Ron Paul does not belong in the race for the GOP nomination
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Archived | Code Pink | Republican | Ron Paul — Comments (181) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Ron Paul played a valuable role in Congress. I do think so. He was never effective at limiting government, but that's not the role I saw him fill; rather, he was a minor gadfly to the statists, keeping in the vocabulary of Congress the small-l libertarian notions of a government limited to specific functions, non-confiscatory taxation, etc.
When Ron Paul entered the Presidential fray this year, contrary to what some of my other, perhaps more discerning RedState colleagues thought, I thought it was a neat idea, something which could only help push the other candidates in the direction of at least promising to restore and protect our God-given liberties. As a pro-life libertarian, the concept of Ron Paul, though hardly Presidential, would be a welcome voice.
I no longer think Ron Paul should be included in any serious discussion of the Republican Party or its Presidential candidate. (I've recommended Leon's diary, which you may count as a co-signature.) Ron Paul has ceased to be that amiable figure, the eccentric insisting that government derives its mandate only from the consent of the governed.
It's the surrender bit, completely incompatible with what I had thought of Ron Paul; it is, however, a good way to drag confused Code Pinkers and pseudo-libertarians into the cash-donating aisle with the Red Light special. Is it a con? Who the heck knows, but Ron Paul come up with a small following from the anti-war crowd, folks blathering about concepts of liberty and governance which they obviously do not choose to understand understand.
"Get back to the founders, man! They didn't dig war, man, and interference, like, in other countries, and stuff." Oh, right. Thomas Jefferson in 1801 launched a preemptive war – without the approval of Congress – against the Barbary States because their actions ran counter to our national security interests. The Pirates only wanted the United States to pay them off. Would President Ron Paul, if he had been the third President of the United States, have paid the Barbary Pirates their toll, thus allowing the precedent to be set for the young United States that we are a paper tiger? Would a President Ron Paul, as the 43rd President, have allowed Saddam Hussein to thumb his nose at the United States and the world, continuing to become more dangerous apace, as the United States maintained and protected its image as a paper tiger earned by President Clinton (Bill)?
There is a difference between going back to the vision of the United States held by our Founding Fathers, and they saw us as an eventual world player, and shrinking the United States to its seminal, 18th century form.
I liked this Ron Paul; this neo-Ron Paul, not so much.
Ron Paul could no do what Howard Dean did not. Ron Paul has an energetic internet following and a quirky candidacy, just as did Howard Dean back in '04. Dean was too integrated with the Democrat's lefty base to realistically separate and in a third party direction. Ron Paul, at the present time, is more a Code Pinker obscuring his talk with some message about personal liberty vis-à-vis Iraq. He can go his third party route and stop polluting the GOP nominating process.
There is too much at stake, here. It is time for Ron Paul to find a new venue to do his quixotic thing. Me? I'd like to find the best possible nominee who can beat the Democrat next year. Is it Rudy, Thompson, McCain, or Huckabee? Someone else? It's not Ron Paul, who is not behaving like a member of the Republican Party. (Is he a member, btw?)
I don't see Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee going anywhere yet.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
confined to Fred, McCain, Mitt and Rudy (note the tactful alphabetical order!) in the runup to the primaries? We are wasting so much freaking TIME on the others.
But if we're going to let Romney and McCain up there I think we have to let Huckabee up there. The three are pretty close in national polling.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
There has not yet been a vote cast and everyone is deciding who should and who should not be allowed to debate? For a number of reasons, that just does not seem like a wise idea.
Let the process play out. If the second tier candidates have no chance as you say, they will drop out in due course. But I don't want the republican party or anyone else "limiting the debates" because that's when I start to get a little suspicious.
We're ALREADY excluding people from the debates you know. We don't let just anyone who files to run onto the stage, or we'd have hundreds of people up there.
There's already a line, the only question is where to draw it.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
The question is whether Ron Paul is in front of or behind the line. There isn't much question that he's pulling the money and the polling numbers to be at the debates (particularly, since he's the only small government Republican running).
Any more refinement should come from the voters.
there's that "only small government Republican"
He's not a Republican. I think the party should expel him. He does not agree with any number of the major tenets of the current party platform. Let him go back to the Libertarians.
Second of all, Ron Paul is not a "small government" candidate - he is a NO government candidate. What I wonder is, when Ron Paul dismantles the entire federal government, does he think we'll all be better off? Does he plan to help states step into the complete void he will leave? Would he prefer that they also cease to operate?
Let's see - if you get rid of the IRS, who exactly will be collecting the excise taxes and tariffs that will fund the 4 people left working in Washington? If you eliminate all Education funding (and the DoE), will the states be able to make up the difference? And exactly how high will our state tax burden go to account for it. And how long will it take?
If we drop out of the UN and basically cease to engage with the rest of the world, who do we turn to when they come here and start shooting us?
And what exactly is "free trade" in Paulista? Apparently trade agreements that eliminate tariffs and other restrictions on trade don't count. And clearly RonPaul will be funding whatever it is he would allow the government to do with trade restrictions (tariffs) - so how do you get free trade like that?
I'm not a Paul supporter, but this type of requirement for ideological purity seems to be more the approach of the other side.
While we're at it, who else would you like to "expel" from the party? If you create this type of purity test, I'm betting by the time you're done there won't be much party left.
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975
You are absolutely right. Ron Paul is not a Republican, because he isn't a socialist, authoritarian, warhawk.
You can argue that the man isn't a Republican. Hell, based on the candidates we're promoting these days, I'm SURE he isn't.
Don't pretend that the rest of the party is conservative though.
You are absolutely right. Ron Paul is not a Republican, because he isn't a socialist, authoritarian, warhawk.
You can argue that the man isn't a Republican. Hell, based on the candidates we're promoting these days, I'm SURE he isn't.
Don't pretend that the rest of the party is conservative though.
"He's not a Republican. I think the party should expel him. He does not agree with any number of the major tenets of the current party platform."
Come on remember the Big Tent. Some of his supporters are jerks, but it is not like he is pulling a Lincoln Chafee.
"If you eliminate all Education funding (and the DoE), will the states be able to make up the difference? And exactly how high will our state tax burden go to account for it. And how long will it take?"
The USDE currently represents only a token portion of Education funding (typically in the 5% to 8% range). I think that the states will be able to manage without it. Moreover, the states incur a lot of expenses in consequence of accepting money from the USDE. The school system that I am employed by, for example just created a new $50,000 a year position. The position was created in order to make sure that the school system was in compliance with USDE requirements.
"Second of all, Ron Paul is not a "small government" candidate - he is a NO government candidate. What I wonder is, when Ron Paul dismantles the entire federal government, does he think we'll all be better off? Does he plan to help states step into the complete void he will leave? Would he prefer that they also cease to operate?"
He may be strange. He may even wear a tinfoil hat, but I do not think he is an anarchist, nor do I think that he wants to "...dismantle the entire federal government..." Perhaps I missed something, if so please provide me with an appropriate link
"If we drop out of the UN and basically cease to engage with the rest of the world, who do we turn to when they come here and start shooting us?"
I do not know (I do not know if that is his actual position), but only a fool, or a suicidal person would turn to the UN for help when someone is shooting at them.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I think those are good points, especially about the UN... don't they usually come to US for help and use OUR troops anyways? One of my dear friends was in the special forces and he tells me how he despised taking orders from someone who wasn't even an American... sorry, I think I got a little off subject there... good points!
When you hear all that the Unnamed One is against, one can get the impression that he is for no government rather than for a smaller government. First of all, I don't think this accurately reflects the Unnamed One's positions. He does not think we shouldn't have a military --after all he served as an Air Force flight surgeon-- but rather that it shouldn't be involved in other countries' internal affairs, especially when there is no threat to our security. But beyond that, if the Unnamed One were actually president --& in my wildest dreams I do hope that happens-- the reality is that he could not dismantle the government. He could, however, wield the veto pen (something W has only recently discovered) & apply the right kind of pressure to reduce spending & the size of government. This is in sharp contrast to W who seems to have found a way to out-do Bubba when it comes to spending & also, I am afraid, in sharp contrast to what the likes of Romney, Giuliani, Thompson & McCain would do if they were in office.
That you could consider Giuliani a Republican, but not the Unnamed One is unfathomable. I cannot take the claim that the Unnamed One is not a Republican even halfway seriously from someone who thinks that Giuliani might actually be an ok, if not a good or great Republican candidate.
[...a good reason for it. Feel free to explain why in your next post, Sparky. Make it good. - Moe Lane]
Most of Ron Paul's ideas would need congressional approval before being implemented. Unless congress turned libertarian overnight, you don't have to worry about the IRS, DOE or the other government agencies and programs disappearing under President Paul. I would imagine his veto pen would be working overtime as would congress attempting to override him but thats not necessarily a bad thing.
"A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for America"... Ponce
Why? Ron Paul is the only individual going for the White House who DID NOT paid a visit to the state of Israel in order to kiss their butt or get his marching orders.
"When the truth comes into the light, the lies will hide in the dark"... Ponce
"To be ready is not"... Ponce
If you are going to be offensive do a proper job of it.
______________________________
"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
______________________________
"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
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
and replacing them with YouTubes that tickle our fancy, but you know what? I think we'll leave this one up.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
putting their email addresses out there in the open for us. Not that any of US will spam them, but it does make it easier for spammers to pick them up :>)
Giuliani is a liar and is hated by more than just the firemen he cheated. Thompson is an actor not a politician. Huckabee is follower not a leader. McCain is too. I don't see anyone on the this ticket that will do anything. Hillary is being endorsed by FoxNews owner robert murdoch...its over. She is a part of Bildeberg and no one seems to want to talk at all about that. I just don't get it you all are ok with all these candidates being a part of the CFR..they already approved drivers licenses to illegal aliens in NY--in SC the state id doesn't have a picture of the American Flag or the EAGLE or the state logo--no it has a unified Canada, U.S. and Mexico (NAU). What the hell is wrong with this country...And why is REDSTATE ignoring all this???? I am a proud Republican can I get some answers here???
"Giuliani is a liar and is hated by more than just the firemen he cheated."
Were you on the Mackinac conference ferry?
"She is a part of Bildeberg and no one seems to want to talk at all about that."
Bad Ronulan! Bad! No biscuit!
absentee
She's on the high council of the illuminati. Hasn't he seen the expose' on the subject?
Worst part is they're infective. You get one person to actually believe this stuff and they tell all their friends and a few of them believe too.
My stepson has become a truther because one of his best friends is "really into it".
I think I've got him to realize it's crap, but every now and then he'll ask if I've watched this or that clip on You Tube that proves the government did it.
These guys make things up that sound authoritative or tell pieces of the story and it spreads. He's currently caught up on the "You can't melt steel with jet fuel." argument and isn't too keen on my response that it doesn't have to melt, just get hot enough to soften a little....
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
...have instructed us to ban NAU obsessives on sight.
Sheesh. Only in America does one see resistance to the idea of taking over the continent without firing a shot coming from the Right's conspiracy theorists.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
What do you have against Northern Arizona University Moe?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
One of my best friends from high school went there. Sure, his math degree became an art degree, but there's nothing inherently offensive about the place.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Will wonders never cease. And no wonder it morphed into an art degree. The closest it gets to offensive (at least for those of us in Phoenix) is temperatures below 85F and snow.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I am from Ireland, if you know where that is. Ron Paul is the only decent and real American in this race, it is so obvious from the outside looking in. I fear for the world if anyone else becomes president, because the rest are just more puppets for big business and the military complex. Read the facts it is undeniable.
Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul for president.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim,Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim,Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim,Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim,Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim,Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim,Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim,Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim,Tiny Friggin Tim.
Or are you somewhere else ?
______________________________
"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
his followers cannot discuss issues and positions without tying them intrinsically to him. It's not about libertarian, small government ideas and ideals, it's about RonPaulRonPaulRonPaul.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
his supporters from making mention of him.
I'm curious though, can they write about legislation he has authored?
"It's not about libertarian, small government ideas and ideals, it's about RonPaulRonPaulRonPaul."
duh. that's because it's an election. we've spent decades preparing the intellectual groundwork for this campaign. now it's time to get the votes.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
He's written lots of legislation about lots of stuff. He's never produced a workable plan to actually implement any of it. This reduces his "legislation" to nothing more that crap he throws against the Capitol wall to see if any will stick - it won't - because he knows full well none of it will actually get out of committee.
Let me toss in here that I happen to support lots of the domestic spending/entitlement reform-elimination concepts that are near and dear to libertarians. But dude! Ya gotta have a plan.
For instance, lets take tax policy. RP wants to fund the fed with excise taxes and tarriffs and asking the states for $$. He thinks that will work because he will also axe most fed spending. This very subject has come up on another blog today and I asked for a plan of how we get there because I might be willing to support it if it's workable. So far, just like from Rep Paul, we've got no takers on how to get it done.
And so it goes with EVERY ONE of Rep Paul's "signature" issues. While it bothers me that he's not been able to get one other Member to stand with him over 20 years, I'll give him a pass on that. He's never produced a comprehensive plan about implementing any of his ideas. Never. He just writes legislation to eliminate the IRS or do XYZ without any kind of a road map to get there.
So, should you talk "his" legislation? No. And from my perspective, you shouldn't talk about it because it's a meaningless discussion. What I think you probably could talk about and note that I'm not a moderator, so I've got no say on what is acceptable and what's not, are issues that are near and dear to your heart, but PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't just toss out an end product (no more IRS, etc), tell how you would propose to get there and then we can have a rational discussion. Just citing legislation is about as worthwhile as listing the post offices he's voted to name or the shrimp fisheries he's funded.
Issues and implementation plans, not the man.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Do we, the general public, ever really hear the step by step solution to any problem in this country from any candidate? Seems to me that all the candidates tend to say (usually in vague terms) what they'd like to do as a means to the end without revealing the details. Is this anything new of a frustration? Does any one candidate clearly and unequivically explain their solution more than the other? Seems unfair to call out one politician more than the other.
Besides, if the truth be known, I believe that most candidates have real, true workable plans...but when does one explain these long-winded solutions - during debates? On websites? Should we think that presidential candidates hold their solutions close to the vest due to tactics?
Just my opinion.
You can start with today and Fred Thompson releasing his plan on Immigration. There are a couple of blogs at Redstate discussing it. It is a reasonably detailed statement of policy.
You can find it on Fred's website here...
You can find Rudy's "12 Committments" here...
In both of those cases, the candidates have provided policy statements and a roadmap to implementation. I've seen nothing from Rep Paul other than one paragraph general statements with no implementation plan. I've challenged his supporters over and over to produce an implementation plan and I've never gotten more than a list of legislation that he's submitted that's all died in committee.
I disagree that most candidates have real, workable plans. I've not seen anything from Huckabee. I've not seen anything from Paul. Or Tancredo or Hunter. Fred has done some good work - see the immigration plan above - as has Rudy. Candidates should absolutely lay out in at least some level of detail how they will achieve their goals, otherwise it turns into John Kerry telling us he has a plan to disengage from Iraq but he won't provide the details - trust me!
With respect to calling out politicians, I'm not. They won't likely be listening to me. I have called out their supporters. And will continue to.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
While I like most of Rudy's 12 Commitments, for the most part, they are about as vague as Ron Paul's ideas. That isn't a plan he is setting forth, it is his list of goals.
I'm impresssed with the detail that Fred T has put into the issue of immigration. It is quite the breakdown.
Rudy's solutions are well listed, fairly extensive...some subject are not discussed, however.
I am up for a good challenge; here is some immigration info regarding another candidate,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/fisk/fisk14.html
and
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform...
and, in this politicians own words,
http://www.sierratimes.com/05/12/12/Paul.htm
Let me know if this is not thorough enough. I can probably get more.
On the immigration link, there is absolutely nothing relating to a plan, as a matter of fact, the money quote for me was If we don’t adopt Ron Paul’s suggestions... The Presidential candidate doesn't have a plan, he doesn't have a policy, he's got suggestions.
With respect to the "six point plan", there's just no "there" there. Enforce the border, end birthright citizenship, no amnesty, enforce the laws. What's he going to do about the current population of illegals? Deport 'em? How about employer enforcement? Etc. It's all fluff.
Same comment for your last link.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
splitting hairs on whether these candidates are presenting "suggestions" as apposed to "plans". I mean, you could say Thompson is suggesting we do this, then this, then this...but, by the links I offered, you could say that that candidate is planning on this, then this, and then this...
Is it the details you want? Your example candidate, Fred Thompson, may have extensive details toward immigration reform, but when you look at some of his other topics (such as tax reform), his verbage is limited. Shouldn't this concern you?
I'm beginning to think it may be the content, or the source, of the ideas that concern you, not whether there is real potential application. I could be wrong. Again, I can provide more examples...
anything I've seen from Romney or Huckabee.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
of our global empire and its impact on health care gone over better at the pharmacy. No dice. Nada. Niente.
I had to pay full freight.
You may disagree with Ron Paul's positions, ideas and ideals. You may want more inflation (which is nothing else than the biggest taxe ever imposed on people), more governement controlled education, more bailout of Hank Paulson's friends at Goldman Sachs, more deficit, more illegal immigration, more FEMA, TSA, UN, IRS, INS ... but then don't call yourself a conservative. Not only does Ron Paul belong with Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee in those so-called debates, but he also belongs on your ballot when it's time for you to elect the right president of the United States of America.
respect for private property? Just asking.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Respect for private property is an obsession to libertarians. It is has become painfully apparent that a lot of the more annoying/asinine self-declare supporters of "he who should not be named" do not respect private property. I therefore, have come to believe that a lot of the self-declared supporter of "he who should not be named," are nothing more than leftist trolls, trying to split the more libertarian elements from the Conservative Movement.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
He complains about many things, as do most of us, but complaints are not solutions.
Ron Paul is contributing nothing to the Presidential debate, and he is a tiresome distraction from that debate in the GOP.
As I've said, I have no objection to RonPaul going third party on us; perhaps he can get a Nader-like thing happening.
Isn't calling Ron Paul "the only real conservative" or stating that those of us that don't agree with RonPaul shouldn't call ourselves conservatives, a clear indication of trolling?
I'd really like to expand the ban on Paulistas. Even "grandfathered" accounts shouldn't be permitted to throw around the same tripe of being the "real Republican" the "real Conservative" and similar unsupported comments.
I like Ron Paul. I'll be voting for him in the Texas primary, if he's still in the race.
I like Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. I like Alan Greenspan (well, mostly).
I dislike a lot of Ron Paul's policies, but as far as I can see, he's the only candidate who bases his responses on principles of personal liberty rather than on political expediency or incidental life experiences.
If he's not still in come primary time, (and I don't think he will be) I like Huckabee and McCain, and I'm okay with Thompson. I think Huckabee has the best chance to beat Hillary, so I'll most likely end up voting for him.
You're going from Ron Paul - who you claim to support for speaking from principle - to Mike Huckabee - because he can beat Hillary!?
First off, I think you may be out of touch. Huckabee is the least likely to beat Hillary because he isn't much different than Hillary.
Second, how do you go from a radical libertarian like Ron Paul to the most statist of our candidates - Mike Huckabee? Huckabee loves taxes, loves government solutions to problems, loves all those things that I would think would be anathema to a Paulista.
that the most statist presidential candidate would be the one that would trade some freedom for more security, not the one who would advocate some government programs for the poor. That's my definition of statism, at least. Thankfully, I think most of our candidates understand the balance. (I guess Huckabee's one statist position is on cigarettes, but that's not passing.)
And I actually think Gov. Huckabee's similarity to Hillary on some issues would help him win. The one issue that Americans are moving left on is healthcare, and I think putting forward a limited health care plan for the poor (as Gov. Huckabee has stood up for in the past) will help us stem off the threat of Senator Clinton's socialized medicine.
As much as you loathe the guy, we love him for standing up for the Constitution and small government.
I think you are confusing his constituents along the Texas coast for all the Paultards that have emerged during his Presidential bid.
Do not confuse us, we won't retire him from Congress till he retires. Sorry, we like our real Conservatives down in Brazoria.
Between two sides of an issue lies the truth.
Does anyone else think RP may run as a third party candidate? Of course, he ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988. It seems to me that he is getting a lot of undeserved publicity by running as a Republican. He also seems very ego driven. I would not be surprised if he tries to leverage his attention from running as a Republican into a third party candidate. the sooner he is excluded from the debates, the better.
Ego-driven? Part of the guy's problem is that he has too little ego. He needs to speak up more about his accomplishments: introducing the partial birth abortion ban legislation, his work on medical supplements & preserving access to information for consumers & so forth. The one ego-maniac in the whole primary process is Giuliani, who is all about aggrandizing power. His vendetta against Milken & Drexel Burnham was ruthless. In order to get the convictions, or plea agreements, he wanted, he started having his investigators interrogate Milken's 90-year old grandfather! To get Giuliani's dogs off of his family, Milken plead guilty to offenses where the estimated damages were less than $1 million. For this you take out a man & a thriving company? Well, yes, if it furthers your political ambitions. Also, Giuliani managed to deep-six the line-item veto when some funding to NYC was in danger of being cut. How's that for being an upstanding Republican? And how about endorsing Cuomo for governor? If anyone should be excluded from the debates & primary process it should be Giuliani. Personally, I don't know why people are always itching to narrow the field right away. I'd like for the candidates to hang around as long as possible. I think debate & choice are good things -- but is that now anti-Republican as well?
and i'm glad the ron paul discussion will be removed from this site. though i just registered i've been a long time reader.
ron paul, may have fit in the republican party at one time, but he doesn't belong here anymore. we (republicans) have changed along with society. i believe in a somewhat powerful central government. i think constitutionalists like ron paul are too rigid in their interpretation. like you said, even jefferson abused the constitution. why should we allow our hands to be tied behind our backs by some archaic document? it's a guide, not biblical law.
ron paul has been essentially useless in congress because he is the ONLY one who maintains that ultra-limited federal government attitude, that may seem nice to many libertarians and conservatives, but it's not what the people want. one vote doesn't get you very far in the house. if republicans all took that stance, everyone but the fringe would support democrats. i don't understand how he was elected 10 times.
all his talk of "individual liberty" derived from god sounds great in speeches, but there has to be some practical limitations on this stuff. the patriot act, for instance, may infringe slightly on our personal liberties, but without it we might not be alive to enjoy our liberties. another thing is gun control: sure there's the second amendment, but if you just think about it...we need some restrictions on gun ownership. the constitution was written in a completely different time. we don't really need guns anymore. not that they should be completely banned, but reasonable limits on ownership.
we need to be practical and make compromises. don't get me wrong, ron paul seems like a very nice man, but he does not have what it takes to be president, and i don't think he belongs in the republican party. he would only cause further deterioration of the party, and we can't have that.
i enjoy redstate becuase i think the bloggers here think along the same lines as me and most republicans. this whole ron paul thing is getting out of hand. i'm glad they are doing something about it. keep up the good work.
different....
Oh, I know... how about you follow the rules and post intelligent responses on other threads without even MENTIONING RP and then maybe we'll think you have something new to say that's worth reading...
Is that TOO MUCH TO ASK?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
why would i not mention ron paul when i am responding to a post about ron paul? i signed up here specifically so i could put my two cents in on this subject.
i wasn't trying to offend anyone. i'm not saying anything bad about ron paul personally. i just agree that he doesn't belong in the republican party. like i said, he seems like a good person, but that doesn't necessarily qualify you for political positions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ5VAhpiUuQ
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Would it be too much to ask to expand the criteria for automatic banning to people who have keyboards without SHIFT keys? Thanks for your consideration in this matter.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Your shrewd finesse nearly exceeded our collective percipience. What a discerning wit. We heap praise upon you for your adroit illumination of what we now see are our petty foibles. Accolades and laurels are at hand.
absentee
I am undecided in the upcoming race but I have to say, if I was an unbiased emotive person, Ron Paul would have swayed me because of his infectious "feel good" freedom message intertwined with arguments seemingly underpinned by historical precedents and relevant comparisons. However, I am more deductive, more expecting of substance and understand that before I cast my ballot I have to go through every legislative/policy action made by every single candidate and see if I agree with their record, their work ethic, and their vision for this country. The one core issue to me is fiscal policy as this affects, what I deem are the ancillary issues, like the war, immigration, healthcare, social security, etc. My quip is that I haven't seen one Republican candidate succinctly and substantively articulate their solutions to our ailments. Most of what I hear from them are hackneyed regurgitated verbiage flakier than a pillsbury biscuit. My initial surface impressions gleaned from the debates however are that Huckabee (seems weak, too sacchrine and too evangelical), Thompson (seems ok but probably more of the same), Rudy (no way in hell), Romney (coiffed but no passion), Ron Paul (principled but not sure if his vision is pratical).
Can't you RP supporters get it? Just make some intelligent posts on specific subjects. Don't even mention the name.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Sorry the Paulites came here in force, I never noticed since I mostly lurk and drop by and read the front page. I think the last time I posted was when that one dude said he was gonna run against Ron in the primaries down here in Brazoria, foolishly.
While I admit I was part of the early push for Ron Paul (early accounts of the web push are not to far from the truth), I have found myself leaning more Huckabee these days. Don't get me wrong, I will always vote for Ron Paul as my congressman. He has always got me the small government vote, save the shrimper fiasco. (Which he helped the shrimpers, yet didn't vote for levee repair. Odd that he went with commerce over infrastructure, one of the few things I expect the gov to take care of.)
But I have seen the power of the Paul hordes, especially on YouTube and Reddit, it's been amazing to see a fellow Brazorian get so much support. He is a good man, but some of his followers are borderline zealots. It reminds me of "Bob Roberts", the Tim Robbins movie. Seriously, watch it, no matter how you feel about Robbins, it is good political satire.
So, it's sad you banned discussion of Ron Paul, personally I think the front-loaded primary season would have taken care of it by February. It will be interesting to see though, how the Howard Dean of the conservatives (passionate followers/massive online support) translates into real life primary votes in 2008.
Rarely comment, saw Paul discussion was banned, realized I more than meet the requirements to talk about him, and decided to say piece about my neighbor.
But say God is feeling funny next year, and Paul wins New Hampshire or Iowa (remember Pat Robertson in 1992?), will people be able to talk about him then?
Just asking.
Between two sides of an issue lies the truth.
It was one of the great debates of the 13th century. Incredible theological question at one depth; stupid at the next; even more profound at the next level; and so on.
Slightly sidestepping the question, I personally believe God views all of the events in the universe throughout time, and is beyond laughter or tears; but even allowing for a sense of humor as we understand it, I don't think God is Mel Brooks.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Of course that is a gnostic gospel magically found in 1983.
But as per God, why would he test Abraham then, if God is beyond laughter and tears? If God can be that emotionally invested in trying Abraham, I do not see why God wouldn't also find time to chuckle.
Of course, I'm Luthern and this little debate is completely off topic, but looks like a good one.
Does God laugh?
You are correct in saying:
"Incredible theological question at one depth; stupid at the next; even more profound at the next level; and so on."
Major content warning if you hit the link and read more of this comic by the way.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Who does belong on the debate stage? Is it one of those can't be defined, but known when seen criteria?
A bit about from whence I come:
I have never registered for any political party.
I have never failed to vote in a national or statewide election - missed a school board vote or three over the years.
I have voted in every primary when I lived in states with "pick one party" primaries.
I am clearly not a "loyal Republican", though in the past I have leaned more Republican than not.
I am a fiscal conservative at all levels of government.
I want a government no larger, no smaller, than it needs to be to carry out the mandate of the government be it federal, state, or local.
I want the constitution respected and adhered to, all of it, making me I suppose an "originalist" or "strict constructionist" though neither are terms with terribly fixed meanings.
I am militantly agnostic. You will find me in a church pretty much only when someone (other than me) dies or is married, out of respect for the concerned.
I want the federal government to stay out of matters religious - see above re the constitution - who am I, or my elected representatives, to tell someone else what to believe?
I am an admitted libertine, marrried with kids for 16 years.
I use neither alchohol nor recreational drugs (save for caffeine), legal or otherwise, but want them all legalized for by those adults inclined.
I am a foreign policy hawk - while I did not serve, members of my family have and are serving.
I want Congress to declare war before the President takes than a punitive action against sovereign state and think the President has the inherent authority to take short term punitive actions pursuant to the those actions Congress has previously defined under its powers:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
Given all that, what candidate for President, R or D, would the members of RS suggest as best fits my policy preferences? So far most of both sides are very long on platitudes, short on specifics.
You've gotta pick your own. Have a nice day.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Of course I will pick my own - and to that end I asked for information as to which of the candidates, who's positions I am not that familiar with, are a best fit with the preferences I indicated.
I am not frequently on line in the evenings. I returned here this morning and I must say the vitriol and sophmoric sarcasm I see on the board does not bode well for information seeking if this is typical of the forum.
The questions I asked still stands.
Anybody who would need as much direction as you're asking for is the poster child for requiring some kind of testing before you can register to vote.
If all else fails, write in "Mickey Mouse".
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Seriously?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I do like the idea of a bounty hunter system. Bush put a price on Osama and a bunch of his top guys. What did it get to...$50 million or was it $20 million.
Anyhow...I think they should have put a lot more money on Osama and his buddies heads. Then you'd have a ton of Dog the Bounty Hunters after them :P
Seriously though...Bounty Hunters seem to be pretty effective. And it only costs you if they are successful. Kind of a win-win...I'm not seeing any real downside with that.
I don't think you can set the price high enough for Osama's supporters to turn, but it did work for Saddam.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Yes, seriously. Pirates are alive and active on the maritime scene, most particularly of the African coasts and the areas around and including the Straits of Malacca. The Congress has, and probably should use, the authority to grant private individuals and firms the legal protection needed to arm merchant vessels operating in those areas and / or post bounties should their be known pirates that could be brought to justice.
Similarly since most acts we call terrorist violate international law, that is are an offense against the laws of nations, Congress in effect create foreign auxilliary law enforcement operations to hunt them down for profit. Cheaper than deploying combat brigades.
idiots start screaming "Blackwater! Mercenaries!" I really wish you guys who have BDS would all get on the same page.
Our success springs from our ideas. A quarter-century ago, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, wrote, "of a sudden, the GOP has become a party of ideas." It was true then - and remains true today. We are the party of ideas - and "ideas have consequences."
- Karl Rove, January 20, 2006
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_21_06_Rove.html
To take out two of the most important paragraphs:
More importantly, we have seen the rise of a great cause. Three Republican Presidents and Republican Congressional majorities have achieved a tremendous amount in two-and-a-half decades. The Cold War was won - and today we are winning the war against Islamic fascism. Millions of people who lived in tyranny have been liberated - and freedom is spreading across the globe. Republicans rebuilt our national defenses; cut taxes and spurred economic growth; ended "stagflation;" limited government's growth; reformed welfare and insisted on accountability and high standards in education; took important steps to protect and strengthen marriage and the family; and stood up against judicial activism and for constitutionalism.
A very eloquent defense for the work the US (Republican ideas) has done over the past three decades to make the world a better place in which to live.
And this:
It is important to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done and victory is won. Abandoning our Iraqi friends would signal the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our military by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. The tyrants in the Middle East would laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us again and again as they did on 9/11. And the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever. To retreat before victory has been won would be a reckless act - and this President will not allow it
This succinctly explains why the US must not withdraw too soon from Iraq, before the battle is won.
I support this move most strongly. His online supporters for the most part are unreasonable fanatics. They spam any post in the blogosphere that mentions him and they attack every online poll to give him the illusion of electability.
Good riddance.
Blogs 4 Conservatives is keeping conservatism alive in the 21st century and beyond!
I don't remember anyone EVER talking about libertarians in 2006. We all complained about them? Huhh! Coulda fooled me.
To ask YOU a question. Are YOU content to be totally inconseqential forever? You want to become relevant, go out and organize a REAL party, and get some libertarians elected to congress. When you have enough libertarians elected to congress, THEN and only THEN will you have enough support to get anything a libertarian president wants done. Until then you will be nothing but futile.
I'll have to see if theres anything from Don Kirschner out there.
______________________________
"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
offense descriptions of other Rs, I think you have a point.
There is a good size chunk of the electorate who are not insiders who strongly believe in principled small government. Many are in the West. And the GOP has really tried to push them away.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
LYNDON LAROUCHE FOR PRESIDENT!
That was a good one.
"Suppose you were a congressman, and suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
You just can't get rid of them. Except Roaches are more desirable.
______________________________
"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 when I thought people couldn't get any more idiotic...it looks like I was wrong.
"Suppose you were a congressman, and suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
Mr. Giuliani, although his poll numbers are high, does not fit the conservative mold. We are down to 8 candidates and of those 8 Mr. Guiliani's stances are the least conservative of all. I think this needs to be discussed more.
Giuliani is on record as supporting abortion and he believes we should pay for those abortions with federal funds. His gun control advocacy is definately not in line with the platform. Family values? Sorry, too much garbage to list on that subject. His record with immigration is just, well, un-american.
Why is it he is leading in the polls. As a lifetime Republican I can't think of any Republican leader that was so liberal.
If someone can explain to me why i should vote for him, I'm listening. When I listen to him, I just don't hear it.
30% of the Party to support his candadicy I'm guessing we'd have a much more intelligent group of posters supporting him.
You can leave now.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Rudy is (with the exception of RP) the canidate that least represents the republican party for me. I think that he has good charisma and the fact that he was able to run such a lib town as NY speak highly for him. But his position on most if not all social issues should have him out of the race.
I moved to NYC in the mid Seventies. Left in 1979 and returned to New Jersey five years later. Can clearly recall the 'sqeegee men' who inhabited the streets leading up to Lincoln Tunnel and Holland Tunnel. Can recall a general sense of lawlessness, an out-of-controlledness.
Rudy's administration began at the bottom. It got the sqeegee men off the streets, prosecuted the small crimes, with the effect that major crime incidence shrank as well. You really can't appreciate what this means untill having been accosted by the shadow of a man, stinking from alcohol, hanging on your car door at one in the morning.
When some pseudo artist's work involving human urine and Jesus Christ was shown at The Brooklyn Museum, Rudy announced that to the extent allowed by law, he would be slashing city aid to the museum. While mayor, he was extremely close with Catholic lay organizations; they knew that in Rudy they had a friend. He may not have been on the same page as them on abortion, but his instincts were the same as theirs.
In an environment of lawlessness, he stood for rule of law. He became the lightning rod for the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, police hating, pseudo intellectual, Upper West Side liberals. Fiscally, he did good things with and for New York.
Give him this: in a city where Yankee fans and Mets fans don't especially like each other, he was the Anti HIllary: announcing his unquestioned support of the Yankees, irrespective of whether it would cost him votes in Queens. Compare this to the woman who says she supported the Cubs, dodges the question of which New York team she supports. With Rudy, you know which team he's on.
I was no longer in New York on 9/11, but was in no way surprised at his performance. He is the kind of guy who in a street fight picks up a two by four and says: Go ahead, make my day. Not the sort who runs from a fight, or the sort who looks to others for direction. His compass is internal.
I may not vote for Rudy. The porous borders bother me a great deal. I generally think that abortion is an evil; yet, I will admit that there are circumstances where I would accept the responsibility for condoning an evil. If I were comatose, for example, feel free to pull the plug. My father wore a gun in his belt for much of his life; he never shot it at someone and watched once as a cornered thief ran away from the family business, knowing on some level that the trigger would not be pulled. Rudy may not be in perfect agreement with me on gun controll issues.
People, including some truly bad ones, would come to the door of Father's business and ask, "Do that dog bite?" only to be told, "Only if you mean to bite us." Most of my peers have not had the privilege of experiencing the raw terror of being in a tough area on a dark night with several thousand dollars of business receipts. All of which is to say I am more accepting towards guns in honest citizens' possession that Rudy may be.
You have asked why you might vote for him; it is because his instincts on many levels are the right ones. I may or may not. Mitt seems at least as good an administrator and possibly better, stronger as a family man. Fred may be better on the issues than Rudy, and I am a huge fan of Law & Order. Also of the program.
But I would not feel bad, the way so many scons say they would, if Rudy were the nominee and/or the President. I would feel as if even though I dont particularly like the Yankees, I can live with this one.
And if the alternative were Hillary, I would absolutely vote for him. He and his friends have never pillaged a savings and loan. I can say with 100 percent confidence that the minimum deposit to open a brokerage account is $2,000. Rudy never deposited half the legal minimum to a commodities account, saw a blitz of transactions which caused the account to grow 100 fold in several months and then closed the account.
And so on.
I may or may not vote for him in the primary, but if he is the nominee I will support him and would be as proud to have him as President as I would Fred or Mitt. I would be ashamed to have Hillary as President.
candidates. The only one who I really would have a hard time supporting if by some miracle he won the primary is Dr. No. His ideas are just too far out. The rest of them all have their strong points and their weak points, but they're all fine men.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I guess the 70% who do not support him should leave then according your logic.
Are we only supposed to say positive things about the republican candidates? If so, I assume the starter of this thread should be banned.
Please explain your logic in an intelligent manner.
Thanks.
Are we only supposed to say positive things about the republican candidates?
Let me guess, you've been here about an hour - right?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Two: You are obviously ignorant of the site. And you are obviously ignorant of anything to do with my posting history. And you don't have a clue about how to mount a cogent argument.
My point is simple. Rudy has managed to attract about 30% in the current national polls. He's been an announced candidate for many months and he's been pretty well vetted on his positions on any number of issues. That will continue, it's a natural process if for no other reason that people shoot at the front runners (which he is).
If you had bothered to check some history at RS, you'd have discovered that at least two of our front page contributors have repeatedly posted blogs and comments saying that they would not vote for Rudy in the general election.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
[Sparky rather badly wants us to delete the post: alas, Sparky is an old retread, which means that he's the saddest of things: a phony Ronulan. Hang your head in shame, Sparky. - Moe Lane]
If only more people there knew who Ron Paul is, they would find that politician who shares their views when it comes to the important issue of troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Source: Strategic Vision poll in Iowa, conducted Oct. 12-14 with 600 likely Republican cacus goers.
... nothing would make me happier than for more people to know who RP is.
Heck, if he changed to Democrat I would start promoting him personally.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
GOP voters don't want to throw away 800 billion dollars which we've already invested in Iraq.
And no less important is the blood and heroic work of our soldiers.
We recognize that there is no choice but to stay and continue this work.
Now you have done it! Congressional Democrats will take to the House floor demanding you be taken off the internet -- calling a poster a "PHONEY" Ronulan!
Who are YOU to decide who IS and who is NOT a real Ronulan?
I hope Harry Reid sends a letter to ALL the sponsors of RS to demand that you be tasored with our new Tasor 2.0 software! And then banned from your own site!
With any luck, you can get that letter and sell it on Ebay, maybe raising several dollars for -- Ronulan Relief America -- a special psychiatric program dedicated to helping Ronulans get over themselves!
If we should exclude someone because the general concensus here, which I might agree with, believe someone does not fit the bill of Republican, why support Rudy? Rudy is the least Republican, the least conservative of the bunch.
You can try to insult my intelligence all you want. The fact I joined these boards only an hour ago does not reflect my intelligence. Not having read all the articles here does not make me ignorant.
I'm intelligent enough to see Rudy doesn't fit. That was my point.
I would say this is one of the more aggressive and least friendly places I've stumbled upon. I guess I'll move on to places that would openly discuss their positions.
a little blue bar at the bottom of each post. At the left side of the bar is a link, Reply To This that will indent your comment under the one to which you are responding. Redstate uses "threaded comments" which allows us to follow discussions more easily that bouncing all over the blog.
"Post New Comment" at the bottom of the page is to post a comment that would be treated as a new thread.
I do not speak for the moderators or Directors of the site, but with respect to banning the Ronettes, it was done primarily because they won't discuss issues.
With respect to getting your panties in a wad because because it was noted that you've only been around an hour, tough. Given the innundation of new sign ups and their completely irrational approach to life, until you build up some history you are looked upon with a jaundiced eye. Hang out for a while, get some posting history, build some cred and you'll be fine. And actually, "not having read the articles" does make you ignorant. Not necessarily stupid, just ignorant, which thankfully can be fixed. We're all ignorant of some things at one time or another.
With respect to Rudy, I'm not going to launch into a defense of his positions other than to say that he seems to be working to find positions that will get him general election support from the base. If that doesn't work for you, well, get in line because it doesn't work for lots of people. But he may well win the Republican primary and end up with the nomination.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Sorry, Beck, but I searched through your entire post and didn't see that statement anywhere, so I assumed that you had been taken over by -- well, someone less confrontational! So, you are saying the new meds help? Just poking you! :>)
And the suggestion that they would send a team from Blackwater. But the crowning glory that changed my attitude was when Franz, who I was expecting would fend off the Blackwater team, told me he would be busy snuggling with Mrs908 getting his tummy scratched and I could just fend for myself.
Bummer.
But, in the grand scheme of things, I'll probably relapse. It's an addict thing.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
This reply isn't really in regard to you but the previous posts regarding my thoughts. You've actually communicated in an adult manner.
Not reading everything on this site does NOT make me ignorant of what's going on in the world. It does make me ignorant to the beliefs held here. I'm not going to peruse this site for days on end and then pander out my opinion. My opinions have been formed over the course of 45 years, while I'm sure there is some insight here that would benefit me, there's nothing that's going to change me in a dramatic fashion.
The banning Ron Paul thread caught my eye. I figure what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Rudy doesn't fit, there are much better up there on stage than him, like Huckabee and McCain. Unfortunately the best aren't running.
The timing of my joining here is poor evidently. I'm looking for a place to discuss politics and the views I have. Apparently if I don't agree with the masses here, I don't belong. Some big tent you have here. If this is how the Republican party is it is no wonder the base is dwindling. I'm definately not a Democrat, I would consider myself a Republican leaning independent.
Maybe it is time for a third party and I would imagine that would dig into the base of the Republican party more so than the Democratic base. It's just too easy to be a Democrat and want a momma to run to, they're not going to change their ways. They are actually sticking to their socialist agenda while the Republicans are a f'n mess.
This site is definately out, it's a bit aggressive for me. I'm sure there is a lot of crap here from RP supporters but there's a lot of crap all over the place from all kinds of supporters. Maybe I should have expected this behaviour, it's that "You're with us or against us mentality". Where the hell is Ronald Reagan when you need him.
no wonder the Republican Party is shrinking if you are all as narrow minded as you guys, yatta, yatta, yatta.
Who writes you guys material, Shecky Green! I've got news for you HE'S DEAD! And so is most of your material! You need new writers. You'll never make the big time, that is for sure!
Not reading every post on a blog site might not make you ignorant, but coming to a site that you just joined and trying to argue with policy decisions does make you sound pretty stupid... just saying. I am new too but am wise enough to know that I am an inmate here... not a warden.
after Vi@gra, C!ali5, and Dr. Clement Okon, my wealthy Nigerian friend.
that I need to cancel that check I just sent to him? He sounded so sincere, and I really did know someobdy who died in Nigeria. Or was it Ghana?....Dominica? Someone I know died.
Being [both] a Brit and a conservative[,] I was always under the impression that when it came to the Presidency it was ["]money talks["].[ ]If you get enough cash[,] you get your fifteen minutes in the sun[].[ ]Now you guys seem to have gone along with this system for years[:] rich people and corporations give money to pliable people who buy TV time and [voila! - ]you have a leader[].[ ]Not what we call politics[,] but hey[,] if it means you don't have to actually have political opinion[,] just sound bites[,] who am I to argue[?]
[]
Now your problem [is that] the Internet takes some of the control out of the hands of those who pay for [(]and therefore dictate who gets elected[)*],[ ]so is the system broken[]? I think not[!] Ron Paul will not win[**,] but he does serve a purpose[.][ H]e is not unlike Tony Benn (Google him[])[. H]e is there to make life interesting for the observer[...] but[,] more importantly[, he is there to make life more] difficult for the other candidates[.] [T]hat is democracy[!] []I find it hard not to wonder why you [would] allow a Communist like Mr[.] Kilmer to spout Stalinist tripe (yes[,] only cults and Communists will not debate in case they lose).
[]
So if you really like banning candidates[***] because you[']r[e] not sure [that] you like what they say[,] move to North Korea[:] if not[,] sit back[,] watch the fun[,] and then vote for whoever Alan Quasha picks to win.[]
As for your idiotic comparison to Thomas Jefferson[...] I know history is a bit complex for the average American[,] but its not necessary to prove it[].[ ]First[,] the Barbary Pirates w[]ere not a country[: ]second[,] they w[]ere mostly British and did the bidding of the British navy, who allowed them to survive as long as they were causing trouble for their enemies [(]America and France[)****].[ ]So attacking the allies of your enemy is not preemptive[:] that we can leave for Clinton[,] and his best friend George W (his phrase[,] not mine).
[*Look, I just copy-edit. Making this stuff make sense is not my job. - Moe Lane]
[**Indeed.]
[***I know that we're obviously powerful, but I didn't know that we could ban actual candidates. Cool.]
[****See Note 1.]
(No offense to Quentin and the other non-Ronulan Britons around here)
Let me know when you guys quit kissing the feet of the King of Europe, aka the President of the Commission in Brussels. Then you can lecture us on liberty, oh ye vassals of the Continent.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
for all we know, this poster is from Berkely. Yes, the UK has problems, and yes, liberty and sovereignty are two of them. Yet, let's not start bashing our buds because of this total prat.
Molon Labe!
Only a communist or a Stalinist would think that a blog or its contributors have to print materials they don't want to print.
Goodbye.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
I've led a sheltered life but the highlights so far would include:
1. The statute of limitations (don't ask).
2. Mrs908.
3. Two wonderful sons who outgrew the alien years and are among the best men I know.
4. Having Leon create an HTML after my bad habits.
5. Living in Paradise.
6. There must be something else, I just can't remember what it is...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
What about your first audience with Franz? :)
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
It simply outshines everything. Gives waking up in the morning meaning.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Somebody in the British press would have given him grief for it by now. They're positively vicious over there.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
By the way, I will be coming over to your house to drink your beer and tell you all about how a certain presidential candidate molested my alien cousin. You don't mind, do you? Oh, I am going to bring a bunch of my firends with me.
It's a free speech issue. We like Corona.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
______________________________
"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
“We have forgotten in America that a democracy is the most difficult kind of government to maintain. It is the hardest kind of government under which to live. It is hardest to maintain because of the widespread political corruption to which it so easily lends itself. Our drift today toward complete totalitarian bureaucracy is one that threatens immediately the very freedoms for which our own boys are dying.”
Ernest R. Palen, D.D.
A practical and experienced communist might be better than the amateurish ideologues currently in the Democrat field.
I suggest that if we are banning Ron Paul supporters from speaking, we should also ban people from bashing the candidate. I'm not a supporter of his by any means, but it seems unfair to attack him when no one is allowed to speak on his behalf in defense.
if the Ronulans EVER stop attacking the site, I agree. I would be perfectly content to stop discussing him completely, but only after the attacks stop!
As SOON as all RP supporters are forbidden, we'll get right on that.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I think we should campaign to have the next Republican President put him on the Supreme Court.
Perceived persecution a group receives, only makes them think they are right and emboldens them.
I really hope the Ron Paul phenomenon doesn't become a movement like the Larouche Democrats.
sounds like David Byrne!!!
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
If this is too intellectually challenging for you, you don't have anything to offer RedState.
As a helpful hint, it's sitting at the top of the recommended blogs.
I have the urge for Vegemite...
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
The Republican party has effectively become a small tent party. By Small tent, I mean a party that is less willing to put up with people that step outside of certain accepted tenants that the party is based on.
The Advantage of this: The republican party has an extremely loyal base that will not defect for any reason.
The Disadvantage of this: The Republican party does not have a majority of voters in their base.
The Republicans have effectively Ceded any efforts to court black or hispanic voters. which comprise about 20% of the population in the US. At most, The republican party can expect to receive about 10 - 20% of the vote in either of those two blocs. (these numbers reflect an approximation of the last couple of elections, and presumes the hispanic population is very angry at the republican party (which seems to be the case)
Which means, that in the remaining population, the republican party must effectively receive 60% of the popular vote from that bloc.
So. For better or worse, in order to be effective, the Republican party must do one of the following to win elections:
1) Find a way to woo moderates/independents into voting for their candidates
2) Failing that, suppress the voting so their base, who is presumably loyal and willing to vote through thick and thin, actually does become the majority of votes cast.
So, With that in mind, The libertarian wing of the Republican party composes about 10% of the party (this is a number that I'm pulling out of thin air, because I can't seem to find any reliable numbers).
Should Voldemort be asked to leave, then some of his followers will leave. presume half will stay loyal and vote for whichever Repbulican Candidate is selected. (We won't extend this thought experiment to Guiliani or Romney and the defections the Republicans would get from the "Family Values" Wing). Presume that the other half stays home or would vote for some other 3rd party candidate.
10% Black vote splits 8/2 Democrat/Republican
10% Hispanic vote splits 8/2 Democrat/Republican
10% Libertarian Wing of Republican Party 5/5 3rd party/Republican
So The republicans have 7% out of 30%, which means
they must get 43.5 out of the remaining 70% to pull
a bare majority. which implies they'll have to get
about 62% of the remaining vote.
This is all a thought experiment, and I'm sure my numbers could easily be picked apart, but that's all semantics. the principle I'm trying to point out is valid: Small Tent parties are much more vulnerable to small changes in party size, and for each piece of the Republican party that is pushed from the core, is a piece that must either be replaced by voters from some other area, or by negating their loss by suppression of the voters for other parties.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
so you should take heart from this Zogby Poll
Let us hope that Hillary is their candidate, and that WE choose a candidate with less than 45% negatives!
But are the Republicans falling into the same trap the Democrats fell into in 2004? Even though the Democrats had a platform and ideas. The perception to the general public was that it was, anyone but Bush.
We saw how well that turned out.
So, I'm hesitant to think that people are going to come out and vote against Hillary, If they don't like the candidates, they're simply going to stay home.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
doesn't count for much in presidential elections. Electoral votes are cast from each state, remember?
"Republicans have effectively Ceded any efforts to court black or hispanic voters..."
You might remember which party had the most attractive, new, black candidates in '06. But it was '06, and the vast majority of black voters stuck with the likes of Jackson and Sharpton. If we keep plugging we might build up to 20% of the vote, at which point the Dems are history in all but the most wildly gerrymandered districts.
It remains to be seen how many of the legal Hispanic voters resent the intrusion of illegals versus how many of the illegals will actually vote.
hey you bunch of ron paul banning cowards. [blah blah communists blah blah NAU blah blah cliche]
Thanks for that link.
I'm not sure how meaningfull it is, but its rather interesting based upon the 'vitriol' factor that Obama, Huckabee and Richardson might be the most electable candidates! Of course if they don't win their primaries its a moot point.
None of them will (likely) win the top spot -- BUT, I DO expect to see two of them as probable Vice-Presidential candidates on their respective tickets!
in the conservative parts of the blogosphere. It is not the actions or policies of Ron Paul that got him banned here on Red State, but your sophomoric actions. It's almost like you are part of another campaign coming in to throw gas on the fire to ensure the ban sticks.
Is that really how you support your candidate?
The only true institution I really trust is the military. Amazing the candidate who has gotten the most military support/donations is Ron Paul.
You folks need to remember whom you're impersonating.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
by OTHER Sheeple at the RP site. At least be honest when you come here. You came at their direction, to post a comment and get yourself banned, so that you all could feel superior.
Do you really think we cannot read YOUR sites as well as our own?
that other people have property rights and can prohibit whatever they want on their own property. I'm also stunned that you don't understand that freedom of speech works both ways. People have a perfect right to say that Ron Paul doesn't belong on the ballot.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Let's run this down line by line.
1. "I am new..." Yep.
2. "I am stunned..." Doesn't take much does it.
3. "Last time I checked..." OK, this is complicated. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. Look it up. Heck, take the whole rest of the week.
4. "You can support whoever you like..." Yep.
5. "You cannot excise a candidate..." And just who excised anybody? RP is still a candidate. Or don't you get the news down there in the cave?
6. "Especially one some committed..." Oh? And how does he manage to find all these idiot supporters who can't seem to figure out the first amendment?
butters, you are a grade "A" jerk.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
We really need to narrow the debate field down to 4 max by the end of this year because the primaries are so front-loaded.