Topic: Ron Paul
Is Ron Paul's plan working? Ron Paul's plan is to return the Republican Party back to it's roots. Is it working?by Paul from Clearwater Florida
(Libertarian)
Friday, April 18, 2008
The stated values of the Republican Party is less government, lower taxes, more liberty and freedom. They are failing miserably.
Ron Paul is not happy with the voting record of the Republican Party. Here are some of his statements:
The Republican Party despises Libertarians and the Constitution.
The Republican Party has lost it's way.
The Republican Party has been hijacked by the Neocons.
The Republican Party is now the party of higher taxes, foreign intervention and nation building.
Bush got voted in on a humble foreign policy and now we are in a quagmire in Iraq.
Look at where the interventalist foreign policy has us now. On the verge of a huge depression and bases too many to count, worldwide.
I could go on and on. He's been bravely fighting this fight for over 20 years. Has it worked? Has the party changed?
He's voted alone many, many times.
Just recently the vote was 413-1, Ron Paul the lone nay, on whether to condemn China over the Tibet issue.
Not a single other Congressman, after 20 years of lecturing, teaching and voting, understand the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. They each voted for the intervention policy with that vote.
Mind our own business. That does not mean that our Charities and concerned groups should not go to Tibet and try to straighten things out. It is NOT government's job to put our nose in every foreign affair that occurs on this planet. It's impossible.
So, I ask you. Is it working? Does he need more time? Does he need more help from us?
Jim Forsythe gave up his bid for Congressman in New Hampshire. I was really hoping good things from that race. That's over. The Live Free or Die State has let us down once again.
So do we continue to dance with the devil (The Republican Party) and try to get the devil to change? Overpower the devil and live in his lair after restoring Jeffersonian Republican ideals?
Do we jump ship with a real party of truth, Libertarian Party, Independent Party, Constitution Party. Maybe a new r3VOLution Party. Only for the ship to sink like it did in '88 when Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian? Or could we win this time?
Can we convince the Republican Party go back to it's conservative Barry Goldwater values?
Maybe after it tanks hard in November they will be more receptive, when Hillary or Obama are President.
I'm a lifelong Republican. And as you see, throughout this article I refer to the Republican Party as 'they' or 'them' 'it'. It's hard to associate myself with warmongering, nation building, liberty and Constitution hating neocons.
It really is sad. Your comments are very welcome. Ron Paul says to stay the course. Should we just be patient?
I'll say this much as far as Florida goes. We are denied membership in at least 3 counties that I am aware of. And others just won't attend due to the disgusting thickness of criminality in the air.
How long do we have to stay in, are we just trying to save face? Do we have a choice?
Is the Republican Liberty Caucus the answer to our prayers?
Is it too late to get Ron Paul on the Libertarian ticket so that we prevent the destruction of this Country? He'd have to do it quickly.
Ron Paul has sparked a HUGE Revolution. We must act NOW!!
One final comment. Politics is dirty, very dirty indeed. It needs a cleaning from the bottom up. We need the Constitution back.
Paul from Clearwater Florida
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 54 thumbs so far
2008 Paul from Clearwater Florida, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, April 18, 2008
Last modified: Friday, April 18, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Paul from Clearwater Florida only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Paul from Clearwater Florida is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I am a lifelong Republican who occasionally voted elsewhere, as well. I'll vote for Ron Paul, wherever he runs. I maxxed out, so am donating to local efforts now (like High Tide airtime, etc.) but would max out again on any general election campaign he ran. I'd volunteer for him, as well.
"Maybe after it tanks hard in November they will be more receptive, when Hillary or Obama are President."
I hate to say it, but I don't see a prayer of this happening. My conclusion, years ago, was that both major parties - you know, the Democans and the Republicrats - are controlled from behind the scenes by the same "powers that be." The "dirty politics" you speak of are probably far dirtier than you imagine.
Two major examples I've seen of this: The Republicans deliberately ran Bob "Viagra" Dole against a thoroughly despised Bill Clinton. I believe they could have won quite handily had they nominated true conservative Pat Buchanan.
The other example was when California threw Democrat Gray Davis out on his ear and conservative Tom McClintock was running for governor, and could have easily won. The perfidious Republican Party leadership chose to push "big name" Arnold into place to capture the popular vote, and to this day California conservatives are constantly battling that liberal RINO.
By the way, have you joined the Nolan Chart Columnists Lounge yet? Check the link in your Authors Control Panel.
Hey Paul, good to see you writing. I understand that WE make it happen, it's our revolution. I think most hard core Paulites understand this. And as the apathy slowly returns, I too feel the emotional cocktail building up pressure.
Quincy Adams said something like [vote your conscious, let God sort it out]... an interesting thought. There is certainly providence in these times. The success that we've had is a testament to that. And like the story of Moses, are we so eager to cast aside the one who led us out of Egypt just because we've been stuck in the desert for 40 years? I didn't mean that to be as harsh a metaphor as it turned out, but the principle is the same. If Providence leads us, shouldn't it continue to do so? I'm not sure I know the answer to that. I still have my own, unfinished lessons to contend with on that subject. The best that I can opinion is this:
Do everything that is possible for you to do, and prepare yourself for God's judgement... prepare yourself for a 'bad beat', an 'ace on the river'. No matter how good you play poker, some nut job (ie, god/providence) is going to suck out on you and catch a full-house to your set of Kings. It happens - a lot, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The best you can do is go 'all in' with the best hand.
So I'm saying, use every (marginally ethical) trick in the book and then let it go. I say marginally, because we're absolutley playing with fire, and 'all's fair in love and war'.
Ultimately, it's up to the masses. And as your video shows, it's an absolute crap shoot.
Is America ready and willing to save itself? Only time will tell. We still have a few months to tip the scales. The delegates still have a chance, but a back up is a certainty. Maybe a private third-ticket moneybomb fund with specific ways of donating the money depending on how everything plays out. He'll do a third party IF the money is there. Personally, I still eagerly await the convention... call it, 'poker intuition'.
http://www.roncan.com
The republicans are obviously a loss this election. I'm afraid the LP has too many nuts in it to ever have an impact, but maybe Bob Barr could make a showing since he has conservative credibility. Ron Paul is a brilliant guy, but perhaps just to principled. He seems to pointlessly vote "no" on things rather than getting his hands dirty and trying to make the best of things. This is the dirty part of politics, but sometimes it has to be done. It's not really compromise so much as damage control. I look to Barr as someone with largely the same political views, but who is much more politically savvy and articulate. Maybe the republicans will wake up if Barr takes 10-15% of the vote. I may be dreaming though.
No it is not. He spouted off too much kookyness and avoided Neal Boortz over 1 issue! He did nothing but make you guys happy watching his loss.
Maybe if he ran for governor of Texas and won (which i doubt that he could), only then would he know what it is like to be an executive.
"So do we continue to dance with the devil (The Republican Party) and try to get the devil to change? Overpower the devil and live in his lair after restoring Jeffersonian Republican ideals?
Do we jump ship with a real party of truth, Libertarian Party, Independent Party, Constitution Party. Maybe a new r3VOLution Party. Only for the ship to sink like it did in '88 when Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian? Or could we win this time?
Can we convince the Republican Party go back to it's conservative Barry Goldwater values?"
Can we keep spitting out rhetorical questions and call this an article?
Posted By: Kevin Houston
Date: 2008-04-19 03:50:21
I say: Keep working on the Republican party (note I didn't say keep working for them.) Support Liberty Republicans (and Liberty Democrats, if you can find any) and vote for them in the primary.
Meanwhile vote Libertarian (or Constitution, etc.) in the general election. (unless, by some miracle, the Liberty candidate wins the major party primary - Sabrin might do so in NJ - give him full support)
IMHO, massive money and time spent supporting Libertarian candidates is money and time wasted. Not that the candidates are bad, but the vast majority of people will not vote 3rd party, no matter how distasteful (or even criminal) the major party candidate is or how close the 3rd party candidate matches that voter's individual beliefs. You have to give the 3rd party some support, but don't go all-in.
I have seen this far too often. the LP gets about 3.5% in a 3-way race, and about 20% in a 2-way (for president, it's much worse). Regardless of whether the candidate is the next Moses, or a total no-name shmo. Regardless if they spend $15,000 on a rural state senate race or $400 running for US Congress in a major metropolitan area that is totally dominated by a major party "machine". If we are going to get 3.5% anyway, let's at least get it for $400 instead of $15,000.
On the other hand, even a "losing" candidate like Ron Paul (I use the term only in the sense that the MSM has branded him such - I'm a RP delegate to MN and I think he could get nominated yet.) has done more to spread the message of Peace, Liberty and Freedom, than every 3rd party candidate combined for the last 30 years. For this kind of candidate, give your full support, and fight for every inch.
Don't support the major parties, only support the liberty candidates within those parties.
If supporting the largest "minor" party in America, the Libertarian Party, is, as one commentor suggested, a waste of time, then there truly is no hope, because the two major parties are inherently corrupt and will not change.
One person commented that the Libertarian Party has too many "kooks" in it. And the Republican Party doesn't?
I am supporting Mary Ruwart for president. Bob Barr is a decent candidate, but his platform is half way between Ron Paul and John McCain. A candidate such as Bob Barr will only confuse the general public as to what it means to be a libertarian.
Here is an excerpt from an essay by Mary Ruwart, explaining why it makes sense to support the Libertarian Party:
"The only major party candidate who understands that taxation is an unnecessary evil is Dr. Ron Paul, GOP hopeful, and 1988 Libertarian Party presidential nominee. If he doesn’t get the Republican Party’s nomination, many supporters will write in his name on their ballots. Sadly, such loyalty will go unreported by the press, since write-in votes are rarely counted and even more rarely reported.
I see only one way that his supporters can make their voices heard if Dr. Paul doesn’t receive the GOP nomination. If the Ron Paul Revolution votes en masse for the Libertarian Party (LP) candidates, including the presidential nominee, the LP will receive an unprecedented number of votes. The Ron Paul Revolution votes will likely land LP candidates in local and state offices, and empower them to help Dr. Paul with his programs.
The press tied the libertarian label closely to Ron Paul. The Revolution will get credit for the surge in LP interest. Sympathetic politicians may feel it’s safe to come out of the closet and support Congressman Paul’s proposals.
Of course, all this is possible only if the LP runs a principled Libertarian and Ron Paul supporter for their presidential candidate. I propose to be that candidate. I have supported Dr. Paul’s congressional campaigns since 1988 and have been active in his presidential run. Dr. Paul has supported me by endorsing my book, “Healing Our World,” and writing President Bush in support of my application for FDA Commissioner some years ago. As the LP presidential nominee, I will refer to Dr. Paul’s ongoing efforts, such as passage of the “Health Freedom Protection Act,” as part of my program to deregulate the health care industry."
The Libertarian Party is the party of peace. The Republican Party is the party of war. Which would you rather be a part of?
Laura -- Experience doing what? Growing government? This country needs a president with good sense and a solid philosophical grounding. Mary Ruwart has that.
I would also point out that the viability of a political party is not determined solely on its ability to elect presidents. The Libertarian Party has elected hundreds of people to public office and is becoming more successful all of the time.
If the Ron Paul Revolutionaries got behind the Libertarian Party, it would immediately become a party to be reckoned with. They would most likely secure ballot access for the future and elect quite a few Libertarians to state and local governments. By simply controlling a certain percentage of the votes, the Libertarian Party would have influence.
Building the Libertarian Party may seem daunting, but not nearly as daunting as attempting to change the corrupt culture within the Republican Party, as many Ron Paul supporters seem intent on trying to do.
In this election cycle, anything could happen. Besides, when the alternatives are Obama, Clinton, and McCain, does someone who has not been a politician really look so bad? Many people may consider it a plus. I do.
It makes much more sense to elect somebody with no political experience and the correct ideas than a career politician with the wrong ideas. And it is not impossible to elect somebody like Mary Ruwart.
Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota with no political experience. People just have to be upset enough at the alternatives. I think they are.
greed, vanity, etc. We have our icon. Why doesn't Mary or Jesse, say they'll run as VP for Ron Paul in whatever party?
Anything else, looks like self-interest and is insulting.
1) we still have the delegates (and lawsuits) and we still have 'some' major events coming up.
2) if we have to bail on the GOP then and only then should we look at Libertarian, Constitution or whatever. And whomever needs to do the right thing and let Paul take the lead. For the good of the country. Paul is already beloved. A new face will not generate that in just a few months.
The whole argument of experience is a conundrum indeed, and Scott is right in certain regards.
My observations are these: If you're already a media-starlet or celebrity, then it doesn't make a difference where you run or how much experience you have. Elections have hardly been anything other than popularity contests. Mainstream recognition. Press coverage. Experience? Who needs that?
Experience is overhyped in today's world as diversity in our career paths and education renders it impossible for anyone to be an expert across the board. What counts the most is prudence, and a strong judge of character. This isn't to say experience isn't a plus, but if you're skilled at deciding issues in the first place, you can always hire people to fill in for your experience.
Examples of poor judges of character: Warren Harding. Poor judge of character. Often regarded as helming one of the most corrupt administrations in U.S. history because he was so negligent of what his staff was doing.
Jimmy Carter. This time, Washington outsider. Terrible judge of character. Made running his administration a living hell, despite his achievements in foreign policy when absence of this trait is a boon, rather than a curse.
Better answer: JFK. Low amount of experience, better sense of character and better able to distinguish who was loyal to him and could faithfully execute his goals. Sure, you could rip me a new one for mentioning a good example being a democrat here, but the point transcends party ideology. To illustrate this, you don't have to be a libertarian to have a good judge of character.
But the nullification of this whole experience argument isn't the only task at hand here. After all, how else to break the mold, especially for a party never tested higher than state level? Run more outsider candidates? When haven't we done that? Good and dandy, I say. How's that working for ya?
Do we dare sacrifice the principle over the product by, GASP, running more mainstream candidates? I know, nothing could be worse to some of you guys, who I am basically suggesting should swallow hellfire. But, I implore you to ask yourselves a few questions first. And in the meantime, let's throw your next statement about Jesse Ventura out the window.
Jesse, as I already alluded to, was appealing for the same reasons Reagan and, more recently, Schwarzenegger were. They're already familiar personalities, their characters already went scrutiny in the media limelight or, where it was not so harsh, other "positive" developments making waves on the news or such. More than that, they were all seen as straight shooters due to their charming inability to play political correctness with the gang on Capitol Hill.
What I'm getting at is simple. Before we can ever break into the mainstream, before we can consolidate our support, we need to attract familiar, public-tested supporters. And if this means muddied, ex-public servants such as Bob Barr or Mike Gravel, so be it. And since Ron Paul seems to have no intention to rejoin the libertarian party, we need to find new faces now.
This isn't to say we shouldn't stop running spirited, outsider candidates with rich backgrounds in many other relevant fields. Since when should holding prior office be the only bar? Trick question. It never was, but the problem we must get around if we want to set any of our "principles" in motion in the first place is to persuade the masses that we are approachable first.
We're up against not just the Washington establishment, but our own neighbors, friends, and family who still believe holding their nose and voting for the better-looking candidate is all that matters. You're not going to change their minds overnight and have them vote for an unknown.
Think about why we're all here. This whole country is swarming in apathy, some to larger degrees than others. The way I see it, we are here because no matter what ,we share this underlying sense of optimism that things can be restored. Did we really find libertarian philosophy because we were so jaded with the system already, or because we were the only ones left hanging on, looking for new options? I firmly believe the latter, and I also believe that absolute devotion to a principle such as liberty and human rights is noble, but we cannot withdraw and create our own society and declare ourselves the United Libertarian States or whatever of America.
One of the biggest blessings is perhaps that the Libertarian party has not reached the same amounts of corruption or bigoted radicalism as it has in other parties, because in the end, this means that we still hold the power to reign in those that speak for us. And it would be foolish to waste this power while we can still wield it to great effect on new party converts who actually carry name recognition and have something to show for themselves.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Paul from Clearwater Florida, all rights reserved.