Or to put it another way...I like what ronpaul says about spending.
Why bother giving him credit here, when he's hardly the only one making the point?
Posted on 02/22/2010 6:28:24 PM PST by presidio9
Over the weekend, Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll for president. Many pundits immediately dismissed the win, for a lot of reasons. (The Atlantic did a roundup of all the "he's irrelevant" comments.) My take on Ron Paul is this: He says a lot of off-the-wall stuff, but his bottom line is that he's a limited-government libertarian. And he's not Mitt Romney, the establishment GOP choice. I think that's why he won.
Joe Scarborough likes to say that if you look at where Ross Perot did well in 1992, those are the same places that tea party candidates are doing well. That may be, but I think there's some overlap between Ron Paul supporters and the tea partiers, at least some of the younger ones. Ross Perot has a website, PerotCharts, that illustrates the government's fiscal responsibility; but Ron Paul supporters have an interactive site for those who want to meet up at campaign rallies (with over 100,000 people either already members or interested), and according to the timeline posted, it looks like many of them have joined in the last two years.
I came across a bit of a tea party manifesto, if you want to call it that, in Politics Daily on Sunday: "A Grassroots View of the Tea Party," written by Roy Nix, a golf pro in Florida. Here's how he describes the average tea partier:
"They don't dream of power, and they don't dream of telling their neighbors how to worship, how to spend their money, what kind of car to buy, what kind of food to eat and how to save the environment. They expect their neighbors to decide all of those things for their own families.
"They don't want big government, they don't want socialistic policies and they don't want to spend more money for things they don't need. They don't see Washington as Robin Hood, robbing the rich to help the poor, but as the Sheriff of Nottingham--taking their tax money and giving it to big business while we starve.
"They don't want to have to march in the streets, and they don't want to be 'activists' in politics because they have lives to live.
"They don't hate immigrants, but they don't like lawbreakers who come here illegally. They don't mind helping people, but they are out of money and want to help those closest to home first until their bills are paid off ...
"These lawmakers have forgotten what 'representative' means, and they end up in Washington doing what their party tells them to do, rather than what their constituents tell them to do ... And that's what's motivating so many who've joined the Tea Party movement."
Nix hits the nail on the head, in terms of the anti-Nanny State, limited government message of the tea partiers, and how all incumbents, not just Democrats, are at risk: "The Tea Party is sending a genuine grass-roots message to both Democrats and Republicans. And they'd better listen up and learn fast," he concludes. A New York Times/CBS poll from earlier this month supports this: Only 8 percent of respondents think that most incumbent members of Congress deserve to be re-elected; a whopping 81 percent said it's time to "give new people a chance." That's putting it nicely--I think if the election were held today, it would be a tidal wave against incumbents.
At least he isn’t Peter Paul, Hillary’s buddy.
The PaulHaters can get quite vulgar & hot under the collar, can't they? I read one comment by a PaulHater over @ biggovernment.com that said if Rep. Paul wins the GOP nomination for Prez, they would vote for Obama "just for spite!".
What is that? A pile of horse turds? Or a gathering of RINOs?
I think that you are exactly right. The Ron Paul people where I live actually believe that Bush engineered the attack on 9/11. They actually believe that they have information most people don’t have. It gives them a sense of importance or superiority. In fact they are a bunch of pitiful nut jobs.
Please don't waste my time trying to defend an idiotic political philosophy that has never appealed to more than 2% of the adult (and I use that term charitably) population. I was aware of all the arguments for and against libertarianism before you even heard the term. I just think these arguments have no place on a Conservative website. We take our cues from Ronald Reagan here, and his presidency was actively opposed to libertarianism.
However, since you brought it up, liberaltarians in general overwhelmingly support a woman's so-called "right" to choose. Paul is not a member, but he has spoken for Liberaltarians For Life. His official positions are that he personally opposes abortion, and he would like to see Roe V Wade overturned. If it goes to the states, and some states legalize abortion, he will presumably support them. That would be consistent with liberaltarian philosophy. His voting record on this issue is all over the place, until you see the libertarian pattern that is clearly more concerned with government spending and restrictions than it is with human life. He did vote against partial birth abortions, and I give him credit for that. He also voted against laws that made it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime, and "no" on parental notification. The National Right To Life Committee gives him a mixed record (56% out of a possible 100%). He says that he believes life begins a conception. Personally, I have an even lower regard for a person who accepts that an individual life exists, and then fails to do everything in his power to protect that helpless life. Or even acts AGAINST it in some circumstances.
The libertarian opposition to wars that are not in "self-defense" is convenient at best. Cowardice is more accurate. For example, libertarians and religious pacifists were the only ones who opposed war with Japan in 1941. The current war has always been one against radical Islam. We were attacked first, and the different theatres are merely small parts of a larger conflict that was expected to continue for, perhaps, generations when it started. Some people chose not to listen when President Bush laid it out in 2001. Now they are engaging in revisionist history.
I missed your point about Drug Legalization.
Mo we don't. Making such a broad condemnation like that is utter nonsense.
But why would McCain win a CPAC straw poll if he never even pretended to be a Conservative the way Romney sometimes does?
Or to put it another way...I like what ronpaul says about spending.
Why bother giving him credit here, when he's hardly the only one making the point?
I was going to say bull$%#@ but thats good right there.
Or even worse, why would the GOP nominate him for President & millions of "conservatives" vote for him in the first place???
Honestly, sometimes the RP haters sound more fascistic than the campus lefties who shout down any conservative speaker. Bill Ayers would be proud. They’ll back uber-Rino McCain who’s nearly as communistic as Obama, but attack RP who’s opposed to just about everything the communists have ever done. But since he doesn’t believe in unconstitutional war then he’s a loon. That kind of logic is so backward that it’s no wonder we have the Kremlin right here at home.
Think of how you'd feel if an obnoxious stranger walked into your house and took a dump on your living room floor. Libertarians are a type of Republican. Conservatives are a type of Republican. Libertarians have no business at CPAC or on this Conservative website.
http://original.antiwar.com/doug-bandow/2007/05/04/invasion-of-the-party-snatchers/
Do you guys live in the same place, or does Chris have a reading comprehension problem?
I think McCain did his part to act the role of a conservative, regardless of whether or not it people bought it. Romney was just a better organizer around CPAC time than McCain was. However, when election time rolled around, it was different story. The point it, really, that everybody is freaking out over this straw poll as if Ron Paul is already the anointed 2012 GOP candidate, and the CPAC poll only gives the winner bragging rights not necessarily some long term primary win.
Well said, and please read my own reply (#46) on this thread.
Yeah right, this is who you phony radical anti war leftists really are.
Here is more on thrifty Ron.
Yes, 73 million in earmarked this year.
Yes, he some kind of Tea par tier alright with our checkbooks.
What you call “liberaltarians” hold a fair amount of common ground with conservatives. Limited goverment. Lower taxes. That kind of stuff. Maybe you ought to think a little harder before the kneecap gives you a bloody lip.
I’m legally blind, so I tend to make a lot of typos. Sorry about that.
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.