Posted on 06/16/2007 8:10:15 AM PDT by George W. Bush
Ron Paul, for the People
Can a libertarian Republican appeal to Democrats?
Ron Paul may not be the next president of the United States, but he is already in effect the president of meetup.com.
You might remember that online community site from the Howard Dean explosion leading into the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries. It was widely credited with being key to his burgeoning people power that scared the rest of the Dem pack four years ago.
Deanmania ruled for a while, at least until votes were actually cast. He did not, as you might notice, end up president, or even the Democratic nominee. But he did assure a political future for himself as chair of the Democratic National Committee.
Looking at the meetup numbers, Paul partisans can’t help but feel a swell of hope—and wonder if Paulmania has some chance of reaching escape velocity between now and the actual primary season.
Ron has 8,763 meetup group members. For politicians actually running this year, he’s more than 100 percent ahead of his nearest rival, Barack Obama. And that’s not all: Paul’s got about twice as many YouTube subscribers as he has meetup members, while Obama, who is supposed to be similarly exhilarating to the grassroots on the Democratic side, has only 6,589.
Despite these numbers in a world where concerted activist action can bring impressive paper results, and even gather more real-world cheering than competitors, Ron still isn’t doing much in the polls, despite an impressive amount of specialty national media (from Maher to Dobbs to Stewart to Colbert), even in those polls which bother to include him. (Paul partisans have some good reasons to feel picked on and excluded by mainstream media, to be sure.)
It’s no coincidence that meetup.com made its first big political splash for a Democrat, Dean. Conceptually, the meetup model fits well with a certain story that Democrats like to tell about themselves—all cutting edge and grassroots and people power, the sort of things a party that was, until 2006, largely out of federal power needs to court and cultivate.
That thought, and my experience at a meetup-generated Paul supporters meeting this week in Pasadena, made me wonder about Paul’s potential to appeal to disaffected Democrats.
The meeting, which I stumbled into by accident (I hadn’t signed up for Paul’s meetup group myself and was unaware it was happening), had, even two and a half hours after its official beginning, a good 75 people filling the room. Attendees told me more than 100 were there at peak—which I found quite impressive, but the Paul rally coordinator I spoke to seemed disappointed. There were more people under the age of 30 in this room then I saw at the national convention of the Libertarian Party in Portland in 2006.
When I asked one former Democrat at this gathering, who told me he got excited by Paul during the first televised GOP debates, whether he was a common phenomenon, both he and another supporter (who came to Ron from the hard money side) shook their heads wonderingly as if I’d asked them something as ridiculous and obvious as if Ron Paul believes in the Constitution; it’s a constant phenomenon, they insist. The hard money guy, who likes to wear his nifty “Ron Paul Revolution” t-shirt (with the “evol” in revolution laid out to make the “love” backwards part stand out), says he’s constantly approached by interested civilians, many of them Democrats, excited and eager to know more.
All either of them had was anecdotes, not thorough data. But no one is polling Democratic voters on their thoughts on Ron Paul, so that’s all we’ve got to go on. The appeal makes sense on some level, especially when you look at the weak-kneed pasts of most of the antiwarriors leading the Dem pack and contemplate the list of issues that sum up Paul on a business card being handed out at this event.
It has the “ronpaul2008.com” address on top, and lists as Ron’s stances: “Voted against Iraq War. Voted against Patriot Act. Never voted to raise taxes. Never voted to increase government. Opposes Internet regulation. Opposes War on Drugs. Opposes Torture. Supports non-interventionist foreign policy. Supports habeas corpus.” (That’s the full list.)
Now, some Democratic intellectuals of the Jonathan Chait variety seem to think raising taxes is a primary political imperative, but I’m sure even most Democratic voters aren’t going to actually mind too much that he’s against raising taxes. So Paul has in many senses the best of the supposed appeal of Reaganite conservatism (small government, keeping the feds out of our lives), and is for many rights and against many abrogations of rights that progressives support.
And this list of stances (perhaps wisely) doesn’t mention immigration at all—where Paul’s position, outside the modal libertarian let ‘em in but don’t put ‘em on the dole line, probably appeals to more American voters than does that modal libertarian line. Thus, one wonders why Paul isn’t considered a shoe-in for victory by acclimation, as he seems to have something big to offer almost every impassioned voting constituency. And he’s even major party. (Not to mention that his noninterventionist foreign policy has something in common with the one that President Bush was elected on in 2000.)
One of the keys to why Paul should have wider appeal is that while he is certainly very libertarian, he is in many ways more federalist and constitutionalist than libertarian in a strict sense. He’s willing to leave all sorts of things to the states rather than imposing small-government solutions from the top down. He represents—or should, to most thinking voters—little in the way of a threat to their interests, insomuch as their interests don’t involve living off the federal teat or using federal power to their advantage. As Paul told me when I interviewed him for my book Radicals for Capitalism, “the freedom philosophy shouldn’t be challenging to too many people, when you emphasize that all I want to do is leave you alone.”
Progressive gadflies at the Nation such as Alexander Cockburn and John Nichols have had kind words for Paul, the former bordering on an endorsement. Paul has spoken of his affection for, and cooperation with, progressive Dem favorite Dennis Kucinich. Democratic voters need to decide, after eight years of Bush, if they can dedicate themselves mostly to stopping government from doing all the bad things they think Bush has done, from wars to Patriot Acts, or if it is more important to use government’s power to do all the good things they insist must be done.
I suspect they will ultimately fall back on the latter, and not rush into every open primary state away from their own lame pack to push Paul forward in Republican primaries.
In the voting booth, momentum often seems to overcome affection (was Kerry really particularly beloved by anyone, even his family?) and the inertia of centrism often overwhelms potentially exciting change.
And undoubtedly, culturally and intellectually, Ron Paul is coming from a very different place than most Democratic voters, and especially from most Democratic intellectuals. (At this Pasadena meeting, the most prominent literature being handed out was issues of the Birch mag New American.) See the Suicide Girls softcore hipster porn web site for a list of reasons why most American progressives, the more they learn about Paul, might want to run away. And no matter how much evil they see in Bush, it is very hard for American liberals to let go of a dream of a powerful do-everything state that will do just what they want it to do, and no more.
Ron Paul is the most energetic and consistent advocate on an issue of paramount political importance, especially to left-progressives—ending our involvement in Iraq. He’s willing to leave many controversial issues to states and localities. He wants to leave most of us alone to manage our own affairs, as either individuals or smaller polities. He’s a dedicated enemy of some of the most evil and repressive policies currently afoot in America. If America’s progressives can’t manage to give him at least two cheers, the fault lies not with their candidates, but with themselves.
Still, I’m not taking any bets on Ron Paul being the chairman of the RNC in 2009, either.
| Ron Paul Weekly Podcast. Ron Paul's website with indexed text of his weekly messages Same message offered toll-free at 888-322-1414. Audio is 5 minutes, fresh every Monday.  Eventful - Ron Paul - Tour Schedule, Event Calendar, DemandsRon Paul 2008 Meetups in your area • [Join] or [Leave] the Ron Paul Pinglist • |
What is a libertarian Republican? I assume they mean "libertarian leaning Republican." That said, Ron Paul is as loony as they come. But then people voted for Perot, so who knows? I know I'd never cast a vote for him.
He is a nut.
No. Being principled... he's too easy for bomb throwers in both Parties to take shots at. He'll garner appeal from both sides, but won't win the nomination.
Of course, if he did... he'd slaughter Hillary/Obama in thte debates.
He wants to portray himself as a libertarian, but he’s really a liberal.
America Firsters deja-vu...
I love that graphic.
Ron Paul, for the jihadi people.
Also, there have been a bunch of new adds. I'll FReepMail you a new copy with all the latest additions next week.
And the GOP establishment are Mensa members, right?
That’s not quite fair. He’s a big fan of slashing government programs and agencies — far beyond any other Republican in the presidential field.
Paul is 100% pro-life, 100% pro-gun, and 100% pro-border security.
How can he be a liberal?
Honestly, if you don't like Paul, that's fine. But there's no need to smear him or call him names. This man served in Vietnam, he was the head of Reagan's Texas delegation in 1976 and was one of his earliest supporters. Calling Paul a kook or a nut is really disingenious and is something that liberals do when they can't debate the facts.
Done.
------- Begin Article --------
F*** Ron Paul
For those seeking a candidate to fill their horrible Ralph Nader hole, Ron Paul is you man. He is completely void of any possibility of winning an election, so you may clamor on for years about how f***ed up things are and how great Ron Paul would have been. Of course, you will have to avoid talking about the fact that Ron Paul is an enormous douche bag.... And just two years ago Paul was an honored guest at a John Birch Society dinner. Not really sure if there are bigger lunatics around that the Birch Society. Ron Paul also attended the Libertarian-Patriot Banquet on April 2, 2004. Ah, nothing like hanging out with the lunatic “Patriots” to show how truly Presidential you are. You can find a picture of him here with Robert Clarkson, leader of The Carolina Patriots and The Patriot Network. Good company!
Okay, enough with his beliefs and the f***tard company he keeps. Let us move on to the issues, where Ron Paul comes across even more idiotic....
Ron Paul is a Libertarian! Weeeee! That means he would like to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Energy, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, aid to foreign nations, and the Department of Education as well as remove the US from the United Nations and NATO. Man, that would be so great. Maybe we could also get rid of everyone’s cars and we could ride around on magic unicorns. Also, I want to be able to turn my old shoes into muffins – because I’m a ****ing crazy lunatic. Libertarians hold onto these ideas because they cannot grasp the complexities of being part of a larger society. Feel free to come join the adults at the party whenever you want. But I shouldn’t be rambling on; I should let Paul speak for himself.
Paul on Hurricane Katrina:
"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?" he asks. "Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"
Does da little baby not wanna be part of da big society? Are they taking your money? Boo hoo.
Paul on Social Security:
"We didn't have it until 1935. I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment?...Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation."
Paul considers Medicare and Medicaid to be unconstitutional.
I think it's a flaw in the perfect society I would like to see where individuals take care of themselves.
As far as Paul’s choices for Vice President, he had this to say.
John Stossel, John Stossel would be good.
F***ing John Stossel? Are you kidding me? It’s like a sketch on Human Giant. First of all, never pick a guy who has a Saddam-like moustache. Nobody with a non-ironic moustache should hold public office. Secondly, Stossel may be the worst reporter alive.
How about aid to poor countries?
Paul is against the government's "delusional, feel-good" policies of giving aid to needy countries in places like Africa; instead, private citizens and private groups should give charity if they want to. He has written that Americans "don't need to be forced to pay for foreign welfare at the barrel of a government gun."
Right. He is a ****. I’m sure AIDS will just work itself out. I envision Paul at night in a corner of his room, arms wrapped around a big pile of money, screaming, “It’s mine!” Time to start acting like an adult, Ronny.
He does has a delightful voting record. He voted against the war. Wow! Holy ****! What a maverick! Doesn’t mean very much when you realize he votes against everything. His nickname is “Dr. No.”
He voted no on establishing a nationwide Amber alert system for missing kids. On January 2nd, 2007, he was the only Representative to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and reconstruction. He voted against hurricane relief funding, even though most of his district is on the Texas gulf coast. He voted no on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.
All of those are obviously terrible things and should not be funded. I mean, who wants to save kidnapped kids who are about to be raped and murdered?
But I don’t want to make it sound like Ron Paul votes no on everything. He does come around once in a while. For instance, in July of 1999 he voted to ban gay adoptions in DC. He has also voted to ban partial-birth abortions and to ban Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (Remember, AIDS will work itself out) Paul also supports a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools.
And lastly, for you liberals who are swayed by his anti-war views, Paul is staunchly pro-life. He was given a 0% rating by NARAL, a political organization of the pro-choice movement. Paul believes a fetus is a person, that it is human and has legal rights. He believes if you kill a fetus it is an act of aggression and you should be punished accordingly.
So, there you have it. Ron Paul is obviously a great ****ing guy – especially if you ignore everything that he is.
------- END Article ---------
And there you have it - they didn't even go into RKBA (where Ron Paul was the only member of the House to vote against expansion of a federal database for the purposes of gun control.
Fixed it for you...
Republican Liberty Caucus
Address:http://rlc.org/
The Republican Liberty Caucus promotes electing Republicans and defeating Democrats. I'm in complete agreement.
1,187 posted on 04/17/2003 4:23 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Yes, as you've said, you're in complete agreement with electing Republicans and defeating Democrats.
But are you in basic agreement with the positions of the Republican Liberty Caucus?
1,205 posted on 04/17/2003 4:39 PM PDT by tpaine
To: tpaine Of course.
1,209 -JR-
Move along, nothing new here. It is de rigeur. Everyone is smeared and called names who is for America first, last and only.
He is the GOPS rosie and the leader of the Blame America first team
I’d say those are two impressive Friends of Ron.
I’ll stick up for him on a number of domestic issues, but I can’t agree with him on his pseudo-isolationist foreign policy. I also wish he’d just come out and slap down the Truther crowd, that for whatever reason, seems to be drawn to him like moths to a porch light.
}:-)4
"Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war. By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq." - Patrick J. Buchanan, Friday, May 18, 2007 See Full Article Here
What does Pat saying about him blaming America for 9-11?
He is for America first.
What is the real, original basis for animosity between USA and Moslem world in the 20th century? (Hint: it’s not because they “hate our freedom”.)
If that basis can be modified, we could see a much better relationship with moslem world. Our oil prices could be lower and the Iraqi sands wouldnt be drenched with the blood of the some of the best Americans.
If that basis is modified, it doesnt mean we harbor any illusions about Moslems being “a peaceful religion” or any other nonsense. It doesnt mean we let Moslems destroy Israel, it just means we are more balanced. I don’t know about Ron Paul, but I would be working to deport all Moslems from this country while pursuing a balanced policy abroad.
But our great patriotic administration lets them in America and then goes to fight them 5000 miles from here.
Ron Paul is a patriot. He is not Harry Reid’s useful idiot.
He thinks outside the box. Many FR types may not agree with RP; that’s fine (I promise I won’t think such FReepers are useful idiots for Big Oil) but the name calling suggests a laziness to debate the issue: Why are we involved in the middle east? What are our objectives and how do secure them?
Get real.
“The United States is hated across the Islamic world because of specific U.S. Government policies and actions,,,,and the six U.S. policies bin Laden repeatedly refers to as anti-Muslim.
-U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis’ thrall.
-Western and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
-U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
-U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
-U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
-U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.
Anyone who thinks bin Laden is fighting to make our women wear Burkas or to end our Bill of Rights, has been brainwashed.
please provide the article
I think that what you do not understand is that Ron Paul is against the Federal government being Mommy and Daddy for the entire country. He strongly favors limiting the federal governments authority over the people.
He is a believer in States having only the power that the people choose to give to the State. Have you ever read your State Constitution?
He’s a believer in Sheriffs being the top cop in your County, not the FBI. That’s the way America was designed to be, not this morphed out mess we have allowed the legislators to make it into.
It is obviously kind of scary, to you, for the Feds not to be the master, standing over the all people in every situation.
Have a nice day. There no need to make crude or nasty remarks because I probably won’t reply.
He just thought that the frothing-at-the-mouth Liberal attack on Paul was kinda funny. That's why he posted it -- for amusement, not agreement.
Sorry you misunderstood. Hopefully, gentlemen -- "No Harm, No Foul"?
All these useless nothing puff pieces trying to prop up the perpetual obituary that is Ron Paul do nothing but take up space that should otherwise be filled by legitimate people.
Ron Paul has managed to unify anti-American leftists, terrorists and mental patients behind a GOP candidate.
He truly is a an for all terrorists.
All these useless nothing puff pieces trying to prop up the perpetual obituary that is Ron Paul do nothing but take up space that should otherwise be filled by legitimate people.
Ron Paul has managed to unify anti-American leftists, terrorists and mental patients behind a GOP candidate.
He truly is a man for all terrorists.
When the going gets tough, the tough talkers cut and run.
No no no, I was posting liberal garbage that was attacking Ron Paul for basically everything he is right on. Being attacked by those types is basically an endorsement. :)
Some of us can’t look at undeclared, politician-directed sorta-wars as conservative or liberal. We know they have been proven ineffective pragmatically time and again, by the experiences of the U.S. in Vietnam, Lebanon, Haiti, and Korea. And we know that for America to be uniform and united in support of the war, there must be a clear Constitutional declaration of war against an enemy we can fight, with an end in sight. I don’t like Colin Powell, but his doctrine was dead on if we want America to support any fight, long term or otherwise.
Now, you can try to paint the war in Iraq as black and white liberal vs. conservative if you wish. The problem is that the President can’t point to anything we’re doing different there from what Israel did over the last fifty years in Palestine, and look how successful that has been for the Israelis. They’ve finally given up and built a wall. Given the American line on what is militarily acceptable right now, we are at least destined for similar results, and we can’t build a wall—we’re not staying there, but nationbuilding and going home. Why would anyone consider it conservative for America to line up for the same experience in Iraq that Israel had in Palestine? Me, I just consider that foolhardy, and I don’t think of conservative politics as foolhardy.
How would YOU explain BUSH’s position on Iraq, liberal or conservative, Perdogg? Are Wilsonian policies liberal or conservative? They’ve proven foolishly naive, and there’s a particular plenty of that on one side of the aisle...and it ain’t the side with Jesse Helms and Ronald Reagan, I assure you.
We have had a declaration of war. Both Houses of Congress approved a resolution of force. The SCOTUS has ruled that this sufficient as a declaration of war.
I am sick and tired of people blaming American for thugs around the world.
They hate us because of way of life and our level of prosperity. Something I thought Libertarians were in favor of.
Just because a girl is gifted doesn’t mean she’s right.
Oh, and she is gifted.
 Is RP really Gandalf? |
“They hate us because of way of life and our level of prosperity.”
Written by Michael Scheuer, the former head of CIA’s Bin Laden Unit contained in Imperial Hubris p 242[softcover].
“The United States is hated across the Islamic world because of specific U.S. Government policies and actions,,,,and the six U.S. policies bin Laden repeatedly refers to as anti-Muslim.
-U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis’ thrall.
-Western and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
-U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
-U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
-U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
-U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.
Ron Paul has never given any indication that he would surrender to anyone. You made an untrue assertion.
Nice analysis, Sigmund.
Another untruth.
Actually, I have been very disappointed in Dr. Paul’s debate performances. He must be assuming that the audience understands what he is thinking, rather than what he actually says. He seems unclear on illegal immigration too. His stern demeanor is sure to tune out “touchy-feely” Oprah-style voters.
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.
