Posted on 06/18/2011 3:10:23 PM PDT by truthfreedom
Representative Ron Paul easily won a Republican Leadership Conference straw poll of the party's 2012 presidential contenders on Saturday, with former U.S. envoy to China Jon Huntsman finishing second.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Paul is an assault on the Tea Party. FOX and their CNN and MSNBC MSM cousins that have spread that Paul Godfather crap are facilitating the assault. The best way to attack any great grassroots movement is to discredit it with including undesirables in it's ranks.
Now you start calling others “Democrats” because they don't follow the preachings of that kook? Sad.
Yup, it would seem. Those buses filled with rabid Paulistinians sure get around.
These straw polls at CPAC, the RLC and other conservative/Republican conferences are ridiculous and a waste of everybody's time.
Yup. We've seen them show up (usually in buses) and do this for several years in a row at CPAC in DC every February. They're almost all young men - rabid, foaming at the mouth, obnoxious and LOUD. Weird bunch.
Paulbots love to quote the liberal praise of their man. Here's one they're sure to be proud of.
They could argue against Ron Paul, I think, but the arguments wouldn’t be conservative ones. They know that he’s a constitutional conservative, and they aren’t.
I like Sarah as well. She’s my 2nd choice, and this time around I’m picking based on “who am I most sure will make cuts”. To me, Ron Paul wins on that. I’m not picking based on “would it be good to try to have a Female Republican President”. The answer to that is definitely yes. It would most certainly be huge for the Republican Party to have the First Female President. That would be huge. It has almost always been expected that the Democrats would have the first female President. But we get “First Female President” we close that “gender gap” real quick. Romney would be “First Mormon”. I’d rather have 1st Woman.
The same people say the same stuff every time. Kook shrimp earmarks. The worst thing they have is that. And he did’t spend any money. And earmarks don’t increase the amount of money spent. Other candidates actually voted for things we hate. Unless these people have a real, philosophical problem with letting Congressmen, instead of the President, determine where the money is spent. They know that what they’re saying is bs. They just are trying to blanket this thread with those words. Trying to leave an overall impression. That’s why I use the Reagan pix. Just to leave an impression (the right one I might add) that Ron Paul was right there, as a conservative, with a conservative. Instead of one of the Bush supporters who fought Reagan till the end. Ron Paul’s foreign policy, which so many hate, is really very similar to Robert Taft’s foreign policy. Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican”, who almost got the nomination in 1952. A true conservative, and the recognized leader of the Conservatives throughout the 1940s. Not a kook. His were “the” conservative positions of the time, and they are very similar to Ron Paul’s.
The foreign policies that Ron Paul opposes were brought to the Republican party by ex staffers of Democrat Scoop Jackson. Bill Kristols dad, Irving, the intellectual founder of the movement, was supporting Trotsky at the same time that Taft was the Conservative leader.
That’s a nice contrast. That’s a nice contrast, how did it happen exactly that “conservatives” abandoned Taft’s foreign policy and adopt the Trotsky/Kristol foreign policy?
I know there are a lot of conservatives who are not on board at all with his foreign policy. And that’s not going to be helpful in getting votes.
I’d argue that 70 years ago, Robert Taft “Mr Republican”, the leader of the conservatives, had a foreign policy similar to Ron Pauls. At the same time, Irving Kristol was developing a foreign policy based on Trotsky. Sometime over the last 70 years, the “conservative” foreign policy has changed from a Taft foreign policy to a Kristol/Trotsky foreign policy. I have more of the Taft foreign policy, but a lot of people here have the Kristol/Trotsky foreign policy. Politicians are moving away from the Kristol/Trotsky foreign policy, though.
Actually, the dumberol habit is thine since you would actually consider and apparently intend voting for the little treasonweasel and serial liar. You could probably get an approximation of the kind of gummint miniaturization you crave by moving to Andorra. I doubt that they have any military at all and certainly don’t get involved in wars. They probably don’t favor legal abortion or gay “marriage” like the paleopipsqueak but, hey, it is an imperfect world and you cannot have it all. BTW, what is your political resume, if any, in the real world??? I didn’t think so.
One thing I will say about your analysis is that it is true that Ron Paul did not have significant support in South Carolina. Gingrich might do well in South Carolina. But a Palin romp is quite the possibility. I always hope at these straw polls that there’s some evidence of solid Palin support.
I would just think there should be some, and I don’t really see it. I would think that there would be passionate Palin supporters who would think to go to these things to show their Palin love. I’ve been paying fairly close attention, and I don’t see big numbers at these straw polls for her. There are a lot of campaigns that aren’t putting much effort into these straw polls, I just would think that she would have the same kind of somewhat rabid supporters who want to show Sarah love as Ron Paul has. Like, a fraction of that amount. There’s a lot there that I have to dismiss, to ignore, not think about. I think Palin romp seems right and best, not that I prefer Palin (I prefer Paul), but she is the most popular Republican and the most well known Republican, and if someone is the most well known and most well liked, they should romp. It starts to break down a little bit when it comes to the details, but it could very well be that those details won’t matter.
[ BTW, what is your political resume, if any, in the real world??? ]
Im not very politically smart..... I’m a republican..
Taft was also a major force behind federal housing programs. He was a good man but he was not very comparable to today's conservatives. As a Unitarian, he might have agreed with taking no action to prevent abortion, but I have a hard time imagining a man of Taft's generation in leadership mistaking fudge-packing for marriage.
Opposing Ron Paul's claims to "fiscal conservatism" as he stuffs zillions in wasteful earmarks into every budget while voting against the budget while knowing his colleagues will vote to send his pork to Galveston is not only a conservative argument but is also an argument against his utter lack of integrity.
Surrendering to our nation's enemies is something that every conservative can and should attack. Paulie wants to castrate this nation's military power and hardware. He is no conservative on matters military.
This is not, thank God, a contest between Mittens and the paleosurrenderman. Fortunately there are conservatives and patriots available as candidates and you can count on the fact that we, as the conservative movement, (not they who consort with babykillers, fudgepackers and Code Pink and Alex Jones and Trufers) will choose one to defeat Comrade O.
There were about ten original editors at National Review and only Bill Buckley had never been any form of communist or hard socialist. Scoop Jackson was probably to the right of Bill's colleagues. Whittaker Chambers had been a red. Ronaldus Maximus became SAG president by the wiles of Hollywood reds. The actual neocons led by Irving Kristol and his friends belatedly decided that Western Civilization had to be saved from Marxism and came over when McGovern and the reds took permanent charge of the Demonrat Party. Would you have rather that these brilliant men and women (including Jeanne Kirkpatrick, BTW) stayed on the left????
The paleopipsqueak has not an inkling of what the argument was about nor why the Cold War and several hot wars were morally necessary. Ron Paul is strictly amateur hour.
I would’ve preferred that Irving Kristol stayed on the Left. Perhaps his son Bill can go back. They can be called “Conservative Democrats” or whatever they want to call themselves. Hopefully they fight as hard to take over the Democratic Party foreign policy as they did to take over the Republican Party foreign policy.
I like that choice, a Kristol/Trotsky foreign policy vs a Taft Conservative foreign policy - instead of a Kristol/Trotsky foreign policy vs a Democrat policy.
It is just hours of enjoyment is all...like playing with a puppet. I can see I am not the only one who thinks so.
As usual, your defense of the good Doctor here is first class. I'd just like to point out that your sentence above points out the source of most (all) of Dr. Paul's opposition here.
Your typical Paul-bashing freeper, the ones who attack him with childish insults and even more childish photoshop pics are deathly afraid of cuts at the federal level because they have a parasitic relationship with the American taxpayer and they fear that gravy train ending if Dr. Paul were to be elected.
I'd like to make an argument to them based on their true fears - just because a President Ron Paul (man that looks good!) would work towards slashing the insane level of wasteful fed spending and work towards restoring constitutional gov't, there would be new opportunities for people with your talents in the reinvigorated private sector.
Take my office for example. Fed tax and regulatory cuts would create a boom in civil engineering. We'd hire more engineers. That would create a demand for more cleaning people. I have little doubt that years or decades of "service" at high levels of fed gov't would qualify some of you scrub the toilets and sweep the floors of my office.
Or how about this? Every prez since Jimmy Carter has promised to secure the borders. Every one of them lied. Some, like Reagan, went so far as to grant amnesty to millions of those criminal alien invaders. Ron Paul would be good to his word and actually cut off the flood of invaders. That would create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the agricultural sector. Once again, I say that your vast amount of experience in your gov't "job", along with some intensive training, would qualify many of you to pick tomatoes and cucumbers on our nation's farms.
Lastly, even the negative aspects of the Ron Paul economic boom would benefit many of you. Think about it - one negative aspect of bringing back a booming economy is garbage generation. Prosperous people generate a lot of trash, and a good portion of it ends up on the side of our roads. Surely, a typical GS-99 level bureaucrat would, or could, in time, be able to develop the skills necessary to pick up litter on the side of the road.
You see, restoring liberty can benefit everyone, even those of you with the work ethic and skills we've come to expect from those with years in gov't "service".
Good answer on all the ways he doesn’t know the Constitution...that is the tip of the iceberg. No, this man is not one of integrity...a man of integrity would have opposed earmarks on principle instead of playing politics with the issue. An honorable man would have sought the nomination as a Libertarian and not a Republican...since he won’t vote for any one of the candidates running now. His supporters are, and continue to be to quote Mark Levin “assholes”. He is NOT the one who adheres to the Constitution...I gave you some examples of this. Anyone who signed that pro-life pledge obviously doesn’t understand the Constitution. Anyone who thinks the President can audit the Fed, doesn’t understand the Constitution. He talks a good game, but have you honestly looked at his record?
Yes, I still think you are a Ron Paul supporter. Have you come on and defended other Republican candidates? I am a Palin guy myself, but in this cycle, I am going to Cain or Bachmann if she doesn’t run. So, since “I don’t get it on so many levels” please enlighten me...I have a sneaking suspicion, you can’t.
All I can say is I support Michele Bachmann and I would vote for Palin. They are the closets people to my ideology and stances. But, while I like parts of the economic polices of Ron Paul. I can not agree with him on much else. And neither can anybody else that is conservative. Ron is libertarian. He has his followers, but they do not agree with the conservative voters and the tea party on foreign policy. I’m afraid if Rand Paul is forced to straddle both groups then he won’t last long in congress. Each one will find things to dislike. Conservatives want a mix between Michele Bachmann, Marco Rubio, Allen West, Sarah Palin and the best parts of Rick Perry and Peter King, not the worst parts, mind you.
All I can say is I support Michele Bachmann and I would vote for Palin. They are the closets people to my ideology and stances. But, while I like parts of the economic polices of Ron Paul. I can not agree with him on much else. And neither can anybody else that is conservative. Ron is libertarian. He has his followers, but they do not agree with the conservative voters and the tea party on foreign policy. I’m afraid if Rand Paul is forced to straddle both groups then he won’t last long in congress. Each one will find things to dislike. Conservatives want a mix between Michele Bachmann, Marco Rubio, Allen West, Sarah Palin and the best parts of Rick Perry and Peter King, not the worst parts, mind you.
Well said with post #181.
The Ron Paulites support of legalizing drugs and that 9-11 was an inside job and that Israel is bad and that defense is no good and that there is no war on terror and that prostitution is good and gay marriage is good and that abortions should be on demand is closer to a “Democrat” and to some “Rinos”, depending on the issue, than to a tea party conservative. And that is why Ron Paul aligned himself with democrats on various issues. And that is why democrats and libertarian Ron Paul supporters protested the Iraq war and 9-11. And that is why Ron Paul doesn’t not support conservatives in the house tea party caucus since they do not agree with him on so much. What they agree on is not enough for him, because he knows eventually he’d go off the ranch and get chastised by the tea party republicans. So Ron Paul is not really a tea party guy. He might embrace a few issues that are similar, but he had nothing to do with the 2010 rise. And I again fear his son Rand is also misguided on foreign policy, which will rub people the wrong way.
Ron Paul has the traditional conservative / Robert Taft foreign policy.
The current foreign policy is basically a Kristol/Trotsky hybrid.
I’ll take Taft over Trotsky any day.
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.