Ron Paul Quietly Converting GOP Believers

The Street ^ | August 9, 2007 | John Fout

[CenTexConfederate]

Ron Paul Quietly Converting GOP Believers

By John Fout TheStreet.com Political Correspondent 8/9/2007 12:20 PM EDT

Why haven't conservatives leaders embraced their own ideals and come out to support Ron Paul in public?

I pondered this issue in an article in June. I saw Paul as the one second-tier candidate who might have a chance of a breakout from the pack. It turns out I might have got it right. He has remained the most popular GOP candidate on the Internet. This genuine outpouring of support is rivaled only by that for Barack Obama.

[mutley]

Not far enough back. 1776 would suit him since he thinks the only good reason for taking up arms was against King George.

Oh, come on...he's not that bad. I actually like some of the things he says, and some of his positions. He's just not right for the present time. Under different circumstances, he wouldn't seem kooky at all.

[DugwayDuke]

“The Congress can not delegate its responsibility to another party because the Congress alone is granted sole authority.”

The Congressional power to declare war is absolute meaning that no other party may judge how Congress uses that power. Since the power is absolute, Congress may declare war in any manner it so desires. The Constitution doesn’t specify a format or the content or the conditions Congress may adopt. Consequently Congress can call it an Authorization of Force and no one has standing to challenge that call.

“They essentially voted that if and when Bush jolly well pleases and HE thinks it is in the best interest, that he can go to war.”

So what? The power is absolute. BTW, even if Congress had called it a Declaration of War, it would still have been the Commander in Chiefs call as to how to prosecute that war. He could wait for weeks or months before actually starting hostilities. Essentially the same thing as actually happened.

“What this does though is gives Congress members an out so they can deflect criticism of the war by say that “Bush led us into war”.”

There is nothing in a Declaration of War that would prevent any Congresscritter from claiming later that “Bush led us into war”.

[billbears]

If you want a true conservative, who is not part of the system, why not Duncan Hunter?

Because he has protectionist tendencies? Because he hasn't laid out his idea of exactly what parts of the government he plans to disable first? Because his fiscal policies aren't conservative but Republican? And oh yeah, because he believes in pre-emptive foreign policy.

Don't get me wrong. Hunter has some good ideas. If Dr. Paul wasn't running, I may have thrown in my lot behind him. But too many of his ideas are nationalist based. If I had to label him in a school of politics based on his policies, he's a Hamiltonian. Which as a Southerner and from the Jefferson school (for the most part), I have a bit of a problem with...

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Brilliant article, I read this at work today. Thanks for posting it.

[RachelFaith]

Do NOT insult the Patsies....

Pat actually got 2nd in Iowa and WON New Hampshire !!

[Puddleglum]

describe how and when the war on teror will end

[DejaJude]

Oh, come on...he's not that bad. I actually like some of the things he says, and some of his positions. He's just not right for the present time. Under different circumstances, he wouldn't seem kooky at all.

Under just what circumstances would he seem not kooky?

[Puddleglum]

first, thanks for the home-made graphs. They remind me of the science fairs of my youth. They just need to be taped kind of titled to a sewing pattern board to finish the look.

Second,

Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.

Perhaps he sniffed out the ethanol boondoggle sooner than the other Pubbies? Or maybe, just maybe, the bill was another exercise in BUSH-PORK-O-RAMA

The remainder of your list is a mixed bag; they all need context.

[mnehring]

Ping 208.. looks like we have our answer.. the excuse is the graphs are not pretty enough and there has to be some esoteric reason for these votes that we are too dumb to understand, but all is right in Paulland.

[soccermom]

LOL! Heaven forbid he actually address the data on the graphs.

[soccermom]

No -— he wouldn’t like that either. Because we had to get “entangled” with France then!

[Puddleglum]

Is the data the hand-picked list of votes?

Yes, all votes have reasons behind them, unless you are a BushBot.

[Puddleglum]

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. - SHRINK FEDGOV

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. - GOT ME - PROVIDE BILL #. I SUSPECT IT WAS A STATES’ RIGHT ISSUE.

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. - WHAT’S THE BASIS IN LAW FOR SUCH A BILL ANYWAY? GOOD INTENTION/BAD MECHANISM - INTERSTATE COMMERCE LAW IS ALREADY FRIGHTFULLY ABUSED.

Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. PRISONS ARE OVERCROWDED AND ARE “CRIME SCHOOLS.” WAS IT REALLY AN EITHER/OR CHOICE?

Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. NO ON FED HANDOUTS, YOU MEAN (LIKE THE I’LL ADD 100,00 COPS BILL CLINTON LAW)

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. - WAR ON DRUGS/FED $$$ BOONDOGGLE

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. THIS IS A WTF BILL TO BEGIN WITH? IT’S LIKE YOKING AN OX AND A PONY - DON’T MUDDY THE ISSUES.

Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. HMMM - NEEDS CONTEXT. I SUPPORT VOUCHERS.

Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. BOONDOGGLE - SMELL THE ETHANOL

Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. - SEE ABOVE. BUSH HAS NO ENERGY POLICY.

Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. - CALL AUNT EMMA! THIS IS A DEAL BREAKER

Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. WITHOUT CONTEXT OF WHAT “SPEEDING UP APPROVAL” MEANS AND WHO GETS EMPOWERED IN THE PROCESS. THIS MEANS NOTHING. BILL # FOR MORE RESEARCH.

Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. GOT ME. HE HATES THE UN’S GUTS. BILL #?

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. IS THIS A MCCAIN IDEA? CAMPAIGN FINANCE IS A NIGHTMARE FOR THE ONEST AND A WINDFALL FOR THE UNSCRUPULOUS.

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. - HE’S A DOCTOR - HE MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON THE MONSTEROUSLY OBESE THAN YOU OR I

Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers - HMM - NEED TO DIG INTO THIS.

Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. - MAYBE IT SHOULD BE DECIDED CASE BY CASE???

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. EH - WHAT WAS CONTINGENT UPON THE ACCELERATION?

Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. - MAYBE HE DOESN’T SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ? YA THINK??

Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. - SEE ABOVE

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. WHY NOT? “SKILLED” WORKERS ARE WELCOME PROVIDED THEY ARE NOT DISPLACING AMERICAN WORKERS. SO YOU’VE GONE UNION NOW?

Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. NEEDS CONTEXT - SEEMS LIKE SMALL POTATOES IN THE GREAT WELFARE SCHEME OF THINGS, AND YES, SOME PEOPLE ARE POOR

Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. NICE WORDS BUT MUST LOOK AT THE MECHANISM

Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

There ya go. A reasonable conservative can disgree on many of these bills. What else do you have?

[martinidon]

No Chance at ALL! He can’t and will not win the nomination. Save your time and money!

[George W. Bush]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

Whoops, almost missed this one, only found it when I tried to post another thread. I posted the full text below.

---

Ron Paul Quietly Converting GOP Believers
By John Fout
TheStreet.com Political Correspondent
8/9/2007 12:20 PM EDT
URL: http://www.thestreet.com/markets/marketfeatures/10372302.html

Why haven't conservatives leaders embraced their own ideals and come out to support Ron Paul in public?

I pondered this issue in an article in June. I saw Paul as the one second-tier candidate who might have a chance of a breakout from the pack. It turns out I might have got it right. He has remained the most popular GOP candidate on the Internet. This genuine outpouring of support is rivaled only by that for Barack Obama.

Paul remains low in the polls, but his fund-raising suggests he has moved into a separate tier not shared by other small candidates. His campaign has $2.4 million on hand -- more than that of Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.). I spoke with Jesse Benton, Paul's communications director, and he says funding continues to be positive for this quarter.

The other second-tier GOP candidates need to do well in the Iowa Ames Straw Poll to stay in the race. Paul does not. His money and popularity over the Internet have separated him from the others.

Paul's campaign recently scheduled several last-minute events in South Carolina with a few days notice. They drew 450 people at one and over 1,000 at another. Front-runner Rudy Giuliani would love to draw those kinds of crowds.

So Paul has gotten support. Sometimes, his supporters don't always agree. A recent New York Times Magazine piece excerpted the following from a supporter's letter to Paul headquarters:

We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country. And in a Ron Paul Meetup many people will consider each other "wackos" for their beliefs whether that is simply because they're liberal, conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, evangelical Christian, etc. ... We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next "Star Trek" convention or whatever.

The New York Times piece, nevertheless, demonstrates that Paul's support is genuine.

Then, the National Review Online jumped into the Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) debate last week. It seems that NRO feels conflicted about supporting Paul for president, as do many conservatives.

First, John Derbyshire wrote glowingly about all of the conservative credentials of Paul. Derbyshire's final conclusion, however, was that he could not embrace his own dreams and ideals:

Ain't gonna happen. It was, after all, a conservative who said that politics is the art of the possible. Ron Paul is not possible. His candidacy belongs to the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, what sweet dreams!

Then Todd Seavey came to Paul's defense a day later. He sees Paul as the perfect fusion candidate to bring together the fiscal and social conservatives:

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.

Paul's positions are also genuine. He has a very consistent voting record, so much so that it occasionally puts him in hot water in his own district. But his ability to stay on message will get him support from an important corner of the Republican Party -- the evangelicals.

The evangelicals in the GOP have experienced fatigue over the last few years. They have heard quite a few promises from Washington but have had precious few real victories to celebrate. How long can they put up with the pandering from the top tier candidates like Giuliani (pro-choice), Mitt Romney (a flip-flopper), and Fred Thompson (a lobbyist).

Paul has always been pro-life. He was also an original supporter of Ronald Reagan in 1976 against Gerald Ford. But you won't hear him discussing his views on religion in public. He's a firm believer in the Constitution and the separation between church and state.

So what is stopping conservatives from coming out and supporting Ron Paul in public? I return to Derbyshire's piece:

If Washington, D.C. were the drowsy southern town that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rode into, Ron Paul would have a chance. Washington's not like that nowadays, though. It is a vast megalopolis, every nook and cranny stuffed with lobbyists, lawyers, and a hundred thousand species of tax-eater.

Derbyshire basically admits to all of the foibles that have damaged the Republicans over the last seven years -- the lobbyists and scandals. Conservatives have gone from a party of ideals to a party of money, power brokering and winning at all costs.

Unfortunately for the GOP, it has caught up with them. They lost soundly in 2006 and may well repeat it in 2008. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) didn't help their cause last week with another ethics scandal. He's also the senator responsible for an earmark for the "bridge to nowhere."

So why not take a chance on Ron Paul? Even if you can't win, at least conservatives would feel good that they did the right thing by cleaning house. Besides, the last time a conservative got drubbed in a presidential election was Barry Goldwater in 1964. His loss did lead conservatives to their greatest win -- Ronald Reagan.

[DB]

“I think you’re afraid of something; otherwise, why all the effort?”

Yes, I’m afraid of something.

I’m afraid Ron Paul’s foreign policy will get me and my family killed.

[billhilly]

This is the quadrennial lemming rush to support the impossible, and in most cases, to prevent the possible.

[ari-freedom]

Fred Thompson is a Hard Core conservative:

[ari-freedom]

and if we fail...Hillary is a Hard core liberal:

[Bogtrotter52]

So quietly it is not even registering as a blip.