Posted on 05/12/2011 6:35:53 PM PDT by The Looking Spoon
That’s where the Marxist have an edge on us. They are at least smart enough to understand the use of messaging.
Yep — no nation can afford to be libertarian on foreign policy until ALL nations decide to be libertarian on foreign policy.
Wtf cares what Paul wanted! Paul called Reagan's Presidency, a "dramatic failure". Only a total loon would make a crazed remark like that. That statement in and of itself, proves that Paul belongs in a straight jacket and heavily sedated, 24-7!
He adds nothing of any value to the debate and process. The man is as ego driven as Newt ( yet another jerk who is about as "able" as Obama and as thin skinned and narcissistic )and Trump.
I posted that link on a thread you were on just last week. Here it is AGAIN, ‘Meet the Press’ transcript for Dec. 23, 2007 : Representative Ron Paul (R-TX)
Diplomacy always is superior to military intervention. The USA smacks a lot to some of the smaller nations as the people who run around like the World Pistoleros. I won’t judge his character for coming up with an alternative that gives people an idea that America is a system of law and respects national sovereignty. It’s this gallantry and cockiness that gave rise to the worlds Che Guevarras.
I’d want to see the whole context, the whole interview.
Something can be a dramatic failure and it could be entirely the Democrats fault, for instance.
I would want to hear how blame could be proportioned.
Back in 1976 and 1980, the thinking was that Reagan would be able to really shrink government. Eliminate the Department of Education for one thing.
The hopes in 1980 were for some serious serious major cuts. Listen to Ron Paul now. Get rid of the Federal Income Tax entirely. Make serious cuts, abolishing whole departments.
Conservatives wanted that to happen in 1980, and when 1988 rolled around, and it didn’t happen, some Conservatives were disappointed.
I would expect that even after saying that, he’d still put Reagan up there as the best President of this era, because all the rest of the Presidents didn’t even try to cut Fed Gov.
I wouldn’t even say that. Cyanide is useful.
Conservatives and Libertarians only meet and agree on most fiscal issues.
On Social Issues and on Foreign Policy we are miles apart.
However, Libertarians do try to take over the Republican party, because they can’t get anywhere with the Libertarian Party. Obviously, Ron and Rand are in office, so they do get a little power, but, not much.
Then when Libertarians post on FR and you oppose them with a conservative message, you get hotly accused of “not being conservative” or “not knowing your Constitution.”
What I am not is a Libertarian. And a Libertarian is not a conservative, except on most fiscal issues. Why pretend otherwise? They are just trying to usurp the Republican power, money, and recognition.
Ron Paul continually perverts the Constitution and the ideology of the Founders.
He supports homosexualizing our military, supports Iran getting nuclear weapons, supports a Victory Mosque at Ground Zero, and no even regrets the death of Osama Bin Laden.
Yet he always trys to perversely spin his way as being the voice of the Founders. He would not last a day in the days of our Founding. He would be branded as the pervert that he is and outcasted.
Then I suggest you read the whole interview. The context was pretty simple. Ron Paul was running for potus and Tim Russert was attempting to show what a two-faced idiot Paul was, when it came to Reagan. Sorta like Paul blaming America and not the terrorists for the 9-11 attacks.
>>>>>Eliminate the Department of Education for one thing.
If the GOP had gained control of the House in 1980, good chance the Education Dept would have been eliminated. Other then a few dope smoking Libertarians, no conservative I knew at that time thought that it was feasible. Control of the purse strings --- the House of Representatives --- remained with the Dems until 1995.
Btw, Ron Paul was a nutjob in 1988 and he remains a nutjob today.
That’s the relevant section.
He explained himself well, disappointed because the government didn’t shrink.
He didn’t say all of those things at the same time. Russert provides a best-of of negative things, and agreed that he said one of those things, but didn’t say the other, and explained why he said it.
He thought both Bushes were terrible, and liked Reagan but was disappointed that the FedGov didn’t shrink.
He did, after all, help Reagan back in 1976, and not too many can say that. Bush tried to stop Reagan from being elected, going as far as to run against him. Ron Paul thought Bush such a RINO that he opposed him as a Libertarian in 1988.
Ron Paul rightly says that he’s simply representing the old school, much smaller FedGov style of Conservatism.
Here’s the Meet the Press. If you look at the link, you’ll see Meet the Press or msnbc put “Robert/Taft”, an error that’s been up there for years uncorrected. Hey, msnbc, “Robert Taft” is the name of a person. Robert was his first name, and Taft was his last name. He was kinda famous.
MR. RUSSERT: You’re running as a Republican. In your—on your Web site, in your brochures, you make this claim: “Principled Leadership. Ron was also one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president against Gerald Ford in” ‘76. There’s a photograph of you, Ronald Reagan on the right, heralding your support of Ronald Reagan. And yet you divorced yourself from Ronald Reagan. You said this: “Although he was once an ardent supporter of President Reagan, Paul now speaks of him as a traitor leading the country into debt and conflicts around the world. “I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration.” And you go on to The Dallas Morning News: “Paul now calls Reagan a `dramatic failure.’”
REP. PAUL: Well, I’ll bet you any money I didn’t use the word traitor. I’ll bet you that’s somebody else, so I think that’s misleading. But a failure, yes, in, in many ways. The government didn’t shrink. Ultimately, after he got in office, he said, “All I want to do is reduce the rate of increase in size of government.” That’s not my goal. My goal is to reduce our government to a constitutional size. Completely different. I think that—matter of fact, he admitted in his memoirs that he had a total failure in Lebanon, and he said he relearned the Middle East because of that failure. And so there—he—you know, he...
If truth be told, his position on the Fed has a strong influence on the Tea Party and he has been ahead of every conservative politician when it comes to questioning government spending. OTOH, his foreign policy is not going to become reality and he is not taken seriously on that front by anyone. Why let that get to you and make you jittery when he has ZERO influence on foreign policy?
The reason he gets elected is that his opponents in the primaries are RINOs. Ron Paul, IMHO, is harmless despite his (flawed) rhetoric on foreign affairs. He is useful on the economic front. Many other RINO wannabe-Presidents are worse and cause real damage. e.g.: George Allen voted for ethanol, voted to raise the debt ceiling and triangulated his position on abortion. However, he has the right speeches for foreign policy to sway some voters who fall for emotional appeal. That is what damages the country, not empty talk on foreign policy.
BS!
““I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration.” And you go on to The Dallas Morning News: “Paul now calls Reagan a `dramatic failure.’””
That is the part that counts most!
You've got your head so far up Ron Paul's butt, your brain has stopped functioning. One good thing though. You won't starve.
I oppose Ron Paul on his position on the Ground Zero mosque and his foolish foreign policies. I admire Reagan for standing up strong to Communism and the unions.
However, I am one of those who was disappointed that Reagan did not go far enough. In his time, Reagan was criticized for racking up more debt than the combined debt of all presidents before him. I would have loved to see him cut down the government. That is where he failed.
I'm still waiting for a pro-life, anti-Communist, anti-Islamist, small government fiscal conservative to become POTUS. Guess I just have to keep waiting.
Those are 2 different statements at 2 different times.
I’d like to see the context for “I want...”
and the context for “dramatic failure”.
Not what Tim Russert said he said, but the original story.
He was running for President in 1988 against Bush. So it would be logical of him to contrast with Bush (Reagan’s VP).
But I agree with you that Ron Paul was disappointed that the FedGov wasn’t cut enough, and his language is hurting him. Maybe the fact that he helped Reagan in 1976 and 1980 made him feel he could get away with that. He does have a tendency to use language that bothers some.
The GOP didn't control the House purse strings during the Reagan years and Speaker Tip O'Neil wasn't about to let Reagan dismantle the welfare state. Reagan was successful in reducing overall federal spending as a percentage of GDP, along with slowing down the growth of the welfare state and shifting those funds to his defense buildup. On several specific issues I was not satisfied with the outcome, even though Reagan was not entirely to blame and had little control over some events. But I was NEVER disappointed in Reagan. Having the lowest income tax rates (28%) since Calvin Coolidge in 1925 (25%) was an historic accomplishment that helped kick start a 17 year economic boom.
>>>>>>That is where he failed.
Now you sound like that libertarian kook, Ron Paul.
George Allen? If Rick Santorum can run for Prez after losing in 2006, why not Allen? I haven’t heard his name recently, and I don’t think “macaca” by itself will keep him from the Republican Nomination.
>>>>>.. I agree with you that Ron Paul was disappointed that the FedGov wasn’t cut enough
More obfuscation. You said that, not me!
Comparing a blithering idiot like Ron Paul, who never accomplished ANYTHING for America, to Ronald Reagan, who had major accomplishments throughout his Presidency, is not helping you make your case one iota.
Ron Paul's domestic policy agenda is rooted in anarchy and chaos. His foreign policy is straight out of the Neville Chamberlain playbook.
You must be in your twenties and probably know Reagan only through stories you hear from if you have never been disappointed in him. The biggest disappointment I recall (it is not just me personally) was his signing of the abortion bill in CA.
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.