Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul's Fair Weather Friends Shouldn't Ron Paul's followers be concerned that his campaign is being infiltrated by leftist activists?by Dave Nalle
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Much has already been made of the interest shown in the Ron Paul campaign by groups on the reactionary right, from 9/11 'truthers' to white supremacists. Less widely reported but of growing concern to those watching the Paul campaign and wondering if it is going wildly astray is the involvement of far-left groups who are flocking to Paul's banner for reasons which may be genuine or may mask an effort to undermine the entire Republican primary. I like Ron Paul and what he stands for on a great many issues and especially his devotion to the Constitution, but I can't help but worry about the unsavory character his campaign is beginning to develop. Stories are circulating on GOP email lists of interested Republicans attending Ron Paul meetups and regional Republican party events around the country and being confronted by openly hostile leftist/progressive/socialists who seem to be supporting Paul, but have no love for regular Republicans who also support the candidate. There are accounts that confrontations have become heated at some of these meetups and that many receptive Republicans have have been pushed away from the campaign as a result. The suspicion is that MoveOn.org is infiltrating the campaign with agitators and people are asking why these leftists are so interested in Ron Paul. Is their interest genuine, or is it only part of a campaign to disrupt the Republican primary or discredit the Paul campaign?
The involvement of MoveOn.org in the Paul campaign can be confirmed on their page at Meetup.com where they are shown as co-sponsoring a number of the regional Ron Paul meetups and they have also released a video ad in support of Paul. Paul's campaign has also received positive public response from a variety of prominent leftists, including Cindy Sheehan. One socialist in the Netherlands of all places, makes a compelling argument for why US socialists should support Ron Paul.
Most Republicans see the objectives of MoveOn.org as inherently antithetical to the basic beliefs of the Republican Party. MoveOn.org is an openly anti-Republican, anti-Conservative and anti-Libertarian organization which is openly funded by a wealthy international socialist whose goal is to undermine and control the Democratic Party, and it is largely run by people with past associations with the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America. With its position at the far left of the American Political spectrum and as the main instrument through which George Soros seeks to undermine and control the American political system, it is understandable how Republicans might be concerned about MoveOn.org's interest in and support of Ron Paul.
The key to Paul's popularity on the left lies with his opposition to the Iraq War, but also with the suppor the has from a segment of the traditional Libertarian Party constituency, the left-libertarians or social anarchists. This element of the broad alliance which makes up the Libertarian Party, where Paul was once a prominent figure and presidential candidate, is philosophically compatible with the most extreme parts of the socialist leaning wing of the Democratic Party. As typified by Justin Raimondo who has effectively formed an alliance with the anti-war left, they place issues like the war ahead of a broader libertarian philosophy. Many of them take an anarchist position against property ownership and are so hostile to government that they come off as anti-American.. They differ from typical 'minarchist' libertarians and neolibertarians in their outspoken hostility to the Republican Party and their unwillingness to compromise their extreme principles in the interest of political reality. Strangely they don't have the same hostility towards the Democrats, and many of them see socialists as their natural allies. As the Democratic Party becomes more dominated by socialist factions it becomes more appealing to them. Their enthusiastic support for Paul means that there is a nucleus within his following which is already allied with forces within the farthest left part of the Democratic Party, and they have been drawing on that association to bring more leftist/progressives into Paul's camp.
Paul seems willing to take support from wherever he can get it and doesn't seem particularly concerned that socialists may try to influence his campaign or distort the nomination process in the Republican primaries. Although he has promised that if he fails to get the nomination he will not jump parties and run as a Libertarian, he doesn't seem to care that the newly registered pseudo-Republicans he's creating will leave the party the moment the primary is over, even if one of the more moderate somewhat libertarian candidates wins.
In a recent interview with LibertyWatch Paul makes very clear that he's aware of his appeal to the left. He commented that, "Right now, liberals are the most enthusiastic about my campaign. If I get a speech on the House floor on foreign policy, I'll get many hundreds sometimes thousands of comments sent to my office. I would say 90 percent of them are from Democrats."
He doesn't seem particularly concerned, and even accepts the idea that these supporters are 'liberals', even though it's pretty clear that they don't believe in most of the same liberal ideas that Paul or other libertarians in the Republican Party support. Paul even acknowledges this. "[L]iberals are very, very frustrated with their own Democrats. Although they know I have shortcomings from their viewpoint because I'm for free enterprise and free markets they love my position on civil liberties and they love my position on war."
He's clearly willing to take support from wherever he can get it, which is understandable, but it does put his loyalty to the Republican party and true libertarian ideals in question, as much as his unwillingness to speak out against the racists, conspiracy fanatics and other extremists who support him does.
It is Paul's anti-war position which seems to drive much of the interest of the left in his campaign, which begs the question of whether their support is genuine, or just based on the single issue of the War in Iraq? Do they support Paul and everything he stands for or do they just see his candidacy as a chance to strike a blow against the evil Republican warmongers in their own primary. What will leftist/progressives who are flocking to register Republican so that they can vote for Paul do if he doesn't get nominated? Would they stick with a candidate like Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson who share many of Paul's positions on issues other than the Iraq War, or will they flee back to the Democratic party once Paul loses the nomination and they've done as much damage to the primary process as they can? Perhaps the most important question for Republicans is whether Paul could hold onto some of their votes in a national election if he were a Vice Presidential candidate?
Paul seems to have decided that whatever advances his campaign is a good idea, no matter where that support comes from or what strings may be attached to it. Distressing though it may be to admit, it looks like ambition is turning Ron Paul into a real politician.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 15 thumbs so far
2007 Dave Nalle, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Last modified: Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dave Nalle only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dave Nalle 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.
Sorry Dave, I'm going to have to disagree with much of your article.
It is not the responsibility of any politician to determine who or why he is supported by someone or some group.
The only responsibility of the politician or expecially his core idealogical supporters is to make sure that "principles" have not (and will not) been sacrificed to get some particular voting block.
Dr. Paul has erected a very large tent with lots of room for Americans of every stripe. IMHO this is a very good thing. What is the downside of that? I don't see much of a downside, and here's why:
Partisan politics is a "zero sum" game. The powers that be have played that card to death, and at this point in history have almost destroyed the republic with it. To an ever increasing extent, I see thinking men of good will recognizing that fact and realizing that the result has been the federal leviathan we now face.
Organizations like DownsizeDC ( http://downsizedc.org ) are beginning to arise, bringing to the forefront an awareness that partisan politics never will, nor can it, solve the problems we face. Only a genuine mass uprising of "we the people," placing relentless pressure on our "representatives" to actually represent us, will do the job.
I believe this is what we're beginning to see with the "Ron Paul Revolution," and it's not a moment too soon! If soon enough!
And so, the bottom line is I don't think it matters much if those on board the Revolution all vote republican all the time - what matters is that they all pull together to restore the constitution and liberty, and to demand that our legislators and all elected officials actually do their sworn duty to represent the best interests of America.
It is, however, wise of a politician when his campaign begins to be known for serving interests other than what he believes in, to take some steps to provide some actual leadership and guidance.
How much are his principles worth if he allows his campaign to become a tool of people whose beliefs are directly counter to his own in many areas?
Dr. Paul has erected a very large tent with lots of room for Americans of every stripe. IMHO this is a very good thing.
It might be if I could believe that there are some political philosophies - which would rank at the bottom point of the political compass, which are so antithetical to everything he believes in that they should not be tolerated or encouraged.
Partisan politics is a "zero sum" game. The powers that be have played that card to death, and at this point in history have almost destroyed the republic with it. To an ever increasing extent, I see thinking men of good will recognizing that fact and realizing that the result has been the federal leviathan we now face.
Yet Dr. Paul has chosen to run in a specific party, and has promised NOT to launch an independent or third party campaign. Apparently he doesn't agree with you.
And so, the bottom line is I don't think it matters much if those on board the Revolution all vote republican all the time - what matters is that they all pull together to restore the constitution and liberty, and to demand that our legislators and all elected officials actually do their sworn duty to represent the best interests of America.
But when Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination and is out of the election, or perhaps gets picked as a VP candidate, what will his supporters do? Will they not vote? Will they go back to the left and vote for a quasi-socialist who will only make things worse, or will they look at other GOP candidates like Huckabee and Thompson who offer a number of libertarian-friendly positions and perhaps help make the GOP the party they want.
Or do they really even want a libertarian in the white house at all? Maybe they're only backing Paul to undermine the GOP primary.
I would not worry about Ron Paul catering to pressure from any group that might lend him support. He has principles and acts only on those principles. If socialists, communist, nazis, Democrats, Republicans, serial killers, or followers of Star Trek want to vote for him, give him money, or spend their time campaigning for him, then they are barking up the wrong tree if they expect something in return other than what he has stated he intends to do for the USA.
Dr. Paul is clearly not for sale at any price, so I think this is a non issue.
I would also like to point out that it is likely that many of Ron Paul supporters will abandon the Republican Party should he not win; many are just temporary visitors anyway looking for a home. There is not really a more moderate libertarian candidate in the Republican Party to support, only statists, so I don't think you can expect that those who embrace Dr. Paul and his philosophy will have any allegience to a Republican Party that does not come close to being in favor of limited government and individual liberty. We will mostly head for the Libertarial Party or the Constitution Party, or just sit it out and wait for the economy to collapse under the weight of mountains of federal spending, mountains of federal debt and mountains of fiat currency, which collapse should effectively put an end to the federal government much like the end of the USSR.
I honestly think that Ron Paul is the last chance for a contiunation of a constitutional federal government and otherwise by 2020 we will see a revolution without the love in it; not a suggestion, or recommendation, just an assessment of the likely course of events based on historical patterns and the usual result of unimaginable economic conditions.
Remember Bill Clinton's adage, "It's the economy, stupid!" There's a new one: "It's the war, stupid!" I don't know how people live in this imaginary fantasy land where everyone loves war and thinks it's great we bomb everyone to smitherenes blah blah blah. And yes, there are a few idiots and morons who live in such fear that the only way they know how to live is support attacking third world nations and killing brown people. But do me a favor all you idiots and morons who can't believe how much support Ron Paul is getting from everyone, if Ron Paul scares you soooo much, end the war and end it now. Otherwise, quit your complaining, you've brought this on yourselves.
Dave, you're an idiot. Ron Paul's money and support is coming from the American people, as apposed to special interest groups and big business. You're left right paradigm is a paradox that doesn't fool anyone anymore! There is no left right, there is dictatorship or freedom. I for one choose freedom.
"He's clearly willing to take support from wherever he can get it, which is understandable, but it does put his loyalty to the Republican party and true libertarian ideals in question, as much as his unwillingness to speak out against the racists, conspiracy fanatics and other extremists who support him does."
This is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant if these "fairweather friends" are going to leave the party after, because Ron Paul can school any of the democratic candidates into the ground when it comes to almost any policy position.
The only danger is if these people do end up turning people off of the campaign. But as Paul has correctly said (referring to the alleged White Supremecist donations): "It's not my fault if people whose values I don't share want to give me money - it's their loss when they find out I don't support their positions and will be supporting policy that contradicts it."
Ron Paul challenges my views as someone who has always considered himself to be a solid democrat. I have always thought that giving the government more control would solve some of my problems, but hearing the knowledge that Ron Paul teaches has caused a major shift in my ideals. I am now confused when asked the question of what political party I am affiliated with. I hope that in the future the question of democrat or republican becomes obsolete, and the only question that remains is wether or not I support the constitution and the simple ideals which built our great nation. I feel that with more politicians like Ron Paul, who can cross party lines, this hope may become a reality.
Now is the time to cool it with partisan politics. Let's just get this man elected and agree to disagree on where some of us stand on the political chart. Don't be so silly.
What? Are you kidding me? Ron Paul is building a coalition of freedom lovers from all sides. If he doesn't get the nomination and the Republican Party proceeds to self destruct that isn't Paul's fault, nor his problem. Why on earth should Paul care about a party that has never truly supported him. And as far as the other Republicans being any more libertarian than the Democratic candidates I don't see it. It's six of one, half dozen of the other, with all of the other candidates on both sides. If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination I'll be voting Libertarian in Nov08 like I have in every presidential election since I've been old enough to vote (92,96,00,04). The fate of the Republican Party is of no concern to me and, if you believe in freedom, it should be of no concern to you.
You do not make much sense to me. You say it puts his loyalties in question because he doesn't, basically, turn Patriot Act-style (or HR 1955) scrutiny on the progressives flocking to his campaign? I personally do not care why others vote for him, but I hope others do.
You are somewhat liberal dishing out allegations and support for bulkanization, yet rather vague on the dangers you prophesize. What is this irreparable harm to the GOP that might occur by getting more votes for Paul than otherwise. Besides, if you fret more about the GOP than Paul's campaign, then you should be happy that Hillary (or another socialist) will, at a minimum, lose those same votes in the Dem primaries. Concusion: The best candidate in centuries gets more voters, while horrible candidates get fewer, and we are (or Paul is) to take immediate action to stop this situation? Sounds nutty.
Besides, Paul is legendary for not pandering for votes. Rather, he says what he will do, then does it, and has been doing it all along. He will still veto marxist legislation, even if both Marx and Stalin voted for him. What more should his supporters hope for?
Shame on you for your attempt to discredit his support and imply party lines are more important than what's best for our country and the American people. Im completely against the attempts to pigeon hole the people into choosing based on party lines. It's manipulative, controlling, and/or narrow minded. Those who try force others to have party loyalty, fall in the same category.
Depending on where the country is at the time of an election, everyone can and should vote for the candidate that will move the country in the direction they feel it needs to go. That can change with every election, and as a result so will party membership. In fact, I don't believe there should be closed primaries in any state. Everyone should be able to go vote for a candidate without declaring party based on what they believe is needed. I applaud the states that already allow it.
Ron Paul gains support because of his stance on the issues. As an example, the erosion of civil liberties and failing economy should be concerns for EVERY American. To imply the only reasons for his support is to sabotage the Republican primary is just another example of undermining and discrediting the voice of the people. Everyone should disregard the notion of party loyalty, have an open mind and explore all options. Vote for who you believe will help solve the problems our country faces today. Do not follow blindly, think, and do not limit yourselves to voting due to party loyalty, what the party leaders want, or who the media says will have the most support. It's nothing more than an attempt to control the masses.
I think your concern is unfounded.
First, many democrats still consider themselves Americans and are quite alarmed when they see how the Bill of Rights has been trashed. Couple this with their war position, and they begin to notice Dr. Paul. Then, when they see "America: Freedom to Fascism" and "Money As Debt", they become active campaigners. You could call them the 'formerly uninformed'. Once they find out about the money issue, everything changes for them.
Dedicated socialists or communists will not be swayed in their views (and besides they have Hillary anyway), and although they might compromise their own political principles to help get Dr. Paul elected, one thing we know for sure is that Dr. Paul will never compromise his principles and turn his back on the constitution! When it comes to getting politicians to compromise their values, they would certainly have better luck getting the democrat to do so.
I'm one of the people who joined the Republican party in order to support Dr. Paul. I don't care about the party, I'm not loyal to it, I believe it has been half the cause of the downfall of our republic and I believe the two party system that has evolved is an abomination. But that doesn't matter, because it is insinuated into the system so deeply that railing against it is useless. Freedom lovers are joining the party and taking it over. We are going to let the statists find out what it feels like to be muscled out of the political process.
The socialists, communists, and fascists will not be able to influence the campaign, except insofar as they are able to discredit it through 'guilt by association' attempts. If that strategy failed with white supremacists, it will fail with communists.
And if the Republican party continues its past course of presenting fascism as the only choice to oppose communism, yes, the leftists will flee the party after the election. They might stick around if we are successful at reframing the argument as freedom vs. statism, though.
Partisan politics is a "zero sum" game. The powers that be have played that card to death, and at this point in history have almost destroyed the republic with it. To an ever increasing extent, I see thinking men of good will recognizing that fact and realizing that the result has been the federal leviathan we now face. Yet Dr. Paul has chosen to run in a specific party, and has promised NOT to launch an independent or third party campaign. Apparently he doesn't agree with you.
Dave, what do you think would happen if ron paul announced that if he didn't get the republican nomination he would choose another party to support. I will tell you what i think...i think the media would take that as his resignation from a major contending party and acceptance of a party that consistently loses. you see ron paul is the thorn in these guys sides right now. as long as ron paul is a republican the propoganda machine cannot take over and push some schmuck into office. they need him to choose a different party so their propganda machine can label him as the dark horse independent or liberaterian that has great ideas but eventually succumbs to the "major parties" views and everyone will wonder what happened. vote ron paul.
I echo the other comments here. Who cares what happens to either of the major parties--their collusion against the interests of the American people and our Constitution is what got us in all these messes to begin with. When I hear 'bipartisan' I can only assume the measure in question is going to bloat government and waste more resources that would be better applied locally by the people. Historically, yes, the Republicans have been the torch bearers for some of the ideas Ron Paul puts forth, but that has not been the case in a very long time. This is all about Ron Paul now.
I am a lifelong liberal democrat who is 100% behind Ron Paul. Ron has permanently changed my attitudes on many issues. I will not be abandoning the ideas of liberty and freedom anytime soon. I think I speak for many when I say I am in for the long haul.
If moveon.org wants to support Dr. Paul then I say great. They'll be in for quite a surprise when he undoes all their pet programs and socialist agendas. It isn't the duty of the candidate to patrol the nation looking for people who deviate from his positions and halt their support of him. Its Dr. Paul's duty to spread the message that he has been articulating and to protect and defend the Constitution. He's doing that as well as anyone could ask I think.
Posted By: Jim Cunningham
Date: 2007-12-12 07:33:48
The two party system is totally corrupt. I used to be a hard core Republican but when I saw that the Republican Party had completely shifted it's philosophy and much of it's base had mindless followed their orders I was amazed and shocked. It would be wonderful if the Republican and Democratic parties fell apart as a result of this election. I'm hoping it happens. I heard a national neo-con radio broadcaster say the other day that he was a Republican first and his philosophy was second to his party affiliation. That is mind boggling. How is that any different than the Party system of the Soviet Union? It has never been so clear how little difference there is between the Republicrats and Democricans. Ron Paul is uniting people who were once political enemies because there is a far greater threat, the threat to our liberty. And many who were once socialists are now beginning to understand libertarianism.
I'm with Pacer. I don't care who supports him. If people are attracted to a beacon of freedom, welcome them. If people have to choose between Hillary or Barak and Ron Paul the choice is obvious. I'm hoping Hillary because she'll really bring out the conservatives of all flavors for Paul (social, fiscal, religious)!
Posted By: Linda Inveninato
Date: 2007-12-12 08:04:59
I wouldn't want to second guess Ron Paul's Campaign managers. I do not have that wisdom. As for Ron Paul, he's genuine.
I never miss an opportunity to speak softly and intelligently about Dr. Paul...while giving the prospective voter a brochure.
Don't forget to contribute December 16th?
Get a grip! The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul's message is meant for AMERICANS!!! Not Republicans, not Democrats, not left or right, all of us!!! Why is that so hard for people to understand???
I am a lifelong liberal democrat who is 100% behind Ron Paul. Ron has permanently changed my attitudes on many issues. I will not be abandoning the ideas of liberty and freedom anytime soon. I think I speak for many when I say I am in for the long haul.
So when Paul is out of the race you'll support Mike Huckabee because he wants to implement the FairTax or Fred Thompson because he wants to privatize Social Security?
Or can you be honest and admit that Paul is the only candidate whose opposition ot the war is at least based on sound principles and that the war is the ONLY issue which actually motivated you to support him.
Don't forget about Ron Paul's blimp. Now we have air superiority (along with idea superiority). Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between” Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like “America Deceived’ from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov’t Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
Does the MoveOn.org leadership want a Ron Paul in the White House? Clearly not. My gut reaction to this is negative, because I fear it will scare away potential Republican primary voters for Paul. But those unprincipled, timid types will have already fled to Mike Huckabee's warm, safe, "aww shucks" embrace by now. It takes guts to be a Ron Paul supporter; you have to know where you stand and be unwilling to compromise for political expediency. Those who understand this didn't get the jitters when the "troofers" flocked to Paul; I doubt they'll faint dead away at the sight of a bunch of pinkos. Congress is full of them, after all.
I do suspect MoveOn.org's motives are insidious, because I've long believed that the only Republican the Democrats fear -- or have any reason to fear -- in Ron Paul. Any other GOP candidate will be handily trounced by Hillary Clinton. It is widely understood (thanks to the Old Media) that it is Hillary's turn to be President. To beat The Anointed One will take a candidate with a record so unblemished as to make George Washington look like Robert "Sheets" Byrd by comparison. I know of only one who can do that; all the others have heaps of bones jutting from their closet doors. But suppose I'm wrong about MoveOn.org? What if they simply have large factions within their membership who are so fed up with the lack of anti-war action from the Democrats that they would even take an "evil" Republican, if he will do what their party will not?
And then we have the "problem" of Dr. Paul's integrity to "deal with." The fact is, he's not going to change for anyone. He's been reciting the exact same lines for 30 years; what makes anyone think he's in any danger of being swayed by the socialist left? The very idea is preposterous on it's face; I don't even think Ron Paul would know how to *pretend* to be a leftist. You may as well try to teach a dog to meow. No, Ron Paul won't change his spots, because he *cannot*. That's why there is no reason to fear when the kook fringe comes out to support him, no matter who they are. Let them come; broad support means broad appeal, and when the guilt-by-association crowd sees that his more extreme supporters are having no effect on the things he says, that only bolsters his credibility. To suggest that there is risk in not allowing Ron Paul's denouncers to determine who should be allowed to support him, is to give credence to the association fallacy they attempt to smear him with.
One final point, regarding the Republican Party. The author hints at being a little worried about the future of the GOP, if and when Paul's fair-weather supporters bail out and swim back to the safe shores of the Democrats with their milk and honey handouts. I say, "who gives a damn?" The Republican Party lost its way long before this election cycle. If the most recent damage lies with any one individual, it is President Bush, not Candidate Paul. If the author fears a loss of conservative voters as those would-be future Republicans flee, fear not; the Democratic Party is becoming more conservative with every election -- just ask all the angry "progressives."
"He's clearly willing to take support from wherever he can get it, which is understandable, but it does put his loyalty to the Republican party and true libertarian ideals in question..."
No, it does not. How often does this absurd notion have to be refuted? If fools support the good candidate, it does not mean that the good candidate supports the fools. Nor does it mean that the wise should not support the good candidate if fools join with them.
I notice that the fools who keep pumping out this moronic argument are always quick to assure us that they support Ron Paul and are just concerned for his success. I don't believe them. They are smearing him with an obviously false argument and it is THEIR loyalty that is suspect.
As for Ron Paul's loyalty, it is to the Constitution. His entire life is proof of that and questioning his loyalty is either very ignorant or very dishonest.
Dave Nalle Says - "So when Paul is out of the race you'll support Mike Huckabee because he wants to implement the FairTax or Fred Thompson because he wants to privatize Social Security?
Or can you be honest and admit that Paul is the only candidate whose opposition ot the war is at least based on sound principles and that the war is the ONLY issue which actually motivated you to support him."
I think it's just difficult for you to believe that a candidate has actually changed people's opinion or belief system. Sometimes it helps to think outside the narrow left right boxes you've put everybody into. The boxes should be freedom/authoritarianism. Simple as that.
None of the current candidates on either side (especially Huckabee/Hillary/Kucinich) represent freedom. All of the candidates represent statism and status quo. Now that Ron Paul has entered the scene, that's just not good enough any more.
So we should ignore his 20+ years of public service and not panering to interest groups because the left is now supporting him? Who cares why they are supporting Dr. Paul, he will not vote any differently than he has in the past; he will not pander to any group. What is your agenda?
Posted By: Steve Richardson
Date: 2007-12-12 09:49:03
Twenty years ago who among those with even the most modest of libertarian sensibilities, ever would have imagined it would be a pugnacious Republican Party becoming the greatest offender, gutting the Constitution and systematically destroying the liberties built into our system?
Apparently the small-government GOP rhetoric during its decades out of power was mere window-dressing, tossed out like yesterday's fish bones once they achieved majorities in Congress. The current GOP is not Barry Goldwater's or even Ronald Reagan's Republican Party. It astounds me that those who revere President Reagan can even beat to speak George Bush's name. (Clearly Nancy Reagan cannot.)
In the past few years to my astonishment I have discovered a strong current of commitment to the Republic from those who have called themselves Democrats, even as most of the current crop of Republicans -- certainly those prominent in the Administration and the Congressional leadership -- treat the guiding principles of the Republic with cynical contempt. These last proved out to be the evil people against whom the Founders warned, not the folks on the other side of the aisle whose redistributionist projects and affinity for regulation in the past always aroused my greatest suspicion.
There are yet many freedom-loving Republicans who have not yet abandoned this swiftly-rotting GOP, and freedom-loving Democrats, not to mention Independents and libertarians. Whatever their disagreements on certain policies or programs, among them they still share a commitment to the spirit of the American political order.
I am not surprised that there is support for Congressman Paul across the spectrum of historical political affiliations. In many ways the broad and deep commitment to a core Constitutional order under the Bill of Rights and rule of law has given me renewed pride at being an American, an antidote to my shame at somehow being associated with the monolithic crop of dolts and thugs in the Administration and Congress who every day sully the name of the USA throughout our land and across the world.
I'll be re-registering republican (from libertarian) to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. If he becomes the nominee, that will mean that the seeds have been sown for a libertarian takeover of the republican party, one of the two legal parties allowed to participate in elections in the United States(thanks to ballot access laws enacted by republicans and democrats in "buy-partisan" cooperation.) I will stay a republican and laugh at the neo-con fascists as they are forced to become a "third party" and have to spend all of their money going door to door getting signatures just to get on the ballot. If Paul doesn't get the nomination, I'll just re-register libertarian and vote for the libertarian candidate(s).
It's true, voters have no loyalty to the Republican Party because the Republican Party shows no loyalty to the voting process. Democrats and Republicans have made it nearly impossible to win outside of their parties so THEY created this situation.
"Stories are circulating on GOP email lists of interested Republicans attending Ron Paul meetups and regional Republican party events around the country and being confronted by openly hostile leftist/progressive/socialists who seem to be supporting Paul"
We understand exactly what the Republicans complaining about this mean. "The Republican party is no place for people with long hair. The Republican party is no place for people with beards, or without wool suits. This party is only for grouchy old men, and when we die within 2 decades, the party will die as well."
Ronald Reagan also brought in disaffected Democrats, Independents, the young and angry, and people from all parts of the political process. Have you ever heard the phrase "Reagan Democrats?" The party big-wigs at the time didn't mind - they understood it was necessary to grow the party with new people. Such people were attracted to the message of freedom, small government, and respect for the Constitution. There's no such recognition of that today. How could there be, when our party had completely dedicated itself to endless war and biblicannly-inspired social regulation?
Many people like myself that have been working with the "progressives/leftists" have been doing so because we appose the idea of "theology" and Bush in general. Now with Ron Paul on the scene we are learning things that the "left" has not and maybe cannot point out... for example: CAPITALISM is not what we have today. What we have today is RIGGED capitalism mixed with government bribary.. i.e. fascism. Ron Paul is teaching us (because now we are listening) that there IS a third way... CLEAN capitalism and free markets governed by laws not by bribes is a good system. He has taught me that the FDR New Deal has because corrupt and it had no other possible outcome.
Some people on the right might benefit from the left as well... like taking a closer look at the science behind global warming instead of just saying it is something the democrats are making up....
This mix of left and right willing to LISTEN to each other which MOST of us have been doing... can change everything in this country.
How many who have been attracted to Ron Paul because of his stance on one issue, such as foriegn policy, upon hearing the rest of his platform, are now on board with that as well? I suspect it is true of many thousands already.
Paul's campaign has opened the door for people to willingly consider libertarian ideas they might normally reject out of hand. It is an excellent vehicle for change of the most important sort, creating an ever-growing philosophical contituency for small, constitutional government.
If you can show me that there are "strings attached" to the unsavory support Paul is receiving, then I'll agree with you. But as of yet, I don't see Ron Paul as a man who's integrity is for sale.
Sort of funny that the article you link to as proof of Soros as a "wealthy international socialist" devotes 6 paragraphs towards excoriating him for his attempts to end the 'War on Drugs'- in his words meaning "millions more people could be led to experiment with dangerous psychoactive substances and damage themselves, their families, and society."
You're using this guy as a reference...and you're a libertarian??
Ronald Reagan also brought in disaffected Democrats, Independents, the young and angry, and people from all parts of the political process. Have you ever heard the phrase "Reagan Democrats?"
And that's where the problem began. Reagan brought in the dregs of the democrat party, the southern racist dixiecrats who now form the theocratic wing of the party and the post-stalinist imperialistic neocons who combine statism with international expansionism in a very ugly way.
Both groups originated as democrats and Reagan encouraged them to come into a GOP which was at worst a little too dominated by big business, but basically still the party of civil rights, small government and classic liberal values.
Some of us still hold to those old Republican values and we're struggling to purify the party and drive out the neocon/theocon carpetbaggers, and now Ron Paul is bringing in a whole new flood of even more frightening and incompatible people to tear the party asunder, from virulent racists to conspiracy nuts to international socialists.
Frankly, with the people Paul is bringing in plus the people who came in in the 80s, when the party falls apart I hope that those of us who believe in the traditional republican values like individual liberty, free trade and small government will at least get to keep the name or some part of it. Of course, it won't matter because the party will have fragmented and the Democrats will completely control the political process.
I think it is acceptable if people leave the republican party if Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination. It isn't like they (republicans) hold to their own values. Sure they can say they are social conservatives enough to make you believe it despite their pandering to the hispanic vote at the univision debate. Or maybe they can tell you they are fiscal conservatives enough to make you believe it while they are pumping money into the war machine. Just because they say they are conservative and envoke the name of ronald regan 50 times in a two hour period doesn't mean they are conservative. Maybe that is why people would leave the party.
Sure many Ron Paul supporters like his anti-war message. But many are also like me, part of a generation that doesn't want a huge debt handed to us and our children. That like the liberties we have been given and would like to keep them. That believe it is not okay to play risk with our brave and honorable soldiers. That want the money we are saving to be worth something. It isn't fair to make us pay for our parents social security and leave us with nothing except the money we put away ourselves that devalues at it sits in our savings.
We are just people that are fed up with the liars and cheats in washington that pander to the corporations and liberally throw our country down the drain while they call themselves conservatives.
Give us some credit, we aren't morons, we actually care enough to realize what our government is doing to us. And have the balls to stand up and say things that make people uncomfortable. Take off the rose colored glasses people. This country isn't moving in the right direction.
Bottom line: At the end of the day, regardless of party affiliation, we are all Americans. Some of us are putting our Americanism before our partisan lines this election and voting for a man of principle, a man of integrity, a man who believes that our Constitution is still the best founding document of any nation in history, a man who believes in America and Americans, and believes that freedom works. That man is Ron Paul, and while Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, and libertarians may differ on many things, the one thing most Americans agree on is that the status quo just won't fly anymore. That's the unifying factor. We are all Americans.
According to some implications in and tone of this article, support from most conservatives would be just as "dangerous" to the campaign as support from the Moveon.org leftists. Do Bush Republicans represent actual Republican ideals or even American ideals? Rudy? Mitt?
Ron brings people together, plain and simple. The vast range of supporters has been a perceived issue since before the campaign ever started, yet it has failed to ever become an actual issue.
I've seen it tossed about that Ron is in trouble because "thou shalt not divide thy party base." The party base isn't divided because of Ron. They are divided up over Huck, Rudy, Mitt, Fred and the other Republican candidates. One by one they will fall. The Republican base will end up behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or Ron Paul. Ron outflanks both from the left on the most important issue of the election, war. Ron Paul is THE anti-murder candidate.
One can't help but wonder if the Republican Revolution is amidst. The religious right and top Democrats are now on the same team on the war as Dems have failed to end it and continued to fund it.
Chris. The religious right in many cases OPPOSE the war. Like Ron Paul, who is unquestionably of the religious right, they object to it on the principle that it is not a 'just war' as the War in Iraq does not meet the fundamental criteria of Jut War Theory.
And it's not Ron who's in trouble with the GOP. Most Republicans understand the situation he's in. It's his followers who have nonplussed so many in the party, but most people understand that their bad behavior isn't his fault and that his campaign is largely out of control.
Oh and the Republican base will NEVER support Hillary. Maybe Obama, but never Hillary.
"Ron Paul is THE anti-murder candidate."
And BTW, when you say ridiculous stuff like this is when people stop taking you and Ron Paul seriously. Who is the pro murder candidate?
Paul's nonintervention foreign policy will certainly lead to more deaths than our current policies - they just won't be US deaths. How does that make him anti-murder? Or is it not murder when the victims are foreigners?
Chris. The religious right in many cases OPPOSE the war. Like Ron Paul, who is unquestionably of the religious right, they object to it on the principle that it is not a 'just war' as the War in Iraq does not meet the fundamental criteria of Jut War Theory.
And it's not Ron who's in trouble with the GOP. Most Republicans understand the situation he's in. It's his followers who have nonplussed so many in the party, but most people understand that their bad behavior isn't his fault and that his campaign is largely out of control.
Oh and the Republican base will NEVER support Hillary. Maybe Obama, but never Hillary.
"Ron Paul is THE anti-murder candidate."
And BTW, when you say ridiculous stuff like this is when people stop taking you and Ron Paul seriously. Who is the pro murder candidate?
Paul's nonintervention foreign policy will certainly lead to more deaths than our current policies - they just won't be US deaths. How does that make him anti-murder? Or is it not murder when the victims are foreigners?
You write: "Paul's nonintervention foreign policy will certainly lead to more deaths than our current policies - they just won't be US deaths."
Let's see...4000 troops died on the field, another 15,000 died in hostpitals, plus about 1 MILLION Iraqis are now dead, not to mention another 500,000 Iraqis (mostly children) dead due to embargos and other economic sanctions. All that as a direct consequence of "current policies". "Current policies" also installed Sadam, and cheered when he gased Iranians and minorities with the weapons "current policies" appropriated to him. US intervention must certainly be the most effective tool at not only losing American lives, but also creating dissent among those who have a long history of dislike for each other. Yet, you maintain, reversing current policies will "certainly" lead to more death. Forgive me, but that sounds proposterous. Moreover, hostilies in Iraq are virtually non-existent in those regions where the US has withdrawn, but remain constant where we remain, further indicting your statement. I am just as "certain" that you are gravely, egregiously mistaken with that prediction you state as though it were a fact.
You continue: "How does that make him anti-murder? Or is it not murder when the victims are foreigners?"
Not to put too fine a point on it, but recall that murder requires an intentional act (and mens rea), which you tacitly ignore. So yes, foreigners can still be murdered with or without our help, but it's a far cry of difference to me whether or not I'm the murderer versus the witness. Bottom line: I am willing to die for my country, but I am not willing to die for some other country (maybe you are though). I do not think US soldiers are willing to die for a foreign land either, and to order them to do so is a great betrayal. Greater even than the tragedy of tyranny existing in other parts of the world, even if there were some evidence that our intervention would mitigate rather than accellerate that tyranny (and deathtoll).
I certainly don't agree with being hostile to anyone. That is not what this campaign is about. Those people should rethink their principles. Having said that, we have a big tent and ALL who agree with the principle of constitutional government SHOULD support Ron Paul. I was wondering where all the anti-war left was, seeing as their own party wont promise to end the war.
First, the 9/11 Truthers are leftist. I was surprised as well, but in working with them -- and they are hard workers -- they are predominantly Democrat, former Democrat idiology. Hell, Democrat, Republican, it is just the left wing and right wing of the same damned bird! Maybe that is what you are seeing, leftists waking up and getting pissed that they have been used.
You identify yourself as libertarian or Libertarian. If so, what do you care about "infiltrators" helping out the Paul campaign to cause the GOP grief? I could care less what their motives are, as long as they are helping the campaign or the R3VOLution. Deeds, not words. Heck, infiltrators from other campaigns are the hardest workers. ;-)
It is a testament to Paul that he is attracting these people from ALL political philosophies. What is really amazing is when you talk to them (have you?) they are aware that many of Paul's beliefs/ plans are not their own. But Paul represents something so important to them that the other candidates do not and that they will put aside those other things to promote the candidate who is talking about the things they most care about. Mainly the war with the left. What other anti-war candidate has any traction? None. Civil rights? None. What other candidate enthusiastically endorses civil disobedience? 9/11 Truthers ... Paul has said he doesn't believe in a 9/11 governemnt conspiracy, but I suspect he would be amenable to creating a real 9/11 investigative committee with supeana power if it were well proposed to him.
So stop worrying about the glass half empty. Take Ron Paul supporters whereever they come from, whatever the motives. It is all good. Don't try to control the R3VOLution. And Ron Paul is a clear, strait shooter. What his supporters or "supporters" may do or say in his name has little negative impact. Because you always know where Ron Paul stands. Mr. Smith goes to Washington...an honest politician for real.
Duke, your response on the Iraq war is more emotional than rational, and you haven't got even basic facts on the subject correct, so there's not much point in debating the subject with you. Go read up on the history of US involvement in Iraq and the middle east and maybe we can talk. You might want to start by at least getting some of the casualty numbers close to right rather than spouting silly leftist propaganda. When you inform yourself with facts rather than fantasy on the subject you may have a more responsible view of the problems the US faces in the world.
But are they helping the campaign, FN? Does it help the campaign for it to be discredited, ignored by the media and ostracized by political groups which might otherwise be supportive, because they see Paul's supporters as a bunch of kooks and saboteurs?
It just makes no sense at all to me to blow off any potential to mainstream the Paul campaign to indulge a bunch of people whose loyalty is debatable and whose ideology is mostly incompatible with what Paul and his more libertarian followers believe.
Once more, Dave is the unquestionable authority. His assertions about past and future are irreproachable and anyone who disagrees needs to read up on the matter. And if you have read up on the subject, it must be that you read leftist propaganda, and any logical support for opposing arguments is in fact emotionally driven, so it can be ignored along with, conveniently, any objective remark or questioning.
Interestingly, Dave, the policies you devoutly defend in deference to the GOP over rational thought are little different than those maintained under Clinton, who I'm sure you noticed was not a member. Albright gleefully admitted (during a cross examination and howls of outrage by the right) that US sanctions were directly responsible for 500,000 Iraqi deaths (mostly children). Is that what you would call "leftist propaganda?" Since then, the GOP picked up the baton and over a million Iraqis have been killed, based upon non-secular reports (e.g., Catholic Church). Is that leftist propaganda, Dave? Sure, we can all choose who to read and who to believe, but I wager nuns can be relied upon to mitigate over- or under-exageration, which is to say the difference between truth and lie, probably hinging on partisanship more than evidence. I do not know who you choose to read (if anyone other than yourself), but unlike you, I do not pretend otherwise and do not suggest my predictions are accurate without a shred of empirical evidence or historical context (in fact in direct contradiction to the proponderence of such).
Comically (almost), INTERVENTION, the policy you have adopted and imply is the core of GOP humane endeavors and tirelessly support in your missives was commandeered most recently from Clinton and originally from Wilson (you know, the leftists you are warning us about). The irony is that you conjecture about a boogeyman to come as members of the left side join the right, but entirely ignore the clear and present, historical and on-going attrocities that were adopted by, and are actively a policy of, the right. Unreal.
If the left comes here to support Ron Paul's policies, then that is a boon to the GOP becaue it is the correct position and the Constitutional position. If they are coming to support those policies you advocate such as intervention (that ironically originated with the left), then, you should welcome them with open arms, because they are your brothers.
I have been voting for democrats(and am on the moveon mailing list) as a vote against Bush, but I would much prefer to vote for Ron. I doubt I am alone.
No matter who votes Ron Paul in, he is not going to change his positions for his supporters. He is guided by his principles and could safely be trusted with our country. He is the only statesmen in the race with the rest being merely politicians.
Posted By: Brian DuBridge
Date: 2007-12-14 02:15:37
Don't talk to us about being loyal to the Republican party. The Republican party is not simply comprised of the higher income, snobbish individuals at it's organizational head. It is comprised of all the people who register and vote Republican. The organizers of the party have lost touch with the reality and views of the American people as a whole, and the shift that's happened in frequent years needs to be corrected.
My main point it this: The Republican party 'heads' need to come back to the ideals of the general membership. The Republican party needs to line up behind Ron Paul!
Wouldn't it be i-Ron-ic if all these here Democrats supported Ron Paul in the primaries, thinking that they could help derail the Republicans, and in doing so helped elect the only Republican candidate that really could defeat Hillary. Ron Paul is no fruitcake, he is a 20 year veteran congressman with an impeccable record of integrity, honesty, and standing up for the little guy. Go Ron Paul 2008!
"Paul seems to have decided that whatever advances his campaign is a good idea, no matter where that support comes from or what strings may be attached to it. Distressing though it may be to admit, it looks like ambition is turning Ron Paul into a real politician."
If he were running for his own sake, I'd could be depressed by what you are saying. However, Ron Paul is running to promote an idea, one that he is very good at instilling into other minds. He is not promoting himself, he is promoting liberty. I am happy that he accepts support from any source. He needs only the opportunity to speak and be heard and that idea will continue to spread like wildfire. If the contagion of freedom continues to spread--which it must or nothing else matters--the Republican party can either embrace it or be destroyed. The same is true of the Democrats.
Ron Paul himself still has his work cut out for him, but we are fast approaching the point where his success will not be as important as ours. In the long run it will boil down to what will we do with the blazing torch he has handed to us?
Before commenting on how wrongheaded my beliefs are you might want to go to the trouble of finding out what they actualy are, because just making them up based on your own gross assumptions about me really doesn't amount to anything more than arguing with your own strawmen and ignoring me.
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.
2007 Dave Nalle, all rights reserved.