Posted on 12/13/2011 1:53:57 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Ron Paul is the wild card in the Republican presidential deck—and that makes him one of the most important cards of all right now.
....If Mr. Paul does well in Iowa, he could so muddy the waters that there is no clear winner. An inconclusive outcome would be a boon for Mr. Romney, who hasn't done all that well in Iowa, and who is counting much more heavily on winning the New Hampshire primary a week later. A murky Iowa result would reduce any momentum the upstart Mr. Gingrich might enjoy heading into New Hampshire.
New Hampshire, in turn, is looking ever more important for Mr. Romney, because it's followed by South Carolina and Florida, where Mr. Gingrich is surging. So the way Iowa sets the table for New Hampshire is highly important, and the Paul factor will be central to the table-setting.
If Mr. Paul really exceeds expectations in Iowa, that also might set the stage for him to break away from the GOP down the road and mount an independent presidential run. After all, he ran before as a Libertarian Party candidate, in 1988.
"If Paul wins Iowa, which is not out of the question, then you're going to see a lot of forces [within the Republican Party] try to denigrate him and cut him back," says Norman Ornstein, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. "Then I could see Paul saying, 'I've been screwed by this party's establishment, so screw you, I'll run as an independent.' "
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Congressman Ron Paul's 1987 letter announcing his resignation from the Republican Party (because of Ronald Reagan)
As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and that’s the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.
Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets.
Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government.
In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan’s program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.
Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O’Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.
Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter’s four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan’s five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.
All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.
Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that “deficits don’t matter,” the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.
Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagan’s foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower’s, Kennedy’s, Johnson’s, Nixon’s, Ford’s, and Carter’s put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems.
Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget amendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.
Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.
Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.
Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagan’s urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive “lie detector” tests.
Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has “sent hither swarms” of tax gatherers “to harass our people and eat out their substance.” His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagan’s new tax “reform” gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.
Knowing this administration’s record, I wasn’t surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.
I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.
After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government’s best friend.
If Ronald Reagan couldn’t or wouldn’t balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.
I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America’s direction.
I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.
http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul%E2%80%99s-reagan-revisionism/
I’ve never seen a GOP membership card.
Really?
Problem is, Paul has always lead from behind. Some people have pegged it as going bass-ackwards. Some may see that as merely being accurate, but I try to be less judgmental. I prefer to think of it as ‘right direction challenged’.
If Paul leads at all it will be from behind. Some of his solutions look like he pulled them out of his behind. And others times he looks like he has his head up his behind.
Or we can continue to vilify him, and when he gets fed up and does decide to run a 3rd Party campaign we can all say "See, I told you what a demon he was!"
Self-fulfilling prophecies are such wonderful things, aren't they?
I’m a big fan of Ron Paul’s domestic policies. Although not quite the Israel fan of a lot of FReepers, I have a hard time supporting a guy (Paul) who goes on Iranian state TV and bashes an ally. It’s my big hangup with the guy because doing that shows very poor judgement.
Maybe you're not a Republican.
Are you logged in?
GERALD F. SEIB apparently likes to project, but is he any good at it?
No I’m behind a firewall.
Don’t know the frequency either, eh Kenneth?
There, fixed it.
Hmmm, there seems to be a central theme to your post. LOL
Take care bud.
is that a trick question?
I didn’t know the GOP handed out parteikarten.
It could go bad for one if arrested in CA in possession of one.
Quiver in fear...quiver in fear....Let's all say nice things about the kook so he won't run a 3rd Party Campaign.
Or we could call it like we see it, and if Paul does run third party, maybe the only people who will vote for him are the liberal pot smokers, who weren't going to vote republican anyway.
Paul is a nut case the Democrats want to see run as a third party saboteur.
Sounds great to me. You have a problem with any of these positions? Because if you do, you're on the wrong website.
I’m a big fan of Ron Paul’s domestic policies.
Like same sex marriage and homos in the military?
This right here is a psychotic statement. If anyone wondered whether Paul really is tethered to the real world or floating above it somewhere in the ozone, this should decisively answer your question. The man is deranged and economically illiterate. Since we already know he is deranged and illiterate on foreign policy, it doesn't leave much room left.
Dunk this sucker before he does some real harm.
I think a lot of people seem to have missed the fact that Ron Paul was attacking Ronald Reagan for not living up to the conservative principles he ran on - he was not attacking Reagan or Reaganism per se. This is a vital difference & puts things in proper perspective. After all: what difference does it make weather it is a Republican or Democrat that runs up deficits. The problem is that they are running up deficits. That was the main point Ron Paul was trying to get across. Similar to how George W Bush ran on “a humble foreign policy” but soon ditched that pledge. Politicians are not sacrosanct or infallible so when they stray from the path of conservative principles - they should be called on it. Whether Reagan deserved Paul’s criticism is up to the discernment of the researcher.
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.