if they call themselves Republicans they will get more notice. You attract the fringe of the political spectrum from David Dukes to truthers because what you are selling stinks to high heaven that it can't help but attract so many dung eating insects of the food chain.
The sad part is that you Ron Paulers fail to see parody you have become. You actually think that any sizeable amount of the electorate will vote for him. Just as the naderites before you, after being shut out of the national debates after both parties have nominated their candidates, you'll pout and stomp your feet.
Posted by: pbj on November 12, 2007 02:17 PM