What a sane Ron Paul supporter sounds like
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (39) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Jason Pye is a friend of mine and blogs with me at Peach Pundit. He's been in charge of the Libertarian Party of Georgia for a while, and he is a Ron Paul supporter.
Jason could not come to RedState right now and start an account because, unfortunately, for every one Jason at RedState there'd be ten Zionist conspiracy theorists here and by the time we realized that Jason was one of the sane ones, the other ten would have graffiti'ed up the joint beyond recognition, which is why we've imposed our policy. It keeps a handful of good guys out, but it keeps a vastly greater number of nuts out.
In any event, Jason asked if I'd post a sane person's perspective on Ron Paul here at RedState and I'm happy to oblige him.
Below are Jason's words, not mine:
-----------------------------------------
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” – Ronald Reagan
I have been amazed by the amount of support that Congressman Ron Paul has received in his run for President. He has managed to raise a substantial amount of money for someone who is relatively unknown on the national level.
Some of his supporters have taken some incredibly stupid actions…the constant spamming of polls, their excessive comments on blogs, the near mugging of Rudy Giuliani at a campaign stop and the need to spout off every 9/11 conspiracy theory that Alex Jones can dream up.
Red State is well within their rights to ban or delete comments. It is private property, something that I thought a Ron Paul supporter would respect and believe in.
Ron Paul is likely the only candidate in either party that has a true understanding of the principles of personal and economic liberty. With that said, he is probably the least effective spokesperson for those ideals.
I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but every time he speaks...I cringe. He manages to turn every question, not matter what subject into a rant about our foreign policy. I don't disagree with him at all, but he is preaching to an audience that doesn't want to hear him.
With that said, some of the reaction toward Ron Paul’s campaign is equally as troubling as the actions of some of his supporters.
Ron Paul represents a growing feeling among fiscal conservatives that the Presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster. For example…the unwise and incredibly costly to invade Iraq, the trampling of civil liberties, the Medicare drug benefit which added trillions upon trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and the expansion of federal involvement in education with No Child Left Behind.
Fiscal conservatives and libertarians have no real home. The fusionism or coalition, whatever you want to call it, that gave made the Republican majority could very well be broken beyond repair. According to a Cato Institute study, “Libertarians preferred George W. Bush over Al Gore by 72 to 20 percent, but Bush's margin dropped in 2004 to 59-38 over John Kerry. Congressional voting showed a similar swing from 2002 to 2004. Libertarians apparently became disillusioned with Republican overspending, social intolerance, civil liberties infringements, and the floundering war in Iraq.”
The Republican Party has chosen to advance the cause of social conservatives who, as Andrew Sullivan says, believe the purpose of government is to save souls and make people more moral. Compassionate conservatism, which is really social collectivism, has overtaken the message of individual and economic liberty of Goldwater and Reagan. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians have been cast to the wayside. These two groups had been able to tolerate social conservatives as long as the GOP fought for smaller government, less regulation and so on.
Republican fusionism is on life support.
I wouldn't go that far; there are some things that have been done by the Bush administration that, at the very least, are on very shaky ground in terms of ensuring civil liberties.
That being said, I don't believe they are as broken as others suggest. It would have helped the administration a lot to have explained to the American people what these provisions entailed as well as to make efforts in regards to how they would be dealing with any information obtained, and whether or not they should inform citizens of what was monitored should such evidence not be used in a criminal proceeding.
Nevertheless, perhaps "trampling" isn't quite the right word... but a paragon of protecting individual rights the current administration is nowhere near.
"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Ben Franklin
So you are saying that trampling over the Bill of Rights is a conservative position?
In this country in particular ??
How can you say the patriot act tramples over what was common practice when bill of rights was signed ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Just because something was in practice before Bush does not mean it is right. We republicans should be pushing to protect our civl liberties not continue to trample them. Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems to believe this.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...as JaseLP. Please review the requirements and get to it for your next post here.
Now, don't go copying each other's work.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
..."knee-jerk." Not to mention a bunch of other names by a bunch of other people, bless their hearts and may their stomachs stop roiling bile.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Right up there with "The Christian Right is neither" and the like. Rather typical of, well, moonbatty left-wingers, (which probably accurately handicaps my chances of a fruitful discussion here, but what the heck...).
Please explain, in detail, in your own blog (translation: not here) precisely what "essential liberties" are being "given-up" and how, precisely, the Bill of Rights is being "trampled".
Take your time.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
...although you can do it here. In fact, you can do it in your next post.
I suggest that you do a good job with it. Note that pages of links with no explanations or critical analysis; fevered conspiracy theories; and/or blatant attempts at spurious logic do not qualify as being examples of a good job.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...so please tell me what rights and liberties you've lost.
Come on, dude. Your piece was very good except for that part.
But I take exception to identifying Iraq's foreign policy as a fiscal/social con split. There are plenty of primary social cons who don't like what we're doing in Iraq. Pat Buchanan is an extreme example. Likewise, there are primary fiscal cons here who support the occupation. I tend to think of this as a new grouping - terrorism hawks. YMMV.
I also wouldn't take Andrew Sullivan as an expert on social conservatives, or consider their cause wildly successful. But that's something for another post.
...and d*mned if I can't figure out which one. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
This guy seems like a good guy, but this seems more against ron paul than for him. I believe ron paul is a great republican candidate, and supports most of the issues on this great site. I do not agree with him on all issues, but getting rid of the huge government ruling us something all of us republicans are for, I think even if we dont agree with everything he stands for hes a great guy we can learn alot from. You cant say that for hillary and the rest of those liberals.
I'm pretty sure it is merely an oversight that the moderators haven't told you this already.
=========
About the Author
Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term mixed breed.
is that libertarians are somewhere between irrelevant and a drag on the ticket:
“Libertarians preferred George W. Bush over Al Gore by 72 to 20 percent, but Bush's margin dropped in 2004 to 59-38 over John Kerry. Congressional voting showed a similar swing from 2002 to 2004. Libertarians apparently became disillusioned with Republican overspending, social intolerance, civil liberties infringements, and the floundering war in Iraq.”
In 2000, Bush, with 72% of the liberarian vote, won 47.9% of the popular vote to Al Gore's 48.4% and Harry Browne's 0.36%.
In 2004, on the other hand, when Bush's share of the Libertarian vote fell to 59%, Bush won 51-48 over Kerry with Badnarik pulling 0.32%.
If there is a lesson here it would seem to be that decreasing Libertarian support by 13 points adds 2 points to the Republican candidate in the general election.
That's an analysis I can live with.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
You may be able to live with it, but it's not at all accurate.
There was a higher voter turnout in 2004 and social conservatives were motivated to turnout at the polls due to gay marriage bans on the ballot in eleven states (including key swing states). Your "analysis" completely ignores 2006 as well.
And...please keep in mind that when there is a difference between a libertarian and Libertarian. Not all libertarians (philosophical) are Libertarians (party members). I've met many libertarians that want no association with the Libertarian Party.
Furthermore, I'm not just talking about libertarians. As Erick pointed out a few days ago, fiscal conservatives are preparing to jump ship.
where are fiscal conservatives going to jump ship to? Paul isn't a fiscal conservative, he's a fiscal ignoramus or, more likely, he knows his supporters are and panders to them.
My analysis "ignores 2006" because there weren't libertarian candidates on the ballot in 2006 and because the story is talking about 2008, a presidential election. But your critique makes my point stronger. SoCons turn out to vote. Libertarians stay in their parents's basement and smoke dope. I've got no use for them and I'd vote Democrat before I voted for a libertarian.
Publicly associating with libertarians loses us many more votes than it gains us. We don't have a lot of libertarian office holders because their ideas are lunacy in the real world.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Most fiscal conservatives aren't about to prote IPO's for abortion clinics.
Most Socons aren't for the government taxing them out of existence.
Neither are pro the government usurping the role of private charities.
The only people threatening to jump on either side are those angling for leverage. And the everpopular democrats egging things on.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It seems that you are arguing that one of the only reasons why Republicans win is due to the coalition with Libertarians.
I would argue that it was mainly because of the addition of Social Conservatives to our Republican Coalition that produced the victories of 2000, 2002, and 2004.
Let's break it down:
Social Conservatives / Values Voters are motivated by a thin number of issues. They would like at the very best the Government to support Marriage as is, between a man and a woman; and for the sanctity of life to prevail. These individuals are, for the most part, our most passionate supporters.
Libertarians are typically thrust into a number of different groups. Like the quote from Ronald Reagan you have at the top of your article, most Conservatives are libertarian. But Libertarian in the sense that we're tire of the Government working outside its Charter (the Constitution). We're tired of excess taxes, large scale Government "reforms" that only increase the size of the Government and continue to hinder our civil liberties.
Now why is it that Libertarians have so much animosity toward social conservatives? Because of No Child Left Behind? Because of the Prescription Drug Benefit? If so that's moronic, as most Social Conservatives look at these as failures through and through.
The "coalition" is breaking because of stupid infighting from "fiscal conservatives" and libertarians aimed mostly toward "social conservatives" due to the simple fact that Republicans in Congress spend too much... Too much of taxpayer dollars on wasteful projects, too much time listening to lobbyists and not "US", etc...
Time to aim/vent directly to "our" REPUBLICAN politicians rather than scapegoating on others inside the coalition who walk precints, knock on doors and deliver elections.
"These individuals are, for the most part, our most passionate supporters."
They are also your biggest liability.
=========
About the Author
Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term mixed breed!
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
In fact, I couldn't agree more. While politically I'm a libertarian, in my personal life I'm a conservative. While I don't want to force my views on others through government, I also want to not be called a bigot for leading a conservative lifestyle, like what the Democrat' base does.
That said, the main reason why I'm not supporting one of the larger Republican's is because, as a veteran, I view the Iraq war as a stalemate that is benifiting our enemy and sapping our abilities and resources. I'd rather see that put to better use by defending our boarders and coasts so they can't get a nuclear/atomic payload here in the first place. I'm tired of the world ridiculing us because of our military presence around the world, but cry to us and demand we "do something" everytime we don't put down some petty little dictator who thinks he has an Army because they just bought some 1960's tanks. My buddies and I haven't served so that our country can be invaded from the south, we took them to defend our country.
As far as my support for the Republican's go if Paul doesn't make it, I guess it really depends on what the elections look like after the primaries. I will NOT support Rudy, but I will definantly support a McCain run, or even a Romney run against Clinton. The reason why I won't support Rudy is because his platform looks, at least to me, like a "Clinton-lite", and I hate light beer.
I've got no use for guys like you.
You are trying to hijack an existing party as a vehicle for your ideas which couldn't break 1% in a national election.
If you won't sign on to vote for the nominee, you don't have a place at the table in selecting them.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I voted for Bush in 2000 (18), I voted for him via absentee ballot in 2004 (22), so yes, I've done my part for the Party.
Are there other candidates that I will get behind if RP doesn't make it, yes. It's just not Rudy, that's all I'm saying. McCain is a very honorable man, and if he wins the primary, I'll vote for him. Same with Romney, I can even support him even though I disagree with him on several things. If Fred somehow pull out of his slump and wins, I'll even vote for him. But like I said, Rudy just looks like a Clinton-lite, and I dread the idea of not only her, but her platform as well.
So yes, it's true that I don't just vote Republican to vote Republican, I vote for the candidate, like everyone should. I vote in every local and state election, and I vote Republican, even though I don't always agree with them. So why do I support RP? Because for the first time, in the Republican Party, there is someone who I agree with on a majority of issues. No, I'm not trying to "hijack the party", I'm a registered Republican, have been for 7 years, who wants a small, limited government and fiscal responsibility.
This "vote the party" bs is what got us were we are today were our elected Republicans didn't do what we wanted them to; keep the budget under control, win the war, and stop America from being the call-boy of the UN. It's that exact platform, plus social conservativism, that won them Congress in 94, if you remember.
If nobody screws up on spending it will be in about a year.
My own feeling is doing something about the AMT to keep the deficit going would be a good Idea.,
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I, too, sometimes cringe when the Unnamed One veers off into his foreign policy rant. That rant is fine when actually asked about a foreign policy issue but to bring it up with almost every question does himself & his positions a big disservice.
I had not heard about the harassment Giuliani had to endure in Michigan; that is inexcusable. I am very anti-Giuliani but such behavior is abhorrent & runs counter to the free exchange of ideas that the Unnamed One embraces.
The ideas put forward by the Unnamed One are worth hearing. I feel that most of the other candidates are merely tweaking W's positions. The Republicans have very much lost their way. I don't know whether the loss of Dick Armey & Phil Gramm left too big a vacuum for anyone to fill. To me it seems that only a few --such as the Unnamed One & Tom Coburn (why doesn't he run??)-- kept their eye on the ball & honestly tried to slow the runaway spending train. Perhaps the blame should all go to W & Rove. I happily voted for W in 2000 but quickly became disillusioned with him. Quite apart from Iraq, there was the No Child Left Behind business, a failed attempt to prop up the steel industry, his failure to veto McCain-Feingold, nominating Harriet Miers, etc.; it was too much. Thank God Robert Ray worked out a plea deal with Bubba, because I now think W would have let him off scot-free. Knowing that I was throwing my 2004 vote away, I cast it for Badnarik. We do not need another W clone in 2008 & that is why I am a strong supporter of the Unnamed One.
If you shill for Ron Paul, but substitute "the Unnamed One," "Voldemort," or whatever, you are still shilling for Ron Paul and your comments/diaries/account will be treated accordingly.
Fair notice.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
This is what dictionary.com has for shill:
1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
–verb (used without object)
3. to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino.
–verb (used with object)
4. to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.
Is this what you are accusing me of with my submission above? I am not on the payroll or staff of any political candidate. Do you speak for the website, Mr. Wolf, as I could not find your name in the About section, nor in the Posting Rules section? And by the way, as far as the published Posting Rules are concerned, I fail to see how my submission violates them.
You fit definitions 2 or 4 pretty well, there.
The answer to your question is yes, I will delete your material and turn off your account, and no, no one will have sympathy on you.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
The Posting Rules state --among other things-- "The purpose of this site is promote conservative and Republican ideals." If you guys feel the need to silence me because of my submission above, then I'd say we Republicans are in a heap of trouble. Perhaps after four years of Hillary, you'll be more open to other conservative & well-meaning points of view. Please delete my account.
Espouse the ideas without the man. He ain't gonna cut it - exactly for what the blog provides as reasons...missteps, mistakes, etc. The principles are what matters, not the person. But we have to get the principals back into the discussion. I wish I could thunk on the head all the other candidates that "its the principles stupid!" - limited government, liberty, constitution.
Why are we seeing an uprising here more and more at Red State (and I acknowledge that I have not been here that long)? I classify it as extremely upset people including those in any political party. I am upset...11% approval rating, government continuing to expand, population explosion, etc., etc., etc.
Erik
I was agreeing with him right up until he dropped this at the end:
The Republican Party has chosen to advance the cause of social conservatives who, as Andrew Sullivan says, believe the purpose of government is to save souls and make people more moral.
When you start quoting Andrew Sullivan, I tune out. Especially if he's talking about social conservatives. It's like asking the Cowboys head coach what would be the best way for the Redskins to beat them "Well, we're really poor against the pass, so they should play-action pass all day long" (example purposes only - no actual football commentary intended).
Let this be a lesson to all bloggers everywhere, when you quote Andy Sullivan, you do so at your own risk to your credibility.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Anyone who uses the phrase "the trampling of civil liberties" is a moonbat and a person who is not to be taken seriously.