The Honor of Ron Paul - Joseph Sobran

Patrick J. Buchanan Blog ^ | June 26, 2007 | Joseph Sobran

[NHGOPer]

The Honor of Ron Paul by Joe Sobran

"He may have become at last what he has always deserved to be: the most respected member of the U.S. Congress. He is also the only Republican candidate for president who is truly what all the others pretend to be, namely, a conservative. His career shows that a patriotic, pacific conservatism isn’t a paradox."

[no dems]

Would he consider another Third Party Run as an Independent? He has more support now than he had last time when he ran on the Libertarian Ticket; about 100 times more support.

[x]

Paul's not an anti-Semite. That's like saying he's anti-health or anti-education because he doesn't view those areas as the federal government's responsiblity.

But he is way too close to Lew Rockwell (his former Chief of Staff, according to Wikipedia) and the nutjob fringe.

[ejonesie22]

That all good and well, and I firmly believe that, all things being equal. But this is a situation that demands a different approach even from conservatives. There must be something left to conserve, someone must defend the universal truths against the evil seeking to destroy them. That in noway is a liberal stance. They would just go with the flow. “Hey, its a brave new world dude! Praise Allah or whomever man!”.

The point is simply a change of tactics to fit the reality of the situation. Pragmatism at its best. A true conservative trait I believe.

Otherwise last one out get the lights.

[ex-snook]

"Ok, so we ignore the statements by the head of CAIR, the rants of Ahmadinejad, and the Koran itself about the domination of Islam. Add to that we have to ignore what is happening to Europe (some invasions occur without a shot)".

Actually Europe makes the point well. Talk is just talk. Any domination of Islam will not be be military but by demographics. Put together, they don't have a world class military anything. They were the last one to the nuclear table. If we continue on the way of the Pill, abortions, drugs and gay marriage, they can play for time. In Europe they surely must appreciate our Democracy of one person, one vote, it plays to their strength.

[ejonesie22]

I have read this post a couple of time and it is interesting. See My IQ is quite north of single digits, and I “love liberty, small government and non-intrusive civil codes” as much if not more than anyone.

The world did not start on 9/11, and I truly doubt any conservatives think that. But it did change, America finally got a wake up call (sadly one that is already fleeting) that we were vulnerable.

I am not ignorant of economics, policy, etc, though I may have a slightly different view than you do. We are a global economy, for better or worse. We have to play the foreign affairs game, though we could apply dramatically better principals from a conservative stance, to our actions. But isolationism is no longer a valid response, even for conservatives. In a digital world with fast jets, crazy, radicals and imported dog food it just won't work. It is indeed possible to be a conservative AND support free enterprise capitalism. It is the only system that has allowed the conservative/libertarian (if you like) view of free choice and the like to thrive to any good extent.

The “idealogical” war we have with Islam is a reality. There is a group of living beings with a philosophy that wants to kill us or convert us or whatever “Allah” demands. I find no fault with the idea of a “war on drugs” or a "war on crime" and least of all a "war on terrorism", I find fault in their execution. Sadly in this one instance, the failure of execution in the WOT is not going to be a few more crack heads running around jacking cars...

So I DO want my government to send out its army to kill people and break things before the enemy kills me and breaks my things. This is just simply because I love liberty, small government and non-intrusive civil codes and I want the “good guys” not only to be in charge but to STAY in charge...

[radioman]

Essentially your definition of a conservative is “someone who agrees with me.”

No, that's your definition. The word "conservative" was not used in politics until the founding of the Conservative Movement in 1964. Words have meanings. In politics, Conservative means limited government.

Keep mixing that LP Kool-Aid, brother

Thanks but you have the Kool-Aid market cornered. I guess I'll have to stay with the truth.
.

[radioman]

I don't see how calling people "theocrats" helps. As a traditional Catholic,

As a traditional Catholic you should understand better than anyone where these attacks are coming from. I'm old enough to remember when fundamentalists attacked Catholics with the same poison they are now using against Ron Paul, who happens to be a devout Christian.

I think it's possible to be socially conservative and politically constitutionalist/libertarian

Of course it is. All you have to do is protect and defend the Constitution.
.

[inkling]

The word "conservative" was not used in politics until the founding of the Conservative Movement in 1964.

Unless you know history, where "conservative" was used as a political term by Edmund Burke's disciples in the 1790s, even forming a "conservative" political movement in 1830.

Interestingly, "libertarian" wasn't first used until decades later where it was a synonym for French anarchy (they couldn't call it anarchism since their books would have been burned).

[ejonesie22]

The funny thing is that I see that, and agree fully. But it doesn’t make me feel any better. Seems we have two groups of people from the same belief system both wanting to rule the world because thats what their system believes it should do. The only difference is that one does it with suicide bombers and I’m afraid very soon WMDs from their allies and the other with Allied Van Lines. I am not fond of either result.

And again while I agree that “talk is just talk” if one small group of followers, or hell one individual, with the means, takes the rhetoric to heart while carrying around a small nuke in any given city, well, those effected might not be able to talk back.

[aculeus]

Ron Paul?

I’d never vote for a man with no last name.

[marsh_of_mists]

I could be wrong, but I don’t see any fundamentalist attacks on Ron Paul, at least in no relevant degree. Most of the opposition on this site seems to be coming from relatively secular, war hawks who are against his foreign policy and Zionists who worry that he won’t support Israel.

[RKV]

Thanks for your clear (and constitutional) response.

[SJackson]

Most of the opposition on this site seems to be coming from relatively secular, war hawks who are against his foreign policy and Zionists who worry that he won’t support Israel.

This site is overrun with hawks, neocons, and Zionists.

[marsh_of_mists]

Mostly, I think it’s due to people feeling compelled to support foreign policies of President Bush, as the Republican Party standard-bearer de facto, because to do otherwise felt like supporting the liberal Dems.

But how many here, since the amnesty that broke the base’s back, still honestly feel that he’s conservative, or even a good president. He gave us the little tax cuts, kept us out of a few international bureaucratic snowjobs, and gave us Roberts and Alito. That’s about it. Not saying the Roberts and Alito aren’t a big deal (assuming they really are unwavering constitutionalists) but stacked up against all the crap, it’s not a fantastic resume for a Republican president.

[DugwayDuke]

“That is true to some extent, but misleading if you leave out the remaining part of Libertarian positions with respect to immigration. First off, no Libertarian I know of is advocating illegal immigration when they advocate reducing restrictions on where and how people can travel and work. This is totally consistent with conservative positions, where the opposition is to illegal immigration, not immigration per se.”

Your comment is ‘true to some extent but misleading’. Essentially, the official Libertarian Party Platform calls for a virtual fence to ‘encourage’ the use of regular entry points and allowing anyone in who can pass a health check, security check, and a criminal background check.

It is true that this platform doesn’t advocate illegal immigration. It doesn’t have to since no immigration would be illegal.

“But the most important part of the Libertarian position is not providing any government benefits for immigrants:”

Incorrect, the Libertarian Platform on immigration only denies benefits to illegal immigrants.

“Seeing the whole story puts the idea of more open (but still regulated) borders in quite a different light. The Libertarian position on immigration is actually quite a bit more “conservative” than the position any Republican politician has taken.”

Libertarians would not ‘regulate’ the borders.

The libertarian position is not ‘conservative’ and is actually much more liberal than the liberal amnesty bill currently being debated in the Senate.

[scarface367]

I suggest you read Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind before you try and claim there were no conservatives before 1964

[MeanWestTexan]

;-) Thank G-d.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

See My IQ is quite north of single digits,

I never believe anyone who feels compelled to state this, especially on an internet forum. Just say what you have to say. As long as you don't come up with some mindless caterwauling about "Ron Paul is not a conservative" and base it on some cerebrally vacant jabber about "fighting terror" to justify that stupid stupid lie, then you won't find me challenging your IQ. We might disagree, but that is what the internet is for.

The world did not start on 9/11, and I truly doubt any conservatives think that. But it did change,

No, it did not. The only thing that really happened was that many Americans looked at a map of the ME for the first time, and maybe googled "islam" We have been dealing with murderous islamofascists since 622 AD, and Islam has always been hegemonistic, totalitarian and repressive. Charles Martel, Charlemagne, St. Bernard, John Quincy Adams, Gen Pershing and a whole stream of other historical luminaries could have told us everything that supposedly "changed the world." 9/11 was a tragedy, and woke us up to the fact that islamofascism is potent, sinister and deadly. That awareness has as much to do with our present "war on terror" as goose farts on the riverbank in July have to do with the price of foi gras.

I find no fault with the idea of a “war on drugs” or a "war on crime" and least of all a "war on terrorism", I find fault in their execution.

Statists never do. It is never the idea that centralized power is doomed to fail from its mistakened premises. It is always "we just don't have the right people in there." This is the same crap we have been getting from the great society statists for 40 years. "Conservatives" have just chimed in on the second and third verses.

Did you know that the DEFINITION of a fascist is a patriotic statist?

We are a global economy, for better or worse. We have to play the foreign affairs game,

We have been in a global economy since at least 1880 (when the first US bank scares caused economic disruption in Europe), and no we do NOT have to play the foreign affairs game. I have traded international currencies for the better part of 20 years now, and for a living for the last 12. I would wager that I know as much (or as little!) about the vagaries of foreign economic interrelationships as almost anyone. I have to. I go broke if I don't (and sometimes when I do!). I for one am really sick of hearing that chorus, as though it invalidated the most basic premise of foreign affiars..... mind your own damn business until someone MAKES their business your business. Then kill em, kill em all and make Ibrahim turn to Uzbellah in the smoking cinders AS WE LEAVE! and say "by Allah, we will NOT try that sh*t again with these people." Strength, power, resolve, and self defense does NOT require that we engage in some halfassed attempt to install "democracy" in an islamofascist society. ...... Especially when it involves propping up known DAWA party terrorists in the "democratic" Iraqi government. Yeah, we are "fighting terrorism" by supporting the scum who helped FORM hisbollah in Lebanon and helped mastermind the murder of our marines in Lebanon. Wrap yourself in the flag and listen to another round of Toby Keith if you want to. I prefer to face the reality of murderous Islamofascism whose goal is world domination through something besides the prattle of a clearly bankrupt policy.

[SJackson]

You said Most of the opposition on this site seems to be coming from relatively secular, war hawks who are against his foreign policy and Zionists who worry that he won’t support Israel.

I agreed, threw neocons in for good measure.

So what's this amnesty, little tax cuts, bureaucratic snowjobs nonsense.

The sites overrun with war people, Ron doesn't like the war, figures we should be out tomorrow, that's great, but why confust the issue. Your comment the opposition on this site seems to be coming from relatively secular, war hawks who are against his foreign policy and Zionists had nothing to do with anything other than leave Iraq now. Thank you Cindy Sheehan.

[Puddleglum]

Man, you have posted some funny (and true) stuff tonight!