Posted on 05/08/2011 9:31:49 PM PDT by 6ft2inhighheelshoes
Earth to Rep. Ron Paul and former Gov. Gary Johnson – you are running for the Republican nomination for president, not the Libertarian or Democrat nomination. At various times throughout the Republican primary debate last evening, I had to remind myself I was actually watching a Republican debate. Without the interludes of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Rick Santorum, and CEO Herman Cain, you would think that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson were participating in a Democrat presidential primary debate, siding with Democrats on major social and defense policy initiatives.
Why do Republicans let people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson participate in Republican presidential debates? They are obviously trying to win the “Who’s more Libertarian?” or “Who’s the least Republican” debate as opposed to the actual Republican debate taking place.
For the record, I do not disparage Paul or Johnson from running for president as they have served their country honorably nor do I fundamentally disagree with them that our country is in deep budgetary and economic peril. Nor do I for one minute pretend the Republican Party is a homogenous entity where everyone agrees with everyone. Republicans have always had internal disputes over philosophical emphases and the occasional policy difference.
The Republican Party as a whole though is based on five fundamental principles – individual freedom, limited government, free markets, a strong national defense, and preserving our traditional values and heritage. The modern Republican Party is based on the foundation of the conservative movement.
The conservative movement is a coalition made up of three disparate, yet amenable groups – classical liberals or libertarians, traditionalists, and anti-communists – or modernly referred to as fiscal, social, and defense conservatives. While each entity emphasizes different issues, they all work together in a political compact of sorts with a shared sense of reason operating within tradition. They also understand that together, as a fusionist coalition, they have the best chance of winning elections and actually legislating their conservative principles.
In order for any modern candidate to win the GOP nomination, they must embody these conservative principles, or at least appeal to these constituencies. With the exception of primary fiscal issues, Paul and Johnson consistently deviated and at various points were even hostile to the social and defense conservative branches.
Throughout the debate, Ron Paul stated positions that were contrary to mainstream Republicans. Nearly every response oozed of antipathy towards successfully concluding our military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and utilizing enhanced interrogation techniques, even for the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed – the mastermind of 9/11.
He is against the use of prisons for enemy combatants, humanitarian and foreign aid, the reorganization and consolidation of our homeland security, traditional marriage, the AZ illegal immigration act, wants to get rid of the federal reserve, intonated a return to the gold standard and at one point stated he was for legalizing drugs such as heroin and cocaine – I’m not kidding.
The debate moderators at one point had to ask Paul and Johnson how they expected to win the Republican nomination with anti-Republican viewpoints such as these.
Politically though, no modern presidential candidate has won the Republican nomination being fiscally imprudent, negligent on social issues, and anti-defense. Look at the most recent Republican presidential nominees and how they were able to appeal politically to the three main constituencies.
While prickly with the conservative base, John McCain knew he had to win over enough people from each of the three main groups to win the Republican nomination. His position of strength was national security having served in the US Navy and was the leading proponent in congress for the Iraqi surge. He was consistently pro-life and appealed to economic voters using the line that government spending like drunken sailors was an insult to drunken sailors.
George W. Bush unabashedly was a social conservative referring to his reaffirmation of Jesus Christ in his adult life during the 2000 campaign. He appealed to fiscal conservatives touting his plans for tax cuts and appealed to defense conservatives supporting a missile defense shield and a non-nation building approach to foreign policy.
Like McCain, Bob Dole had a thorny relationship with conservatives but appealed to defense conservatives having served in combat. He was pro-life and appealed to fiscal voters by promising a 10% across-the-board federal budget cut and selected the tax cut icon, Jack Kemp, as his running mate.
You can see a consistent theme among these candidates that allowed them to appeal not only to the Republican base but to the national electorate as well. Republicans should reassess their standards of participation in nationally televised debates or risk losing or hurting their brand further.
Again, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have every right to run for president, but they are not Republican or traditionally conservative. While Donald Trump may have questionable political discrepancies of his own, he recently summed it up best that Ron Paul has zero chance of winning. The Libertarian Party is still looking for their nominee, gentlemen.
Christopher N. Malagisi is the President of the Young Conservatives Coalition, a National Review Institute Washington Fellow, and an Adjunct Professor at American University teaching “The History of the Conservative Movement: 1945-Present" and "Campaigns & Political Activism."
You catch that Ron Paul raised over a million dollars on 5/5?
He will have his support like he did in 2008, and 4 years later, he’s a lot more mainstream.
Already mentioned that. See my post #19.
Now, read my other replies on this thread and get the rest of the story.
Btw, BFD! Ron Paul remains a libertarian kook.
And I see you are a very angry man on an odd crusade after a small potatoes House Rep with absolutely no sizable base and even less of a shot at winning one state in the primaries. Paul was on a tear after Reagan in '88 because of the spending. Now he cites him in his speeches. Hate is way too strong. As for Rothbard, he was an angry kook and racist. Hate would be suitable for him and Lew Rockwell.
You mistake mainstream with just being known. Did you see how his heroin answer went over at the debate? Disaster. Where exactly did the million come from? If I was a crafty Rat, I would be funding this dope to screw up the election.
First, I think the libertine liberals of today would not recognize the liberals of the Revolution.
While watching Paul/Johnson in the debate, I couldn’t help but think about the similarities to the “fake”Tea Party candidates that ran on GOP ballots last year. The point wasn’t get get their candidate elected, but to siphon votes away from from legitimate GOP candidates.
Paul and Johnson, and yes, even Trump will have the same effect with their already-doomed campaigns. Trump especially could do irreparable harm to a legitimate candidate if he seriously got into this race. He could spend millions on opposition research on the other GOP candidates and when he loses the nomination, we’ll be left with the only candidate who hasn’t cheated on his wife (in the last week). Let’s hope that guy isn’t Gary Johnson!
FWIW, the GOP does have a rather detailed platform that outlines what the party stands for and hopes to accomplish. Maybe someone should vet these guys before they are allowed to participate in the debates. They’ve got to agree with (and agree to defend and promote... say...90% of the policies or they’re out of the debate.
Leadership Institute’s Morton Blackwell did something similar in 2008 for GOP Chair election. He sent out lengthy questionnaires to all the candidates for the position including questions about whether or not they agreed with the GOP platform, how they would raise money, how they would win the Reagan Democrats back, and how big of a tent the GOP should be. 37 questions in all http://bit.ly/kjWBLp
How much better would this primary season be if we could just start with something like this? Get them to commit early instead of wasting everyone’s time and money with endless evasive sound bites and a dozens of “debates” that are not actually debates.
Sorry, bucko. I have this affinity for the factual truth. I come to FRee Republic to promote and defend conservatism and the Constitution. I only get angry at idiots like you who use FRee Republic to spout off with mindless replies and who promote lies and distortions about conservatism and our best conservative leaders like, Ronald Reagan. At least you realize that Rothbard (and Rockwell) was a hate monger when it came to Reagan. There maybe some hope for you after all.
Btw, what spending are you talking about? The House holds the purse strings, not the President. Ron Paul is an idiot.
I’ve always said that Ron Paul and his ilk are more aligned with the left than they are the right.
‘Democrate?...Republican? surely you know they are one in the same by now.’
Sure, Reagan, Obama, no difference at all. You’ve sure got that.
>>> This sounds like it is written by one of the weak, effete, Republican Elite who is deathly afraid of the Tea Party revolution.
“Deathly afraid of the Tea Party revolution.”? That’s a bad joke.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Cindy Sheehan endorses Ron Paul over Barack Obama
http://wigdersonlibrarypub.blogspot.com/2008/05/cindy-sheehan-endorses-ron-paul-over.html
and earlier:
Sheehan: “I don’t want to even discuss who is likely to be the Republican nominee, because besides having little foreign policy difference between any of them and Hillary, anyone of them would be a complete disaster on matters of war and peace, with the possible exception of Ron Paul (Tx).”
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1590/t/523/blog/comments.jsp?key=346&blog_entry_KEY=21045&t
>>> I’ve always said that Ron Paul and his ilk are more aligned with the left than they are the right.
See above, though oddly enough he appeals to the Nazis of Stormfront as well. And generally his proponents on FR spend most of their time tearing down republicans and trying to divide and disrupt.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy agenda is based on appeasement and capitulation to America’s enemies, and built on the fallacy of isolationism.
Anyone who blames America and not the terrorists for 9-11, does not have all their marbles.
Ron Paul’s domestic policy agenda is not built on the republican notion of smaller government or even the conservative idea of limiting government. No. Paul’s domestic policy agenda calls for a return to the America of 1789. Period. That is pure insanity and would lead to anarchy, chaos and death for many innocent Americans.
Ron Paul needs to be in a straight jacket, heavely medicated and locked up, 24-7-365!
No, it’s just true.
Back in 2008, to criticize the US foreign policy was to criticize Bush. In 2008, that did not go over well with Republicans.
Now in 2012, to criticize the US foreign policy is to criticize Obama. In 2012, this will not be as big a problem as it was in 2008.
In 2008, there was no “tea party”. The only “tea party” was the Ron Paul Tea Party Money Bomb.
In 2012, Ron Paul’s son Rand was clearly identified as on of the top newly elected tea party leaders.
In 2008, only Ron Paul made the Constitutionality of the Federal Governments actions a centerpiece of his campaign.
In 2012, likely many candidates will be talking about limited constitutional government.
I saw the debate. The heroin answer was not a good one. I agree with you there. But most of the Ron Paul supporters seemed to really like it. And I did think it was funny.
Ron Paul, though, seemed to be invisioning a world where heroin was legal. I thought his position was that States should make that decision. And no states would legalize it, most likely.
People don’t want legal heroin. But a lot of people would like to see an end to the Federal Governments WOD.
I really do think the argument “Just let the States decide. Less Federal Government intervention.” is a stronger argument than “People aren’t just going to become junkies if heroin becomes legal.” Because even though it’s true, people still don’t want heroin to become legal.
Right now, the people really only want marijuana legal, and that’s only in some states. I thought that Ron Paul’s policies would allow that to happen. Each state would be able to keep as much illegal as they wanted.
But now Ron Paul’s talking about legal heroin, and that’s bound to lose a lot of people.
The media does not like Ron Paul. Ron Paul does present a dangerous threat to the bankers, and last time around, at least, they went out of their way to ignore and marginalize him. Things could’ve changed in 4 years, as perhaps Palin is seen as a realer more immediate threat, and in that context, they might push or hype Paul to try to keep people away from Palin.
I’m a defender of Ron Paul and I don’t tear down other Republicans or divide or whatnot.
I like Sarah Palin. I think Ron Paul would be the better President, but I think Palin is sufficiently Conservative, is the likely nominee if she chooses to run.
I will tear down Mitt Magic Underwear Romney. And tear down RINOs. But, again, in addition to Ron Paul, and Palin, I do also like Bachmann, and like what Cain is saying (not sure about the Federal Reserve job).
Ron Paul chose Reagan in 1976 when most of the Republicans picked the more liberal Ford.
Ron Paul is not pretending to have supported Reagan. You look at the record, way back in 1976.
It most certainly was a big deal back then. Reagan had the Conservatives, there weren’t many, but Ron Paul was (and remains) one of them.
Neither do conservatives.
Cheers!
Revisionist history won't fly here at FR.
Ron Paul was one of the First Reagan supporters. In 1976, when most of the the Republican party was backing Ford, and calling Reagan a "kook", Ron Paul led the Texas Delegation for Reagan at the National Convention.
Reagan and Paul became friends, sharing much of their small government philosophy. In 1980, Paul again supported Reagan who reciprocated with an endorsement for Paul that was featured in Paul's campaign adds.
It is true that Paul became disillusioned by the Republican Party and the Reagan administration when they abandoned conservative economic principles, but he was not alone in his disappointment. Never, however, did Paul repudiate his support for Reagan, nor did Reagan ever repudiate his support for Paul.
Maybe you could read up a little on Reagan and his belief in the Gold standard, his belief in nonintervention or at least not going to war at every provocation, and many other positions he shared with citizens like Paul. Or maybe you are really a libertarian, because posts with wild claims that are not true about libertarianism only strengthens their cause.
I stated the factual truth. Nothing revisionist about that. You're delusional and in denial.
My post #17 gives two links. The first link is to Murry Rothbard's (the founder of modern Libertarianism) trashing of Reagan. Calling Reagan a "cretin" along with many other hate filled remarks in a long diatribe posted on lewrockwell.com. Read it and get informed.
The second link is to a MTP interview with Ron Paul. In that 2007 interview Paul called Reagan a "dramatic failure" as President. Read it and get informed.
Again. Ron Paul's opinion of Reagan from 1976 to 1988 is trumped by his opinion of Reagan from 1988 until today. And no amount of obfuscation from you and others will change those facts. Reagan died a conservative. Paul is a living libertarian loon.
I think your the one who needs to get up to speed on Reagan. I suggest you start by reading "Reagan In His Own Hand", "The Reagan Diaries" and "An American Life".
>>>>>>It is true that Paul became disillusioned by ... the Reagan administration when they abandoned conservative economic principles...
That's because Paul is an idiot. When Reagan left office in January 1989, the top tax rate was 28%, its lowest level since the 1925 tax cut to 25% under President Coolidge. Another great conservative potus. The annual deficit was reduced and on the way down, no thanks to the Democrats who controlled the purse strings. Federal spending as percentage of GDP was down during Reagan's 8 years as potus. Reagan was successful in rolling back the welfare state, reducing non-defense discretionary expenditures and gave us serious reductions in federal regulations. The US economy was booming. Reagan rebuilt the military and won the Cold War.
Ron Paul can only dream about having that level of success. Paul's political agenda would lead to anarchy and chaos. Paul needs to be in a straight jacket, heavily sedated and locked up, 24-7-365! Frankly, I think you should join him.
Sad.
Attacking my screen handle proves, you lost this debate.
Like Ron Paul, you are a pathetic idiot.
Stuff it!
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.