Posted on 08/07/2007 12:04:46 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
Is 2008 The New 1964? [John Derbyshire]
There's a Pro-Ron-Paul meme going around, to the effect that 2008 is the new 1964; i.e. that on the premise—debatable in itself, of course—that the GOP has no chance of winning the presidency next year, conservatives should run a Goldwater-style insurgency to remind the party we're here & set up some influence for 2012. Bruce Bartlett floated the meme here.
I got a thought-provoking e-mail along similar lines (one of dozens like it I've had on that Paul column) from Ben Novak, who lists himself as "founder of the Americans in Europe for Ron Paul Meet-up Group in Bratislava, Republic of Slovakia." Blimey. Well, here's what Ben says. "Mr Derbyshire—-Recently you wrote an eloquent article titled the 'Ron Paul Temptation ,' about how tempted you were to support him. However, you concluded by fighting off the temptation, writing that '[Ron Paul's] candidacy belongs in the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, such sweet dreams.' A Ron Paul candidacy does inspire sweet dreams. But, rather than writing Ron Paul off for that reason, I suggest that there are a multitude of reasons why you—and a lot of other Americans—should follow your dream.
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
We weren’t attacked by Iraq. Iraq has never been a threat to the United States. Ron did vote for going after Osama.
We weren’t attacked by Iraq. Iraq has never been a threat to the United States. Ron did vote for going after Osama.
Congress authorized military action against both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Constitution does not specify exactly how war is to be declared, just that Congress do such. And Congress authorized both actions.
sorry for the spam. My laptop has been acting up!!
Fine lets win the war. If you want to fight a war go WWII style and kick the crap out of them. Be willing to kill every last one of them in order to win. Just follow the constitution and have congress declare war.
If upholding the inalienable right to life that the Founders declared as they asserted our independence isn't part of American conservatism, then the word has absolutely no meaning.
However, I absolutely abhor the idea that a constitutional amendment could be passed which would ban the practice in all 50 states, never mind the wishes of the persons in the individual states.
If you abhor the idea of Constitutional amendments, then you abhor the Constitution.
To me, using a federal law to mandate abortion be illegal everywhere in the country is no different than using a federal law to mandate that civilian firearms ownership will now be illegal.
(1)A constitutional amendment is more than a garden variety federal law: it is part of the Constitution.
(2) I assure you that there is a difference between murdering an unborn child and owning a handgun.
(3) Instituting a amendment banning civilian firearm ownership would be the revocation of part of the Bill of Rights: the Constution was ratified on the strength of the Bill of Rights - revoking one of them would indicate a Constitutional crisis.
By the way, neither of these ideas will go over well if you attempt them and are likely to spike mass resistance and non-compliance.
There was mass resistance and non-compliance when, perfectly constitutionally, Kansas decided to enter the Union as a non-slaveholding state.
That doesn't make it all right to ignore the Constitution.
I am certainly no fan of Paul, but it is nice to see that there is a candidate in the race who actually stands up for state’s rights, which after all, was the platform of Goldwater in ‘64 and the platform that elected Reagan. It was all about state’s rights, and the idea that Washington should not have a say on the internal affairs of the respective states.
Perhaps Paul is campaigning on a states' rights platform.
Goldwater and Reagan certainly didn't emphasize this: they campaigned on a platform of lower federal taxes, standing up to international Communism and reaffirming traditional values.
And I'm not sure how you can say that you would abhor an Amendment to the Constitution and yet support states' rights. An Amendment to the Constitution is a deliberate act of the several states of the Union exercising their rights.
Banning murder isn't "big government." Evangelicals routinely vote for candidates who advocate cutting taxes, paring down bureaucracies - especially the public education bureaucracy, and advocating the rights of the several states to determine their priorities.
Evangelicals do not, as a rule, support big government.
The intel at the time showed Iraq to be a threat and to have ties to al-Qaeda. Also, Saddam Hussein was an enemy to America since 1991 and throughout the 1990s. He tried to have President Bush Sr. assassinated. He fired at our pilots and broke international laws. He was a brutal tyrant who committed genocide. Furthermore, he refused to let weapons inspectors into his nation right before the war in 2003.
Now, al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists are making their stand there. Not to mention Iran.
Do we surrender the whole of Iraq to them (like Ron Paul wants) or do we stay there and achieve victory? I believe that is the fundamental question for the 2008 election.
Where does the Constitution specifically say that Congress has to "declare war" for a war to be "legal"?
It's right next to the part where it says "Ron Paul shall be sole interpreter of this Constitution."
You make an excellent point. Goldwater brought us Reagan but LBJ, Nixon, and Carter happened first. That was a long sixteen years. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the slogan “Victory in 2023!”
What I don’t get about the whole “declaration of war” argument coming from the Paulestinians is that Paul himself voted for “authorization for use of military force” rather than a declaration of war right after 9/11.
So...using the Paulestinians’ logic, Paul voted and supported the illegal and unconstitutional war against Afghanistan.
Now, now, don’t go upsetting the Paulistas. They’re still having trouble digesting their meal of federally-subsidized wild shrimp.
So, Paul admits he is in the campaign to try to lose and bring our side down? The problem is that Paul isn't running a Goldwater-style insurgency, he is running a McGovern-style insurgency...
What's your address, so I can send you the $29.95 bill for a new keyboard?
SNAP!
Don't try arguing with them on this.. the reality is, Paul plays semantic games with the Constitution when it serves his purpose and he knows if people heard what he really thinks (which slips out on occasion) people will think he is nuts.
If this is going to be the GOP strategy this time, I would rather do it with a Rice-Coulter ticket. Let's see the Dhimmies try to use the "+" is stupid!" campaign now.
If this is going to be the GOP strategy this time, I would rather do it with a Rice-Coulter ticket. Let's see the Dhimmies try to use the "REPUBLICAN_CANDIDATE " is stupid!" campaign now.
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.