““I think in a lot of areas, libertarians have some legitimate gripes about what’s happened in the conservative movement over the past 30 years,” Santorum said. “But I’m just saying: careful that we don’t transform that movement into something that I would recommend against.””
Saint Rick has probably never thought about these issues too deeply since he’s just a professional politician. Even Ron Paulista is pro-life. I’ve even heard him say that he disbelieves the theory of evolution and believes in creation. Still, other times, he suggests that homosexuality is something one is born with based on his “medical” background and says “everyone is a child of God”. Ron Paul isn’t comprehendable. Whatever the case, a pro-life stance is definitely a libertarian view, since a right to life is necessary to have any rights at all.
Lately, the libertarian movement has degenerated thanks to the Ron Paul and Alex Jones types. There has also been this meme among them that is even, to a certain degree, hostile to religion. The “libertarians” supporting Ron Paul aren’t actually libetartains. They’re people who could just have easily been members of the communist party. They’re pitiful malcontents, obsessed with themselves, filled with self-destructive impulses and a desire to see the world burn. Just like Marx. It’s a truly Satanic impulse. I’ve read many interviews with communist party members, and all of them are quite similar to the average Ron Paul personality if you ever bother to get to know one.
With that said, if Ron Paul wasn’t a communist on foreign policy, he’d be winning this nomination right now. Saint Rick doesn’t understand that the Libertarian view is actually just the conservative view, minus all the delusions about social security or other “necessary” government programs, and a greater desire to see government utterly removed from the life of every American. I remember a few years ago reading discussions about demolishing the police so we could setup private police forces, lol.
Saint Rick is a Catholic, and the Catholic Church has been preaching a social-progressive “gospel” for many many years. He does part way with the Bishops on illegal immigration, but it’s obvious that he has certain religious beliefs/delusions that make it impossible for him to consider demolishing social security and other entitlements, or even consider abolishing the progressive tax code. They really believe that the government should have a role in poverty relief, so they do not oppose an unbalanced tax code . They believe all the platitudes, so they really don’t understand how they’re useful tools to redistribute the wealth. He talks a big game, but he looks at everything through a religious lense and doesn’t really understand conservatism. He likes his platitudes and will stick with them to the end. It’s for the same reason that the Catholic church, at least on a leadership level, is utterly unreliable as allies for our cause. They’ll back us on abortion, but they’ll abandon us on most other fights.
Mark Levin has a running gag where he corners Paulestinians, and reveals that - every single one - sayd they will vote for OBAMA is Ron Paul does not get nominated. That pretty much told me all I needed to know 6 months ago.
He thinks about them all the time. Bother listening to Rick’s speeches on the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? Probably not I would guess. I generally don’t care about Libertarians in the broad scope of things. I do not want them to have any Presidential power though. Read some Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell or some vintage Ron Paul to see how out of step this ideology is and that they are not Conservatives, they hate Conservatives. It is about time someone stands up and make the delineation between the two. I have no interest in the whole “If it feels good do it” party.
BTW, I notice you were sprinkling a bit of your hatred of Catholics in your long long long screed.
Everyone IS a child of God.
ICK.
Can’t believe I just agreed with Ron Paul on anything!
Mark Levin has said that we can’t do away with Social Security entirely. Tonight, he also spoke at length about Ron Paul, his mentor, William F. Buckley’s attitude towards them, and that Ron is of an offshoot of libertarianism. He called him a libertarian anarchist.
The podcast is well worth listening to. Levin was excellent.
Does it make sense to attack the Catholic church just because you want to bash Santorum? After all, Gingrich is also a Catholic, and professes the same beliefs. And seems to be more closely in tune with his Church’s position on illegal immigrants, since you brought that up.
Personally I consider myself a libertarian-nationalist. I want the maximum liberty here, but if history shows anything, it's that people can only acheive freedom and prosperity under the protection of a strong national government capable of and willing to protect itself and it's interests abroad. It's funny how the Libertarins and Paul pods love to quote Thomas Jefferson but ignore that he sent the US Navy halfway around the world to fight an undeclared war of retaliation against the Islamic terrorists of the day.
I gather you think libertarians will vote for the Republican candidate regardless, so there is no need to placate their views?
Romney has a problem of appealing to the social conservative wing of the party. I think he accepts that he has to conduct himself within certain parameters. And, I think he will “balance the ticket” with a running mate recognized to be a conservative leader. (Right now I am thinking Gov. McConnell of Virginia, as he has just showed that he appreciates that at some point the right to life bumps up against the right to privacy.)
Santorum has more than “a problem” of appealing to the libertarian wing of the party and to independent voters. This is because he has repeatedly denigrated libertarians in the past and continues to do so.
Gingrich is good contrast to Santorum. Gingrich complements Ron Paul on various issues and distinguishes the foreign policy difference (which is severe) from the economic and social policy difference (where there is a lot of shared values and the policy differences aren’t so large). When Gingrich was Speaker, we had Dick Armey, a libertarian-Republican (though not a Ron Paul-libertarian) as Majority Leader, and Tom DeLay, a social conservative, as Majority Whip.
With Gingrich, we have a personality issue. A big ideas guy who, from time to time, loses discipline. In the Arizona debate, we saw Gingrich do very well (though not as spectacularly well as in the two South Carolina debates). But, at other times, Gingrich has been dour. The personality thing is both Gingrich’s strength and his weakness. He is certainty the most interesting person in the race, somebody to whom we can relate on a person-to-person level (Santorum’s family issues have made him interesting on a person-to-person basis and Romney has been a mere cardboard man). But, focusing on the politics, Gingrich has always recognized that we have to be a Big Tent party to win, and this includes the libertarians, the social conservatives and the national security conservatives.