Posted on 01/15/2012 11:28:12 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
Maybe more like the new Ross Perot?
Except I think Ross Perot had a sane foreign policy.
Back in the 1970’s Paul was seen as great conservative.
Rand Paul pointed out in an appearance recently that his father was one of only four Republican members of Congress to endorse Ronald Reagan over Gerald Ford in 1976.
Paul was rated one of the most conservative members of the House back some 30 or so years ago along with fellow Texas member Dick Armey.
Paul is opposing the foreign policy establishment just like he did in the 1970’s when they pushed detente with the Soviets.
Today the foreign policy makers value a New World Order and fight limited wars.
I support our troops in Afghanistan but its pretty obvious the enemy there is backed by Pakistani elements that aren’t being defeated on the battlefield.
Paul argues against the wars but comes off as the anti-war nut who supports America’s enemies.
That hurts him but his heart is still against the political establishment and their schemes to increase our national debt and fight limited wars under international rules and authority.
I would vote for Newt in SC, but Paul is capturing hearts and Sarah Palin says we can’t ignore his voters.
Well duh. I’ve been pointing out the similarities between the Paulistinians and the LaRoushis for a long time.
With the proportional delegate scheme the GOP is using this year, Lyndon LaRouche II has a fairly decent shot at winning. Do not underestimate this 911 Truther to be as incompetent as LaRouche. He has a plan and may take over the convention no matter that the outcome for the other candidates is.
“That hurts him but his heart is still against the political establishment and their schemes to increase our national debt and fight limited wars under international rules and authority.”
I think if Paul could make that argument more effectively, it would do him a lot of good: that he’s not against all wars but against poorly executed, limited ones that don’t have the full national backing needed for a massive engagement and a decisive victory. I think that’s his point. And he’s right.
LaDouche??? DEFINATELY!!!
So what's new?
In my opinion, conspiracy theorizing hacks like Larouche, and Paul have much credibility. Through the scope of hindsight, what they have spoken of, has not only come to pass, but has been seen as mainstream news. NOW we call them nuts, but they are and were right about the course of history.
Lyndon’s still breathing, isn’t he? What do we need a new one for.
Went TDY to the Pentagon to teach a few times. Couldn’t get over that they allowed the LaRouche alcolytes to set up on the steps leading to the entrances and pass out the commie tracts.
For example, he said Queen Elizabeth was a drug dealer.
She was. The US federal government government is involved in dealing drugs and gun smuggling. Everyone but the writer apparently knows this.
Given that we haven’t managed to actually win a war since 1945 (with the possible exception of Grenada) why is there so much surprise that an anti-going to war feeling is gaining traction in this country???
"Winning the war...." march in, kill the bad guys, march out.
Oh wait.
Dither for a while about who the bad guys are, march in, kill the bad guys, march out.
Oh wait.
Evaluate collateral damage. Decide who the bad guys are. March in. Gather and evacuate the collateral damage. Kill the bad guys. March out.
Oh wait.
Have an argument about "concentration camps." Have an argument about right and wrong. Have an argument about force versus diplomacy. Have an argument about freedom of religion. Have an argument about America's place in the world.
Oh wait.
Forget it. Whine that no one likes us. Eat more cake.
Everyone here realizes that Lyndon Laruche was a commie right? I’m not a fan of Ron Paul, but comparing him to a communist? No, not a good comparison....
As I recall from my college and grad school years in the 70's, left wing splinter groups, largely offshoots of the student radicalism of the period, were appearing and disappearing faster than one could keep track of them. Most of them may not have amounted to more than a dozen grad students with a mimeograph machine, but they seemed to have plenty of money to travel, and to publish obscure, mostly short-lived journals. It's a sociologically interesting phenomenon; ordinary political movements don't behave that way. The 70's radicals made today's libertarians look like consensus builders.
I've always supposed this reflex towards rabid factionalism had something to do with the Stalinist and conspiratorialist roots of so many of the red diaper babies who made up the leadership of the movement. The old lefty traditions of authoritarian control of a centralized party line dies hard. The style became internalized and still infects the left. There is still a dividing line between democratically inclined liberals, who are willing to accept a diversity of viewpoints, and leftist dogmatists who have a great deal of difficulty accepting any real political pluralism.
Anyhow ... I've always wondered where LaRouche gets his money. Does anyone have any insight into his financing?
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.