"Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln." - President Ronald Reagan, first inaugural address, January 20, 1981
Ron Paul claims to be in the "true conservative" and "true Republican" tradition, but that claims flies in the face of reality. I watched his interview on Meet The Press this past Sunday (see excerpts from Lauren Applebaum's report, below), and I urge everyone to view the online video or read the transcript in order to see what Ron Paul thinks of the first Republican president.
For a more balanced and more accurate appreciation of Lincoln, the 1860s Republican Party, and the 1860s Democratic Party, read my 2004 article "The Civil War Was About Slavery" at http://www.steveberen.com/790976.html
Also worth considering is Ron Paul's record of opposition to the Reagan foreign policy (while in Congress from 1981 to 1985, and after he quit the Republican Party in 1987 to run for president as a Libertarian). And I imagine Ron Paul would have some revealing comments on the foreign policy of another great Republican president (Theodore Roosevelt) as well. Republican tradition? Conservative tradition? Hardly!
From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum (excerpts)
On Meet the Press this morning [Sunday December 23], [Ron] Paul called the American Civil War a mistake, criticized Ronald Reagan as a "failure," and refused to rule out a third party run.
Paul repeated his claim that Abraham Lincoln should not have started the Civil War to get rid of slavery. "Six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War," he said. "No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic," he told NBC's Tim Russert.
"Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world," Paul continued, responding to the question if America would still have slavery had there not been the Civil War. "The way I'm proposing that it should have been done is do it like the British Empire did -- you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans?... I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach."
[SNIP]
"If you brought our troops home, you save hundreds of billions of dollars," Paul said, explaining how he would make up the lost revenue. "You can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman of the world."
Finally, Paul refused to rule out a third party run, saying he has "no intention of doing that." He previously ran for president in 1988 as the Libertarian Party's candidate, but is now running for the Republican nomination. "I can be pretty darn sure that I have no intention, no plans in doing that. And that's about 99.9% of a chance," he said. "I don't like people who are such absolutists -- 'I will not ever do this' or 'I will win' or 'I'm going to come in first.' I don't like those absolutists terms in politics."
(The above is excerpted from a report by NBC's Lauren Appelbaum.)
For a more balanced and more accurate appreciation of Lincoln, the 1860s Republican Party, and the 1860s Democratic Party, read my 2004 article "The Civil War Was About Slavery" at http://www.steveberen.com/790976.html
Posted by BerenForCongress at December 26, 2007 10:51 AM | Email This
That sums it up. I have to vote my conscience this time. The last time I trusted the republican party and they gave us George Bush twice! Before Paul came along, I was actually consider voting Democrat!! ugh! Thank God I started doing my research on Dr. Paul.
As I demonstrate in my article (through statements from the secession documents themselves), the pro-slavery secessionists accused Lincoln and the Republican Party of having a deliberate agenda of destroying the system of slavery.
Whenever Lincoln or other Republicans would make clarifying, modifying, or conciliatory comments indicating he wanted to avoid war and abolish slavery constitutionally, gradually, and peacefully, the pro-slavery secessionists would accuse Lincoln and the Republicans of subterfuge.
The pro-slavery forces of the day, over and over in their own words, kept insisting that slavery was the key issue justifying and requiring secession. In reaction to any comments by Lincoln and others that were in any way conciliatory in nature, the pro-slavery secessionists accused Lincoln and the Republicans of disguising their intention to destroy slavery.
In the 1860 election and the secessionist's state-by-state proclamations breaking from the union, the central basis for accusing Lincoln of treachery and perfidy was what would now be called "the Republican agenda" but what was then called perfidy and treachery - they accused Lincoln of deliberately seeking to destroy the system of slavery.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 26, 2007 11:52 AMThe Democrats, socialists, liberal elitists, antiwar activists, and far left anarchists oppose capitalism, deride big business, and promote a defeatist strategy in the war against Islamic fascism.
You say you were "actually consider[ing] voting Democrat," which would have put you on the same side as the anti-capitalist, anti-liberty, anti-business, anti-free enterprise, anti-military forces of the far left.
The Republican Party gave us Lincoln (who led the victorious war against pro-slavery secessionists), T. Roosevelt (who guided America into becoming a major economic and military power in the 20th century), and Reagan (who used America's power for "good" over "evil" in winning the Cold War against the "evil empire" of communism).
Ron Paul, like Edwards, Clinton, and Obama, lacks a victory strategy in the war against Islamic fascism.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 26, 2007 12:00 PMOn the other hand, the Democrats will nominate either Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards in 2008. In other words, they will nominate a candidate who opposes a victory strategy in Iraq, and who opposes a victory strategy in the broader war against Islamic fascist terrorism.
Such a candidate will either misread the American people and run an openly "antiwar" campaign, or try to appeal to the majority of voters by pretending to be "tougher on terrorism" than the Republican candidate (as John Kerry pretended in 2004).
If the Democrats nominate an avowed "dove" in 2008, they will lose just as surely as they lost in 2004. And if the Democrats nominate an anti-victory candidate pretending to be a "hawk," they will have even less success than Kerry did in fooling the American people.
The Democrats will nominate a "dove," though a perhaps a "dove" pretending to be a "hawk." This should virtually assure that a true pro-victory GOP candidate, a true "hawk," will be victorious next fall.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 26, 2007 12:04 PMLOL.
A war candidate is toast.
We certainly are a nation at war, and in that sense both major political parties and all presidential candidates must deal with the question of a victory strategy.
Defeat in the war against Islamic fascism is unacceptable, unthinkable. Of course they must lose the war; of cours we must win the war.
Some candidates (Edwards, Clinton, Obama, Paul, others) lack a victory strategy - they objectively favor cutting off funding to the troops, immediate withdrawal of troops, and surrendering Iraq to the terrorists. Also, they all minimize the serious threat posed by the Iranian dictatorship, which is on a war drive.
Some of these defeatist candidates openly proclaim their "antiwar" radicalism; others (copying Kerry in 2004) obscure their defeatist policy by pretending to be tougher on terrorism. But objectively, they share the same sincere (but misguided) goals.
Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and others lack a victory strategy in the war against Islamic fascism. Misreading the true meaning of the 2006 elections, and misreading the will of the American people, such candidates will push ahead with their antiwar agenda.
We needed to win the Civil War to destroy the slavery system.
We needed to win World War II to defeat Nazi Germany, Japanese imperialism, and Italian fascism.
We needed to win the Cold War to deal a severe blow to the evil empire, overturning communism in many countries.
And we now certainly need to win the war against Islamic fascism.
Some Democrats, some antiwar activists, some liberals, and some far left anarchists rhetorically compare U.S. foreign policy aims to the totalitarian aims of the Nazis in World War II; such extreme hyperbole only reveals the left's denial of today's real threat facing America and democratic nations throughout the world.
Any candidate who lacks a victory strategy in the war against Islamic fascism disqualifies themselves from the challenges facing the next president.
David Anderson makes clear his strong opposition to Lincoln, to Lincoln's war strategy and political agenda, and agrees with Ron Paul's opposition to the Civil War (which Ron Paul considers "unnecessary").
That's my point: opposition to Lincoln, accusations that Lincoln was a tyrant or conspiratorial, opposition to the Civil War, accusation that Lincoln has no power to go to war - these are more or less the positions of David Anderson, these are more or less the positions of Ron Paul.
But they have little in common with traditional Republican and conservative national defense policy.
Ron Paul has the right to sharply disagree with Lincoln's war strategy, and Ron Paul has the right to believe that the war to destroy and defeat slavery was not necessary.
But Ron Paul and his supporters cannot claim such views are within the realm of Republican and conservative foreign policy in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 26, 2007 04:40 PMLikewise, Reagan's victory strategy in the Cold War was justified, noble, correct, and historically beneficial to U.S. national security.
Certainly, those who disagree have the right to do so. They even have the right, of course, to advocate against a victory strategy in today's war against Islamic fascism.
But they can't claim to be in the Republican tradition of Lincoln and Reagan.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 26, 2007 04:45 PMPeriod, end of story...
Posted by: Ken Horse on December 26, 2007 05:08 PMInteresting...as far as I can remember, Mike Huckabee is one of the least-funded candidates on the Republican side. He has spent and raised less than his big opponents on both sides. I highly doubt he's got diabolic big businesses funding him.
Not only is Ron Paul a libertarian, he's borderline anarchist, and some of his supporters are, too. He has an anything-goes mentality, which is incredibly dangerous.
Ron Paul had the backing of various neo-nazi and white supremacist groups, and has raised more than any other candidate out there. Where has all that money come from? You tell me.
Posted by: Cydney on December 26, 2007 05:14 PMI appreciate your comments and candor. You and I will just have to agree to disagree sharply about Lincoln. I favor his policies regarding war, secession, and destroying slavery, and I am proud to consider myself in the tradition of Lincoln, the first Republican president.
As you make clear, you don't claim to be in the tradition of Lincoln. Likewise, the position of Ron Paul regarding the Civil War and the policies of Lincoln are also not in the tradition of Lincoln.
I believe that Congressman Paul is also not in the tradition of Reagan. As I mentioned in my original post, "also worth considering is Ron Paul's record of opposition to the Reagan foreign policy (while in Congress from 1981 to 1985, and after he quit the Republican Party in 1987 to run for president as a Libertarian)."
Ron Paul sharply disagreed with Reagan's policy on (for example) Cuba, Grenada, Libya (to name a few). His extreme isolationism, both today in 2007 and back in 1981 to 1985 when he was in congress during the Reagan administration, is in sharp contrast to the successful Reagan foreign policy.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 26, 2007 05:49 PMOur Government lies so much about so many things I doubt we will ever know the truth.
Historically our country lies to us to make money.
I don't think anything has changed.
This is certainly different than the optimistic, forward-looking vision of Ronald Reagan, with love for our country and its traditions, and promoting a positive moral vision for America's future.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 26, 2007 07:49 PMWatching America's spurs jingle jangle jingle during the Raygun era was good for everyone that had a chip in the weapons industry,but not for small businesses not associated with the var macheen.
Americans could be convinced into selling weapons to quisp so he could beat quake,and Americans would feel a moral positive.
Americans love to see our spurs jingle jangle jingle,for any excuse.
Americans would believe a lie just to feel good about moral positives even when none exist.
Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution states, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Allaince, or Confederation;grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money;...No state shall, without the Consent of Congress,...keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement of Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
The south was not in any imminent danger and was not invaded until after they seceded.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the US Gov't can "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
And this is what the US Government was doing when they were fortifying forts in the south. Those forts were manned with Union soldiers and were stocked with Union arms and supplies. South Carolina had no claim to them. One poster in the comments section of Beren�s blog put forth a PPT presentation where they try to spin the cause of the Civil War on the �North� They could make an argument of this if this particular document wasn�t available.
"South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession December 24,1860
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 2d day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Federal Government, and it's encroachment upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in their withdrawal from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other Slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time these encroachments have continued to increase, and the forbearance ceases to be a virtue. And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes that lead to this act�. We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been destructive of them by the action of the nonslaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies whose avowed object is to disturb the peace of eloin the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain have been incited by emissaries, books, and pictures to servile insurrection. For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of all the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to Slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that �Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,� and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the subversion of the Constitution has been aided, in some of the States, by elevating to citizenship persons who, by the supreme law if the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its peace and safety. On the 4th of March next this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the Judicial Tribunal shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against Slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guarantees of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The Slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation; and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that the public opinion of the North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief. We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates in convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent state, with the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. "
After reading this document you can not believe that the Civil War was about anything other than slavery and keeping the Union together. The document states how the �North� was encouraging and assisting their slaves to leave their �Homes� (Yea right� they considered where they were their �home�) but it states nothing about what the �South� was doing to antagonize the �North� like the Pottawatomie Massacre
OR the rigging of the ballot in Missouri causing Missouri to be put in the Slave State category even though 3 to 1 the residents were anti slave. This Civil War was definitely a complex war but I think you would agree with me the right side won. There is debate that slavery would have ended normally since it was becoming economically unfeasible to continue in the south. Some experts say it would have ended naturally 30 -50 years down the road� I don�t think those experts are correct since there are STILL to this day in the south that believe that slavery should still be employeed.
ANYWAY, so Ron Paul was against Lincoln saving the Union and abolishing slavery. He stated just last Sunday that "Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world," I beg to differ with you Mr. Paul. Slavery is still going on in the world. He was also against Reagan fighting the �Cold War� to win.. I don�t know about you but I remember the �Cold War School Drills� I had to endure while in grade school and middle school. I didn�t like living like that. Living with the feeling that tomorrow the world could come to a crashing end with one push of the button. I don�t like that some are living that way today either that�s why I can not vote for an isolationist like Ron Paul.
While reading through all the Civil War material tonight I came to a realization that we�re getting pretty close to 1856 again. This time instead of the slave owners against the abolitionists it�s the conservatives against the liberals�. Or is there a difference? Slave owners kept their slaves broke dumb and morally bankrupt. Doesn�t that sound an awful lot like what liberals do to their constituents? I�m just saying�
Posted by: Kerry on December 26, 2007 11:23 PM
Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain and Romney ALL supported illegal alien amnesty. That issue could destroy America before the Islamists could, economically and demographically.
Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain and Romney ALL talk and walk like Al Gore Greenies. That issue could destroy the basis of the American Economy before the Islamists could. I know you know this. You address it eloquently.
Giuliani and Romney are Gay Rights radicals. Giuliani wants to take your guns.
Romney proposes Government-imposed Universal Health Care. Huckabee is a tax-and-spend fiscal liberal. McCain is nothing less than an opponent of the First Amendment and a GOP turncoat. He's considering a lifetime 83% liberal Democrat as his running mate.
Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson and Ron Paul have faults but nothing compared to that bouquet of pansies.
If Ron Paul were to be elected and, somehow, find a majority in Congress to enact his agenda, we would have foreign policy problems, but nothing worse that we endured for decades prior to Reagan, retreating before the Communists. We could recover from that. We've proved it many times. But if men like the "Fightin' Pansies" ravaged, not only national policy, but the Republican Party structure, we might not recover because the infrastructure of our economy and our morality are what make survival possible. England recovered from Chamberlain's idiot foreign policy when they awoke. Trip wires tied to alarm clocks were stretched across Europe as they are, today, across American Cities. But France may never recover from the succession of moral reprobates that have, decade by decade, led them further and further into the dark woods of self-deception and corruption. America is more susceptible to seduction than subjugation.
The Republican Party, under Bush/Rove, from the RNC on down, fought a war of internal persecution against outspoken opponents of the open borders/ amnesty policies they tried to impose against the will of the base. They lied. They cheated. They used character assassination. I know. I became one of their targets. But that little war will look like child's play if one of the Great Counterfeit Candidates wins, not only the nomination, but the Presidency.
My recent observations on his emergence, posted at Atlas Shrugs and at Townhall.com:
1. a portion of what's at Atlas Shrugs:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/12/paul-kucinich-e.html
Paul's campaign (along w/ Kucinich's) is becoming the perfect storm of Muslims, antizionists, Buchananites, and fringe libertarians.... Watch its every move -- because out of it, perhaps during this election, and likely in election cycles to come -- will issue the practical organization-building that threatens to destabilize our electoral process in the years ahead.
In the meantime, here's the commentary, by "Dr. Aslam Abdullah" http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=1600 With no hyperlinks and no other sources cited it resembles rather a long blogpost, not journalism. Note too the word "respect" (propaganda for uncritical acceptance, if not outright submission, embodied by the UK's Respect Party): "a new century of respect and prosperity...."
2. at Townhall, in reponse to a column comparing Paul -- to Reagan:
http://tinyurl.com/3c2ont
Like Ron Paul's campaign itself, this column is demagoguery dressed up as political analysis.
Towery puts Reagan on an unassailable pedestal and elects himself as able, miraculously, to somehow read its mind.
The messy, mortal fact is that, like ashes scattered to the winds, Reagan's legacy is traceable in bits and pieces among all the candidates. He was a great leader for his times, but the times now are somewhat different.
Briefly put, Reagan's greatness was his firm and explicit faith -- faith in American principles and in the enduring, transcendent values of a Judeo-Christian God. That, and his determination to make that faith practical through political leadership. He didn't always succeed, but that was the stuff of his success, his reputation, and his legacy.
If I were to pick one candidate only in this field who best represents Reagan's legacy, I would say it's a toss-up between:
Duncan Hunter
Alan Keyes
# # #
You ask where all that money comes from that Ron Paul has earned. His campaign has done something different from the other campaigns which I hope the others will soon copy. What the Ron Paul camp does is list each donor by name. A ticker adds the totals each second in real time (see his main website) and click the little arrows under the ticker to view averages. An average donation per donor is calculated. I believe that the average donation on Ron Paul’s money bomb days is $100.00 per person. The current total for this quarter alone is 18,799,820 with 128,527 donors.
There are sites created by grassroots’ supporters that track every detail about donors, averages, amounts per min, hour, day, and quarter… then graph the data. Just google “Ron Paul graphs”. What you will learn is that there are so many donors donating just a small amount all leading up to unbelievable amounts of money for Ron Paul‘s campaign.
Given that he tracks this information and puts the info on a his webpage is unheard of from the other campaigns and something of an envy. I personally would love to see this done by the each person running for President. Would we see that the others get funding by less people and a way higher per donation rate due to the support of special interest groups and lobbyists that they receive? How would their campaign fund raising numbers compare to Ron Paul’s? I think Ron Paul does this because he has nothing to hide. Other candidates may not want this information published because it creates a transparency that may not paint them in a favorable light.
Given that Ron Paul has so many individual donor’s (such as myself) I think that most of them are not anarchists. Ron Paul absolutely does not encourage, condone or support an “anything goes” mentality. Nor do I. I would never support radical behavior or a candidate that does. I have gone in person to hear Ron Paul speak and the crowd that was there was so diverse and really not this picture of crazed anarchists, neo Nazi, racists group of people that the media (and both republicans and democrats) attempts to convey to a gullible public. I also belong to the local meet-up group of RP supporters although I am not very active I read and keep up to date on all the activities. Again nothing radical or bizarre. Mostly it is just normal Americans who want less government intrusions in their lives, a smaller central government, a balanced budget, a more transparent & honest government. They believe in American and recognize that both parties have mislead our nation. They do not want American to become like Europe and become a Union with other nations. They prefer stronger local control compared to a federal level of control. We believe that Ron Paul’s ideas can make these things happen.
As a special education teacher and mother I despise racism of any kind. I researched the neo-Nazi and racism claims. I found them to be false. People of both political sides dislike Ron Paul and attempt to smear him and create doubt. He threatens the power structures that exist, not only in America, but worldwide. When a power structure is questioned and people realize what is happening with their tax dollars they want it to stop. This threatens the pockets of the political elites and those who support them. Ron Paul threatens the status quo via information not violence or anarchy.
Thanks if you read this and be well.
Posted by: VAT on December 27, 2007 08:18 AMYou note that you "have difficulty reconciling Mr. Paul's foreign policy with Reagan or conservatism." In fact, it is impossible to make that reconciliation - Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy cannot be reconciled with Reagan's foreign policy, and it cannot be reconciled with conservatism.
Also, the Ron Paul candidacy and the political philosophy Ron Paul advocates cannot be reconciled with the great tradition of the Republican Party and the conservative movement (exemplified by Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, and Reagan).
I have not endorsed any presidential candidate, but Congressman Duncan Hunter and former Senator Fred Thompson, among many others in the conservative movement, offer a foreign policy approach which differs starkly from that offered by Ron Paul. Also, such pro-military, pro-victory, pro-troops, anti-terrorist policies are truly in the tradition of conservatism and the Republican Party.
For example, Duncan Hunter says:
FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR - Our success in protecting America from terrorists is completely dependant upon our ability to obtain and utilize reliable intelligence data. Our national intelligence and defense communities must be provided with the tools necessary to identify, track, stop and prosecute terrorists before they have the opportunity to strike. The fact that America has not been attacked since September 11th indicates to me that we are on the right course. I am confident we can remain on that course by providing our intelligence agencies with the resources they need while, at the same time, maintaining our commitment to the continued protection of our civil rights.
Source: http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=21 (there is also a video commentary by Hunter on that link)
And Fred Thompson says:
NATIONAL SECURITY - The first responsibility of government is to protect the American people, the homeland, and our way of life. Today we face the urgent threat of radical Islamic terrorists. Al Qaeda is committed to attacking us here at home, and wants to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to kill millions. We must never give them that opportunity. We must defeat the terrorists abroad, and that begins in Iraq and Afghanistan - the central fronts in this global war. We must show the world we have the will to fight and win. A weakened America - or an America that appears weaker - will only encourage further attacks. We must persevere. As Commander-in-Chief, the president must ensure the United States has the means to achieve victory.
Presidential leadership requires talking to the American people about these stakes, mapping out a clear vision for success, and devising a comprehensive strategy for achieving it. I am committed to:
A larger, more capable, and more modern military that can defeat terrorists, deter adversaries, and defend the U.S. and our interests. A missile defense system that can protect the U.S. and our allies from long-range ballistic missiles. An enhanced intelligence community, with robust human-intelligence capabilities, focused on terrorism and proliferation. A robust approach to homeland security that will protect our nation from terrorists and WMD, regardless of where they come from. A strengthened system of global alliances to better combat terrorists, proliferators, and traditional threats to our interests. A judicial system that deals with the realities of terrorists and unlawful enemy combatants.
Source: http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues (click on "national security")
He states the following:
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”
Found at http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm
You may or may not agree with him but understand that he is not an isolationist. I tend to agree with a non-intervention foreign policy. Our current policy has America in disarray worldwide and at home. It has not worked.
Posted by: vat on December 27, 2007 09:58 AMAt 23, you state that you "think that most of them [Ron Paul supporters] are not anarchists."
At 25, you say that Ron Paul's foreign policy should be called "noninterventionist" as opposed to "isolationist."
Regardless of the precise degree of Ron Paul's popularity among anarchists, and regardless of the terminology used to describe Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas, it is clear that he lacks a victory strategy in the war against Islamic fascism.
John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, and Barack Obama favor an exit strategy and oppose a victory strategy. They advocate various combinations of cutting off funding for the troops, precipitate and even immediate withdrawal from Iraq, inaction (non-intervention?) in the face of Iran's war drive and nuclear ambitions.
Some Democrats, some liberals, some antiwar activists, some far left anarchists, and some others are in denial - they underestimate the threat of Islamic fascism and shrink from supporting a victory strategy.
Such an approach has very little in common with the Republican and conservative foreign policy tradition exemplified by President Ronald Reagan.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 27, 2007 11:00 AMI see gas at three bucks a gallon and a cornish game hen at 10 bucks.
These inflated prices are a direct result in our quest to spread democracy down the throats of muslims.
I only see one Republican candidate that can bring the costs of those goods down.
Ron Paul.
How will Ron Paul bring the costs of those goods down:
Ron Paul will allow the EPA to install tougher air quality standards that will promote bio feul markets.
He will end the drug war which will allow for marijuana to be rescheduled.
Now industrial cannabis can be used to make cleaner burning feul right here at home.
now we have cut the radical islamic's off at the pockets.
Corn will no longer be the bio feul source of choice.
Feul costs will go down,food prices will drop.
Our commerce will be restored to the perfect balance we had before Reagan took office.
Poor people will be able to afford their own goods,and the rich will have incentive to buy two because it is a good deal.
Governments will have more money to spend because sales taxes will go up,and spending will go down leaving more money for the basic needs of our country.
If you want to nail the consumer to the cross with more moral crusades and record corporate profits you will vote for any other Republicans.
If you don't nominate Paul a Democrat will win and force us all into high rise condo's and make us pay a carbon tax.
Brother can you spare a carbon tax.
Thanks for such a well thought out response. How refreshing! :)
I don't think that most RP supporters are fascists, anarchists, or neo-nazis, and if I implied that, please forgive me. What I was TRYING to say is that most anarchists/neo-nazis/fascists are RP supporters, not vice versa.
I know several hardcore Ron Paul supporters who are far from being that extreme. They have the same concerns that you have.
I hope this cleared things up a bit. :)
Posted by: Cydney on December 27, 2007 08:10 PMThe issue that you seem to care about is the threat of Islamic fascism. I think that the word and the threat has been over played by power elites. Why would they create this fear? I think it is to control us into believing in the war, believing that they are our protectors and believing that we must follow them regardless of logic or facts. Good men do go bad, including our elected officials. Many of them, both republicans and democrats, are looking out in their own best interest. The people that paid big bucks to get them into their positions of power matter more to them then the average American citizen.
That being said, I believe that they will use fear to control and subdue us. I do not believe that we will be wearing burkas and praying to Allah. It is not going to happen in America. It is the fear card that makes many believe this. I have heard often that Iran is 10 years off from creating the “mushroom cloud” that will destroy us or Israel. The threat is overplayed. Before I even heard of Ron Paul, I heard about the neoconservative plans to dominate the middle east. I learned that they wanted and desired to attack Iran, Syria, and China. They thought it would be easy and it turned out not to be the cake walk they thought it would be. They played on our fears and our need to be safe to get what they wanted. I am angry due to these lies.
Other facts that tend to bother me is that Bush and his people claim that we are under this threat yet Bin Ladin is not on the most wanted list for 9-11 and they never sealed our borders to “keep us safe” from all the threats they claim. Yet they are willing to change our constitution and ignore our individual rights in the claim that they are protecting us. This bothers me and makes no sense.
I understand that you fear Islamic fascism. What I fear is different. I fear a nation where my son owes such an incredible debt as we police the world. What he earns will be turned over to the government to patrol the world and as our dollar drops in value he will be a slave to his job and limited earnings. He may have to be drafted as so many are failing to believe in the message of our handlers that we are fighting for “freedom”. WE are not fighting for freedom. WE are fighting for oil rights and domination. This is not worth my son’s blood or body parts. Given our current path he would live in a world of limited personal rights where even his property can be taken from him by the government if they see fit. An America where he is part of not America but of a North American Alliance. He will have limited say over anything in his life. If he wants to speak out then he has to do so in free speech zones where his voice does not matter or effect change. If he wants due process in court this too can be over ridden with the current laws. This is what fear.
I do not fear that Islamic fascist will over take America and make his wife wear a Burka. Not going to happen but the other things are well on their way of becoming a reality in America because of our own government. Not because of some Muslim living in a cave somewhere in the world. It is our own elected officials that you need to fear.
I mean this in respect. I hope you can become aware of the manipulations that our government submits us to. I am a mama bear who is hyped on a fear that does not entail the visions of Islamic terrorists making me bow down to Allah. I hope you can understand.
PS My kitty has your nick... I named her after my trip to down under.
Posted by: vat on December 27, 2007 08:38 PMVat, thanks for your reply. While we disagree strongly, at least the discussion is substantive, civil, and cordial.
Despite the liberal “political correctness” crowd, I believe we must call things by their right name – and the right name for our enemy is “Islamic fascism.”
Regarding this Islamic fascism, you state that you “think that the word and the threat has been over played….” And regarding the war drive of the Iranian dictatorship, and their effort to obtain nuclear weapons, you say “[t]he threat is overplayed.”
Some Democrats, some liberals, some antiwar activists, some far left anarchists, and some others share this perspective – a perspective which underestimates the real life danger posed by today’s evil empire. They favor retreat, defeat, and surrender; they oppose a victory strategy.
During the Cold War against communism, similar defeatist views were expressed by those who said that we were “exaggerating” and “over playing” the threat of communism. During the Reagan administration, such forces opposed the Reagan foreign policy, claiming that it was counter-productive and would lead only to “failure” and “disaster.”
History proved otherwise, of course.
You say to me, “I understand that you fear Islamic fascism.” However, actually it is not fear that motivates me – not at all. It is more accurate to say that I oppose Islamic fascism. It is more accurate to say that I recognize the danger posed by Islamic fascism. And it is more accurate to say that I favor a victory strategy in the global war against Islamic fascism.
Regarding American goals in fighting against Islamic fascism, you say “We are not fighting for freedom. We are fighting for oil rights and domination.” As during the Cold War and especially during the Vietnam War, the leftist antiwar movement and extreme left radicals (echoed by some Democrats and by some liberals) turned reality on its head. They accused America (not the Soviet empire!) of being “imperialist.”
Today, the same “blame America” crowd underestimates the threat posed by today’s evil empire of Islamic fascism. They fear and oppose a victory strategy; they even hesitate to call the enemy by its rightful name. John Edwards, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and Hillary Clinton oppose a victory strategy, and the defeatist “exit strategy” they favor would endanger our nation’s freedom.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 27, 2007 08:56 PMDue to technical reasons, the link to this strongly pro-Ron Paul article did not display properly in the original post, but that has now been corrected.
For the sake of convenience, here is the link again:
http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=1600
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 28, 2007 04:41 AMI totally understand your dislike of being "pidgeon-holed"...I think a lot of people share your dislike! Personally, I'm not a big fan of being called "neo-con slime". Yes, I have actually been called that on a YouTube comment thread. :) You have got to love some of those YouTube cronies.
Haha...it's actually my name. :) Every time someone asks my name, I give it to them, and when I get quizzical looks, I continue with: "...like in Australia, except with a 'C'."
With that said, all of the GOP candidates are a disappointment. The Republican party needs to look at why Paul has amassed a loyal following. To dismiss and ridicule Paul in order to uplift lukewarm Rinosaurs is short sighted.
Best of times and pathetic of times.....
You certainly are correct that Ron Paul "is not the person to represent conservative/libertarian ideas." In my opinion, he does not represent the Republican and conservative tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.
And of course, there is no reason "ridicule" Ron Paul. In this thread, there has been a fairly reasonable give and take, substantive in nature.
Rather than "ridicule" Ron Paul, and rather than "dismiss" him out of hand, his political positions and philosophy should be examined on their merits. That goes for all the candidates, by the way, not just Ron Paul.
You may agree with Paul on foreign policy; you may agree with Paul's view of the Civil War. Nevertheless....
Congressman Paul's foreign policy - whether you call it antiwar, or defeatist, or isolationist, or non-interventionist - is definitely not in the tradition, for example of either Reagan or T. Roosevelt.
And Congressman Paul's view of the Civil War, the struggle to preserve the Union, and the effort to detroy the system of slavery is absolutely not in the tradition of Lincoln, Fremont, and the other founders and early leaders of the Republican Party.
Ron Paul's foreign policy views, if implemented, would be dangerous and harmful to America's national security. Remember that as a Congressman during Reagan's first term, and as a third party presidential candidate in 1988, Ron Paul opposed the Reagan foreign policy on Nicaragua, Cuba, Libya, and Grenada, to name several points of contention.
And while it might be tempting to consider his Civil War opinions merely of a historical nature, they reveal much about his underlying philosophy - a philosophy that is in stark contrast to the governmental philosophy and decisive leadership of Lincoln, Fremont, and other early Republicans.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 28, 2007 03:57 PMOn another point - you raise the issue that "[T]he Republican Party needs to look at why Paul has amassed a loyal following."
Of course, we know that John McCain, in 2000, for a while "amassed a loyal following" - or at least it seemed that way at the time. However, were those McCain supporters loyal to the Republican Party? How many of them voted for McCain in an effort to thwart Bush in the GOP primaries, fully intending to vote for Al Gore in the general elections?
How many of Ron Paul's supporters have any intention of loyalty to the Republican Party? Or will they vote for an antiwar Democrat or antiwar Libertarian in the general election? Ron Paul himself has not pledged to support the GOP nominee. He is a Republican congressman, but won't commit to loyally supporting the Republican nominee. Will his supporters really be loyal to the Republican Party?
Whether or not Ron Paul runs as a Libertarian, both the Democrats and the Libertarians will run antiwar candidates in the general election, while the Republicans will run a pro-victory, pro-national defense candidate in the general election.
The pro-victory Republican candidate will win the election, with their electoral triumph all the larger in proportion to the degree they also run on a platform of fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, and opposition to illegal immigration.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 28, 2007 04:10 PMLincoln used the issue of slavery in order to do what he REALLY wanted to do: force the south to remain in the union. You see, it was really all about his legacy. He did not want to be the president who allowed the south to seceed. But there is no constitutional authority to force states to remain in the union. His actions were one huge step in the direction of tyranny, and he violated the principles of the American Revolution.
Our government schools want to brainwash our kids in to thinking that big government is good. This is why Lincoln is so revered today. Why is it conservative to defend big-government Lincoln? He moved us one step towards socialism.
Look, when Russia threatened breakaway republics in the '90's, we sided with the breakaways. Why? Because it is the right of the people to decide such matters, not foreign governments. Well, as soon as the Confederate States of America formed their alliance, Lincoln's government became foreign, and Lincoln became a tyrant when he:
Suspended habeas corpus
jailed peaceful newspaper editors who opposed him
attacked the south
used a scorched earth policy, including burning Atlanta, raping southern women, burning fields and banks...
He also killed peaceful indians
I say, "sic semper tyrannis."
Fox News Senior Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agrees.
Go, Ron Paul!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 28, 2007 04:54 PMAs I said in an earlier post, "And while it might be tempting to consider [Ron Paul's] Civil War opinions merely of a historical nature, they reveal much about his underlying philosophy - a philosophy that is in stark contrast to the governmental philosophy and decisive leadership of Lincoln, Fremont, and other early Republicans."
In my original post, and throughout this thread, I have asserted that the Ron Paul campaign, and Ron Paul's political views are not in the Republican and conservative tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.
Indeed, generally speaking, most of the supporters of Ron Paul posting in this thread have not challenged my assertion.
It is no exaggeration to say that some of the Ron Paul supporters posting in this thread have enthusiastically acknowledged their opposition to the policies and governmental philosophy of Lincoln, as well as their opposition to the traditional foreign policy and national security policies of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 28, 2007 05:25 PMI think Ron Paul is a conservative in the same vein as Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. Ron Paul is considering Barry Goldwater, jr. as his running-mate if nominated.
Face it, the Republican Party is a "big tent," and small "l" libertarians are a faction within the conservative coalition.
Or would you rather lose small "l" libertarians to the Democrats? Because if Republicans keep doing things like the medicare drug benefit, No Child Left Behind and the PATRIOT Act, you will lose about 15% of your membership. Small "l" libertarians are not as big a faction within the coalition as the religious/social conservatives, but are big enough to cost you power.
The choice is yours. Are libertarians welcome in your big tent or not? I'm happy to vote for partisan Libertarians instead...
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 28, 2007 09:08 PMI am aching to vote for a fiscal conservative...but I don't see one anywhere.
I will always look at the world of politics thru small business colored glasses.
The Republicans only have one candidate right now that addresses my concerns.
That is Ron Paul.
If you can show me another fiscal conservative that can address my concerns I will vote for him before I vote for a non war candidate from the D's.
They just dont seem to listen or care.
I will vote for Obama if I have to just to put a cork in the war for now so I can build bridges..
I may regret that if Obama starts to think about a carbon tax.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on December 28, 2007 09:29 PMYou write: "Face it, the Republican Party is a 'big tent,' and small 'l' libertarians are a faction within the conservative coalition.... Or would you rather lose small 'l' libertarians to the Democrats? ... The choice is yours. Are libertarians welcome in your big tent or not? I'm happy to vote for partisan Libertarians instead..."
Of course, small "l" libertarians are part of the Republican Party. Nothing in this thread argues otherwise, and nothing in this thread argues that libertarians are not welcome in the Republican Party.
The issue is not one of "welcome" or "unwelcome" - that is a straw argument. The issue is one of "agree" or "disagree."
Many different groups and different opinions exist within the Republican Party - what is important is for the differing ideas, policies, and philosophies to be be considered, debated, and judged on their merits.
In this thread, I have expressed disagreement with Ron Paul's foreign policy views, pointing out that they are not in the conservative Republican tradition of Ronald Reagan. During the Reagan administration's first term, Ron Paul opposed the Reagan foreign policy on many issues, including Cuba, Libya, Grenada, and Nicaragua.
Also, I have expressed disagreement with Ron Paul's views about Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, stressing the roots of the birth of the Republican Party and pointing out how Ron Paul's governmental philosphy is in stark contrast to that of Lincoln, Fremont, and the early Republican Party.
Of course "small 'l' libertarians" are welcome in the Republican Party. They should stay in the Republican Party, they should continue contributing money to the Republican Party, and they should continue voting Republican. In particular, next fall they should vote in support of the Republican presidential candidate and against Edwards, Obama, Clinton, or whoever the Democrats nominate.
By far the overwhelming majority of antiwar activists, leftist radicals, and hard core advocates of immediate withdrawal from Iraq are supporting Edwards, Obama, or Clinton. A small number of antiwar activists may support Dennis Kucinich, or the Green Party, or Ron Paul, but the large majority of more realistic antiwar activists are supporting Edwards, Obama, or Clinton since they at least have some chance of getting elected and actually blocking a victory strategy in the war against Islamic fascism.
The stakes in the 2008 presidential election are very high - the decisive issues include the future makeup of the Supreme Court, stopping illegal immigration, protecting all human life, and promoting a positive moral vision of America's future.
There are seven candidates for the Republican nomination, and supporters of the six candidates who do not get the nomination should support the Republican nominee.
One Ron Paul supporter in this thread posted "I will vote for Obama if I have to" in opposition to the war, and you yourself said that you would be "happy to vote for partisan Libertarians instead." I am sure it is no exaggeration to say these type of statements reflect the views of most Ron Paul supporters - they have little or no loyalty to the Republican Party, and most in the general election would vote either for Obama (or whoever the Democrats nominate), or would vote for Ron Paul (or whoever the Libertarians nominate).
Ron Paul himself has not ruled out running as an independent or Libertarian, and therefore may be in the position of actively and openly opposing the Republican nominee in the general election.
Even if Ron Paul runs as an independent or Libertarian, he would like get a very tiny percentage of the popular vote and no electoral votes. On the other hand, the candidate nominated by the Democrats (whether Clinton or someone else) would have the possibility of winning the election. And election of a Democratic Party president in 2008 would mean an administration committed to accelerated judicial activism on social issues, greatly increased taxes, erosion of property rights, amnesty for illegal aliens, and weakness in the face of today's evil empire, Islamic fascism.
There are seven Republican presidential candidates, and all have their committed supporters. When six are eliminated and one nominee remains, all candidates and all their supporters should unite. Every vote counts, as they say, and in 2008 every single vote will be very important. As I've pointed out, crucial issues are at stake in 2008. Even candidates with relatively few supporters should unite behind the eventual GOP nominee.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 29, 2007 07:02 AMSorry, man, that is just not my attitude. I think for myself. I am a capitalist. Mine is the attitude of the shopper: "if I like what I see, then I will buy." I think this is the attidude of most mainstream voters and independents who wind up voting Republican, and there are many more of these than there are Republican party loyalists.
I do not value loyalty to a political party such as the D's and R's. These two parties are purely practical associations, formed in order to gain power. Both lack clear and consistent principles, other than the desire to get elected. Instead of clear principles, they have polls and marketing strategies, coalitions and shaky alliances. Loyalty to one of these is like loyalty to a big-box retailer. We buy from them because we perceive it to be in our interests to do so, not out of a sense of moral duty.
Only about 18% of the electorate are die-hard Republicans. These people would vote for a horned-toad if it had an "R" painted on it. You'll not convert me into a loyal R by running candidates I don't like.
Look, you partisan R's have a strategic decision to make: nominate a Huckabee, McCain or Romney and lose the small "l" libertarians in your coalition, or nominate Ron Paul (or perhaps Giuliani) and keep them.
It is up to you. It is purely a strategic decision on your part. Choose wisely! :)
My preferences in the Prez. Race:
1) Ron Paul (by a large margin)
2) Whomever the Libertarians nominate
3) Mike Gravel (former D Senator from AK)
4) Giuliani
5) Kusinich
6) Obama
I would never consider voting for Hillary, Edwards, McCain, Huckabee or Romney.
I do not think my "welcome or unwelcome" question was a straw-man argument. I think you were saying that small "l" libertarians were not conservatives or not Republicans. This struck me as an attempt to say we should not be members of the party. And nominating a McCain, Huckabee or a Romney would definitely make me feel unwelcome in the Republican Party.
Thinking about it from your strategic perspective, making coalition members feel welcome should be your highest priority if you want to win.
But I suspect that the Republicans will nominate a big-government, Iraq war hawk, and this will cause them to lose, for the same reason so many Republicans lost in the anti-Republican landslides of 2006. Ron Paul offers you a chance to escape that fate in 2008. Will you take it? I'm looking forward to finding out! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 29, 2007 05:59 PM