Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NRO: Fusion Candidate (Ron Paul)
National Review Online ^ | August 01, 2007 | Todd Seavey

Posted on 08/01/2007 7:00:48 AM PDT by George W. Bush



Fusion Candidate


The congressman from Texas has something for all conservatives.

By Todd Seavey

John Derbyshire is wrong to resist the Ron Paul Temptation. Embrace it. Embrace it: conservatives, libertarians, pro-lifers…Right-minded Americans, all.

Sure, Paul, currently hovering in the single digits in polls, looks at first glance like a textbook case of a fringe candidate. And that’s unfortunate, because he ought instead to be our next president — and would be if he made it to the general election, since in a one-on-one match-up with likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, he could fare remarkably well.

That means Paul’s greatest obstacle is the Republican primary process. Since he wants to do virtually everything conservatives have long dreamed of with the office of the presidency, what’s stalling his chances is a herd-like desire to vote for the candidate who already seems likely to win the primaries. Democrats won’t keep him from the White House; it would be tragic, then, if Republicans stopped him themselves.

Recall, first, the big issue that likely cost the Republicans control of Congress in 2006 and turned George Bush into a lame duck: the Iraq War. Now, thanks largely to testy comments from his fellow candidate Rudy Giuliani, Paul is known as the sole antiwar Republican candidate. I realize how strongly many of his fellow Republicans disagree with him on that issue — I’m not as isolationist on military matters as Paul either (almost no one is) and have long hoped that the Iraq effort will turn out better than expected.

But it now appears that even the unambitious goal of stopping frequent bombings in Baghdad is proving to be, shall we all admit, tricky. And since the pro-war position is widely regarded as the thing dragging Republican congressional candidates down in ’06 and prospective Republican presidential candidates down in the polls for ’08, it would be a delightful turn if antiwar sentiment ended up redounding to the advantage of conservatives, in the form of Ron Paul’s election.

And think of the undeserved riches that would then be ours: Paul is an across-the-board libertarian on economic issues. He wants to abolish most Cabinet agencies (aside from State, Justice, and a radically whittled-down Defense). He has tried (unsuccessfully) to return the U.S. to the gold standard and has made clear his desire to dismantle the IRS immediately

And for those who say it can’t happen, here’s the beauty part: Get Paul through the primaries, to the Republican nomination, and he has the tools to take on Hillary. He plainly gets the libertarian swing voters that the Republicans lost in 2006, he should garner most conservative votes when contrasted with Hillary, and — here’s the clincher — he gets a huge share of the bourgeoning antiwar vote to boot. Think about it: Clinton has already alienated the substantial antiwar faction of the Democratic party, while Ron Paul has inspired a supportive banner even at an anarchist rally full of hippies and punks, urging people to join the Ron Paul “love revolution.”

But don’t let that fool you into thinking he’s some flower-child. A seventy-two-year-old conservative Texan, Ron Paul is also one of the most pro-life members of Congress, wants better border enforcement, and, as a doctor, prefers to allow the states to manage the war on drugs, rather than praising drugs, as some less cautious libertarians are prone to do.

Presto! The much-lamented divide between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, which has seemed to be widening lately, is eliminated. As has oft been said, Republicans tend to fare best when they pursue the program (pioneered by National Review and praised last year by Ryan Sager in his book Elephant in the Room) called “fusionism,” yoking together social conservatism and the libertarian desire to shrink government. Both Giuliani and McCain, for example, have some fusionist qualities, sounding tough on military matters and fiscal matters — but no one’s more fusionist than a pro-lifer who genuinely wants to dismantle the entire welfare state. And if you’re nervous about Paul’s “going too far,” keep in mind the president only executes the laws — he doesn’t make them. There are limits to what even a president can do, but it’d sure be nice to have one pushing in a small-government conservative direction for the first time since Reagan, and arguably the first time since Coolidge.

Continuing conservative support for the Iraq war is certainly an issue (note that Paul voted for the Afghan war, so he’s not a complete pacifist), but surely it’s not the be-all and end-all of conservatism. As popular support for the war fades, and if we do not meet with the successes forecast by the architects of the “surge,” might not even the most pro-war conservatives be willing to budge a bit on that possibly doomed and politically damning issue? Hawks may be reluctant to shift, but for many conservatives it may well be worth it to have a president with true conservative values.

Do conservatives not really want all the things Paul has to offer? Then why do we fight at all? If it’s merely for power and mainstream acceptance, one might as well support Hillary Clinton or wait until after November 2008 and support whoever comes out on top. But if we want a radically smaller government — precisely that thing that a Republican Congress neglected to do for the last twelve years, which has created the current mood of conservative frustration — we must support Ron Paul. Remember how small government was at the nation’s founding and consider how perhaps even conservatives have since then become de facto socialists, accepting the leviathan state as inevitable. But it’s not inevitable if they vote against it when history hands them that chance.

Todd Seavey lives in New York City and blogs at ToddSeavey.com.



TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: americanpatriot; asseenonstormfront; characterassassins; constitutionalist; goldwaterwins; paulestinians; ronpaul; theantisemiteschoice; trueamerican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: trisham

The author is delusional. Paul is the worst possible opponent to Hillary. He has zero charisma and looks like a deer in the headlights when in front of a camera.

Exactly!! This points toward maybe more than a little “assistance” from the klinton camp.

Yeah, I know we are still a long way out from Nov. 08, but how could anyone with any rationality think Congressman Paul has a snowball’s chance?


61 posted on 08/01/2007 8:27:57 AM PDT by dusttoyou (FredHead from the git go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Hillary would carry 50 states and DC against L.Ron.

The last match-up polling put Ron Paul around 35% against Her Thighness.

Given that so many people still don't know who he is and what he stands for, that's a truly amazing number and not that far behind the rest of the "top tier" candidates.

Maybe those other candidates would do better in fundraising and in support if they'd embrace Reagan-Gingrich small-government and liberty. Like Ron Paul does.

Let's run a genuine conservative (Ron Paul or Duncan or maybe Fred). As Rush says, it works every time we have the courage to try it.
62 posted on 08/01/2007 8:31:59 AM PDT by George W. Bush (Rudy: tough on terror, scared of Iowa, wets himself over YouTube)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; George W. Bush; elhombrelibre
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

See? I knew they sat around wearing Star Trek uniforms and Spock ears and stuff. ;-)

63 posted on 08/01/2007 8:50:42 AM PDT by Allegra (16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Would you be happy with another 4 years of Bush.


64 posted on 08/01/2007 8:55:21 AM PDT by Orange1998 (4 Real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: John Farson; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Austin Willard Wright; Xenalyte; Abcdefg; Oberon; billbears
Pinging some RP supporters and some others posting on the threads today.

A fresh new shocker from the FEC, reported by Army Times. It turns out that now that the FEC has verified the employers, that Ron Paul is leading McStain (by a nose) among active-duty personnel!

RP's total military employee contributions: $22,140
RP's total active duty contributions: $14,840

From the August 6 edition of The Army Times (print edition only, not online):

Washington

Surprise fave among troops

WHAT'S UP: Among Republicans running for president, the anti-war candidate — Texas Rep. Ron Paul — has the highest total of campaign contributionns from service members, according to the most recent Federal Election Commission reports. Paul collected $14,840 from service members, slightly more than the $14,775 collected by Arizona Sen. John McCain, a supporter of the war in Iraq. The other Republican candidates got $2,600 or less from contributors who identified themselves as service members.

WHAT'S NEXT: Paul, who served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force in the 1960s, and McCain, a Navy pilot who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, could not be further apart in their views of the Iraq war, which is the biggest military issue so far in the 2008 campaign that is just beginning. The current front-runner in the race, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, received $2,550 from military contributors, the FEC report shows.


Read 'em and weep, all you Paul-hating big-government trolls. Two-thirds of his support is from troops, matched by McStain. And the other pro-war GOP candidates can't break $2600! Your denials and fantasies have been exploded by ArmyTimes, well, unless they're another Leftie rag. LOL.

Earlier related threads:
[note to the Ron Paul cadre: we have two good RP threads already. We may post this tidbit as a thread tonight or tomorrow because we don't want to abuse FR with RP articles, especially since the other campaigns are so boring and dead in the water at present. Certainly, it isn't our fault that RP gets so much attention but we should be reasonable, I think.]
65 posted on 08/01/2007 8:56:25 AM PDT by George W. Bush (Rudy: tough on terror, scared of Iowa, wets himself over YouTube)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
See? I knew they sat around wearing Star Trek uniforms and Spock ears and stuff. ;-)

There might well be more Star Trek fans left in this country than people like you with hawkish war views.

See my previous. ArmyTimes, confirming that RP does lead in support by troops. Your denials are exposed.
66 posted on 08/01/2007 8:58:41 AM PDT by George W. Bush (Rudy: tough on terror, scared of Iowa, wets himself over YouTube)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I always like to drop in and chat with you because you're such a nice little ray of sunshine.

Delusional. Obsessed. But so very amusing. :-)

67 posted on 08/01/2007 9:06:31 AM PDT by Allegra (16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: John Farson

But is she a TROPHY wife?!?!?? That seems to be an issue these days...

68 posted on 08/01/2007 9:09:00 AM PDT by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Ron Paul threads are like bug zappers. Those attacted to them are left to decide who are the bugs and who are the picnickers.


69 posted on 08/01/2007 9:10:10 AM PDT by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
A fresh new shocker from the FEC, reported by Army Times. It turns out that now that the FEC has verified the employers, that Ron Paul is leading McStain (by a nose) among active-duty personnel!

---------------------

Nonsense! - the numbers are doctored or the question was asked wrong or DU'ers voted (or sumpthin'...(trailing off muttering)

70 posted on 08/01/2007 9:13:59 AM PDT by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Thank you for a thoughtful reply. Although I still think the response to which I objected was beneath you, I agree with you here. There's no doubt that FR has had its share of trolls and RINOs, despite the recent exit of some of the more vocal offenders. It's a constant battle, imho.

My biggest concern is Giuliani. I fear a Democrat victory if he is our nominee.

71 posted on 08/01/2007 9:28:15 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: dusttoyou
Yeah, I know we are still a long way out from Nov. 08, but how could anyone with any rationality think Congressman Paul has a snowball’s chance?

Well, let's look at it: if Hunter got the nod, he would be grilled mercilessly in the media about earmarks for certain equipment the military doesn't want. He would be grilled by insinuation about Randy Duke Cunningham, Abu Graib, and Titan Corp.

Ron Paul - well, he would face the same trial by insinuation slurs he has faced here vis-a-vis association with right wing racists and anti-semites (aka the dirt that I think comes from his Houston buddy and 1988 presidential rival, GHWB and buds).

Fred - he is a cypher. I think he can only win as an anti-Hillary, but that may be enough. His facade will not carry him through the primaries once he announces. His voting record may appeal to mainstream party straddlers more than Republicans; don't know what dirt Hillary and Friends® may find.

Rudy - He's lost to Hillary once.

Others?

72 posted on 08/01/2007 9:35:10 AM PDT by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

“Seems to me that it is more true to say that the guy who gave us BJ was actually named “George Bush.””

IMO the guy who gave us Clinton was named “Ross Perot.” Whenever one ‘side’ (conservative or liberal) splits between two candidates and the other doesn’t, the side that doesn’t wins. In this same sense the ‘guy who gave us W’ is named “Ralph Nader.”


73 posted on 08/01/2007 9:39:06 AM PDT by No.6 (www.fourthfightergroup.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: trisham
My biggest concern is Giuliani. I fear a Democrat victory if he is our nominee.

Well, you've seen my tagline so you know how I feel about him! LOL.

I have a concern that without RP (or Duncan or Tom Tancredo) in the race, we won't pin down the GOP field on conservative principles and ideology. And I'm sure you grasp my assertion that Ron Paul is popular across the board (as Reagan was) because he has that old magic Reagan-Gingrich message. We need for all our candidates to embrace it.

I think we may find Fred Thompson in some agreement with at least some of the positions RP is taking. By staying out, he can decide about the surge's success and public sentiment on the war and continue to measure RP's unlikely success against the voter demographics he wants to appeal to. Fred is a smart old lawyer (okay, he's younger than RP) and a D.C. insider.

Wanna see something fun? Ron Paul has Meetups and groups overseas. Here's a video made by some young Belgian guys. One of them could be a future Reagan-type or a Sarkozy-type. It's great stuff, almost unbelievable coming out of Belgium, home of the EU. Ron Paul is sparking these groups around the world, hungry for liberty, prosperity, and sick of central economic planning and the strangling nanny-state (like the EU).

Belgians For Ron Paul
74 posted on 08/01/2007 9:56:06 AM PDT by George W. Bush (Rudy: tough on terror, scared of Iowa, wets himself over YouTube)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
A) The Army Times is a liberal rag. It's published by Gannett and has no more connection to the US military than USA Today (another Gannett publication) -- regardless of what said liberal rag calls itself.

B) Where does it say anywhere the employers of all contributors have been independently verified?

Donors are asked to specify their employer. You're telling me the federal government is following up on this information from every individual contributor to make sure they're all telling the truth? (Ironically, this might be the first time I've ever seen self-described "libertarians" touting the government's ability to gather personal information about private citizens.)

I don't buy it. And given the way Paul's supporters have conducted themselves in a manner similar to Truthers and Kos Kids with their relentless spamming, there's no good reason to believe they're telling the truth about who they work for. The most notable thing about Paul's campaign thus far has been the campaign of mass deception waged by his rabid supporters. There's no reason in the world to believe this is any different.

75 posted on 08/01/2007 10:49:44 AM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: zencat
Many times, the debate between the R and the D boil down to how much the feds will do for you:

R = whatever you want
D = everything, regardless of whether you want it

Whenever the choice is between a big-government liberal (Rudy) and a big-government liberal (Hillary!), it should come as no huge surprise we keep electing the big-government liberal.

No thanks. I'm done voting for the lesser evil.
Ron Paul for the primary. And I'll probably write him in for the general, if necessary.

76 posted on 08/01/2007 10:50:38 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

Wow. That’s impressive.


77 posted on 08/01/2007 11:02:03 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: trisham
Wow. That’s impressive.

I know! Belgians!

There's still magic in the Reagan agenda. I wish some other people would just wake up and realize it. Rush keeps telling us and he's right. But no one else seems to believe it.

When they start comparing Belgium's tax-freedom day and unemployment to ours and ratio of public-vs-private employment, that stuff could have been written by a Lee Atwater or a Peggy Noonan. And then to see those fresh-faced kids hollering for Ron Paul and his message, well, you realize that we need a global message of peace, liberty, prosperity, small-government.

It's just a great little video.
78 posted on 08/01/2007 11:10:58 AM PDT by George W. Bush (Rudy: tough on terror, scared of Iowa, wets himself over YouTube)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
It's going to be a long campaign and a really long election night. In '04, I finally went to bed, almost fatally depressed. When I awoke the next morning, I found that Bush had won. I have a feeling this coming election will be just as much a roller coaster ride.

You're right about the Reagan agenda. It's what I am hoping for in Fred.

79 posted on 08/01/2007 11:20:01 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998

Would you be happy with another 4 years of Carter?


80 posted on 08/01/2007 11:23:30 AM PDT by Petronski (imwithfred.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson