Skip to comments.Mark Steyn: Ron Paul beckons GOP to Fortress America
Posted on 01/13/2012 4:28:27 PM PST by passionfruit
In the 2010 election the New Hampshire Republican Party took 298 out of 400 House seats, 19 out of 24 state Senate seats, and all five seats on the Executive Council. A little over a year later, in the state's presidential primary, the same (more or less) electorate gave over 56 percent of its votes to a couple of moneyed "moderates," one of whom served in the Obama administration and the other of whom left no trace in office other than the pilot program for Obamacare. Another 23 percent voted for Ron Paul. Supporters of the three other "major" candidates in the race argue that, if only the other two fellows would clear off, a viable conservative alternative to Mitt Romney would emerge. In fact, even if you combine Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum's share of the vote, it adds up to a mere 19.5 percent: Were Bain Capital to come in and restructure the "conservative" candidates into one streamlined and efficient Newt Perrtorum, this unstoppable force would be competitive with Jon Huntsman.
According to George Mason University's annual survey of Freedom in the 50 States, New Hampshire is the freest state in the union, so one would expect there to be takers for Ron Paul's message. On the other hand, facing a very different electorate in Iowa, Paul pulled pretty much an identical share of the poll. It may be time for those of us on the right to consider whether it's not so much the conservative vote that's split but whether conservativism itself is fracturing.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
For your Mark Steyn Ping list.
Another Paul bot election troll !!! Deb 28 2011 !!!
Just signed up to peddle the lies and spin of
Your Jew hating 9/11 truther crackpot leader !!!
"It's America's fault" is a great message?
?? That’s not the message I hear from Paul. I hear “Disarmed America.” Sort of a post-WWII Truman quasi-disarmament approach that left us without the hardware to fight the Korean war.
Disarmed America and Fortress America are two very different messages. Disarmed American is stupid and very naive. Fortress America is probably just naive. Fortress America wont work—it will break down as soon as America is attacked. But at least Paul would be trying to defend us.
Brilliant writing. Not altogether clear where he's headed -- but he gets there and it's worth the read.
Paulbot alert, execute General Order 66 and Zot with extreme prejudice!
Since you raise the issue, the U.S. should never have entered WWI. The legacies of the war were the rise of Hitler, and never-repealed war socialism here in the U.S.
Not Fortress America
Not Disarm America
Rather take care of business at home and be open to all trade but no alliances. Defense is rapid and deadly...aimed at heads of state, heads of power who try to attack.
If we are unwilling, or politically unable, to do that now then we shouldn't get into any wars in the future.
If we had gone into Iraq with the 300,000 troops we needed, kept the Iraqi army in tact, and established a military dictatorship until the Iraqis had learned to live with each other, then the sacrifice would have made sense.
But political correctness will forever prevent us from being able to establish military dictatorships for the time necessary to humble our foes.
If we can't win wars, then we should shift to a tactic that seems to be working OK for the Israelis: tit for tat. Any time some group or country hits us, we hit them harder. No more wars, just limited engagements.
Mark Steyn ping.
Freepmail me, if you want on or off the Mark Steyn ping list.
Thanks for the ping passionfruit.
I voted for Ron Paul years ago for president, and I am glad I did, it was a protest vote against the powers that be. But I would never vote for that guy again. He has lot me with that line of thinking and spouting.
Off the topic of discussion - why does little New Hampsire have 400 house seats? That is more than any other state by a big margin.
Bingo. If we aren’t willing to completely crush a country and run things for a generation or so to get the population retrained the way Mark Clark did in Germany and MacArthur did in Japan, then it’s punitive actions only and get the heck out. The limited wars over the last 60 years have not been good for our country, and especially these two in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meals on wheels for Islamic savages is not a smart move.
Did you read the whole article before hacking off? Too many lazy Freepers. (And I’m sure the first thing you did after reading this was to check how long I’ve been here, as if that many jack sh!t.)
Put me on the Steyn ping list. He ranks up there with VDH.
Agreed. Our military should have one purpose and that is to kill countries or entities that attack us or our allies and break all their stuff. Screw this nation building crap. It hasn't worked in 60 years, largely because we don't know how to do it.
Look at Iraq. We aren't even really gone yet and they're already back to killing each other. Ef the lot of them. Either we utterly destroy enemies and those who support them (Saudi Arabia, are you listening?) or we stay the hell out of it.
The US Navy can keep the sea lanes open, that's a vital US interest. But these endless wars with nebulous definitions of victory have to stop. We can't afford them and those savages over their aren't worth another single drop of American blood or another single American nickle.
American foreign policy should be "screw with us and you die". And that doesn't mean privates and corporals, that means the political leadership. Attack America, American interests, or American treaty partners and it's mushroom cloud city.
He is talking about the New Hampshire state house of reps. Not the federal. They only have 2 reps, and 2 senators in congress.
I would disagree. We know how to do it, we did it with Germany and Japan, and what man has done, man can aspire to do.
But we have thrown out reality for a bunch of feelgood politically correct nonsense, and the populace has been dumbed down to buy it all.
“Defense is rapid and deadly...aimed at heads of state, heads of power who try to attack.”
As I said, “naive.”
I don't think so, this is the focus of our special forces today. Not naive, but the response of people who know guerrilla warfare. Welcome to Modern Times.
Am I too late for the ZOT? I have missed so many of them lately.
Yes you were. We have been having a regular shooting gallery around here lately.
Fighting politically correct wars leads us inevitably to politically correct failures.
Be careful, you might get branded a "Paulbot" and ridiculed as an "isolationist" because you don't want US troops spread across 135 nations around the globe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.