Posted on 02/22/2010 11:33:11 PM PST by rabscuttle385
When Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was censured by various GOP county committees in his own state recently, Graham dismissively blamed it on “Ron Paul people.” When Florida governor and U.S. Senate candidate Charlie Crist was defeated in a Republican straw poll by challenger Marco Rubio in December, Crist complained it was nothing more than “Ron Paul people”
At this year’s 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C/, there were plenty of “Ron Paul people,” enough to deliver the congressman a first-place victory in the annual CPAC straw poll, long considered a decent gauge of conservatives’ mindset. But when Paul’s victory was announced much of the CPAC crowd booed, showing disdain for the congressman not unlike that expressed by Graham and Crist. Those pesky “Ron Paul people” had struck again, it seemed, and many Republican establishment types quickly dismissed the poll. But one glaring question remains: Who is it that Paul’s critics prefer to him? What kind of “people” are they?
What, for example, are Mitt Romney people, who placed second this year and won CPAC’s straw poll the last three years? Romney was introduced at CPAC by newly elected senator Scott Brown, and the Massachusetts politicians stood side by side before a cheering conservative audience that seemed oblivious to the fact both men implemented government-mandated healthcare in their state, similar to the Democrats’ current national plan. President Obama and his party have even often cited the Massachusetts plan, known as “Romneycare,” as the model for “Obamacare.” In his speech, Romney also had much praise for George W. Bush. The crowd went wild.
What are “Dick Cheney people,” who received a standing ovation at CPAC? Said Cheney, “A welcome like that almost makes me want to run for office,” which elicited chants of “run, Dick run!” from the audience. Cheney promised that Obama would be a “one-term president” and said that conservatives could look forward to victory in 2010. Considering his big government track record, Cheney giving conservatives’ prospects is sort of like Tiger Woods giving marital advice. Yet loudly and with zero irony, CPAC cheered Cheney.
We could go down the list — what are Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, or Tim Pawlenty “people?” What solid, tangible conservative platform or agenda are any of these people suggesting, other than defeating Obama and the Democrats? Is a return to Bush Republicanism really a desirable goal, as Romney and Cheney’s warm welcomes seemed to suggest? Rush Limbaugh claims Paul’s straw poll victory means CPAC wasn’t conservative this year, which raises the question, “well, who was ‘conservative’ this year, Rush?” Since CPAC’s inception in 1973, what has actually been done to shrink the size of government? What in the last Republican administration, something Romney praises and Cheney represents, gives anyone who isn’t completely brain dead hope for a better, more conservative future?
When you boil it all down and though they won’t admit it, here’s what those who complain about “Ron Paul people” really care about — GOP victory. They don’t really care why, how, or to what ideological end — only that Democrats lose elections and Republicans win them. The tolerance of the big-government George W. Bush years proved as much, and the current nostalgia for Cheney only underscores this point. Those at CPAC who cheered Romney, Cheney, and the conventional rest have no intention of ever challenging the status quo precisely because they are the status quo.
Then there are the “Ron Paul people.” Paul’s CPAC speech was not simply partisan Democrat bashing, but a lesson on how any GOP worthy of challenging the status quo must finally deliver on the conservatism it has always promised. Paul said Republicans must finally show true fidelity to the Constitution. Considering the conservative movement’s abysmal failure in stopping government growth, Paul asked the crowd to reexamine first principles, casting a critical eye upon the Right’s enthusiasm for wars that don’t make much sense and cost too much money, incurring massive debt. In short, Paul called for an end to big government — all of it. Asks Pat Buchanan, “Who in the Republican Party today is calling for a Barry Goldwater-like rollback of federal power and federal programs? Except Ron Paul.” Answer: no one. Paul’s CPAC speech proved as much.
Derided as “kids,” or irrelevant “college students,” the many young people who support Paul are the heart and soul of what has been dubbed the “Ron Paul Revolution,” and they are a force to be reckoned with. Writes National Review Online’s Robert Costa, “Paul supporters were the most visible and vocal throughout CPAC.”
Expect Paul supporters to become even more visible and more vocal in the future, because it will be impossible to silence a genuine movement driven by actual conservative passion, and not just the two-party horse race the Republican establishment continues to mistake for principle. In their ignorance, conservatives who boo Paul, at CPAC or anywhere else, are essentially dismissing the only force in contemporary American politics serious about smaller government. And despite the constant media spin and gnashing of teeth, Ron Paul and his “people’s” onward march does not represent some sort of confusion within the conservative movement-but the only conservative movement.
If you're going to attack Paul, and it's not as if there aren't legitimate reasons to do so regarding national defense, at least try to be factual.
Ron Paul is not pro-abortion.
- Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
- Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008)
- Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
- Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
- Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
- Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
- Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
- No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
- Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
- Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
- Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
- Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
- Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
- Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
- Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
- Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
- Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
- Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
- Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
- Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
- No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
- Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
There is no doubt that both the libertarian and conservatives share a desire for limited government. For some libertarians, the ideal government can be so limited, that they are closer to being anarchists, just as Reagan pointed out.
It’s kinda like Baptists. There are several types which share some basic tenets, but have differences. There are obvious differneces between the two political philosophies which share some classical liberal ideas. Are you saying that conservatives and libertarians are the exact same on every issue?
found a 2007 Ron Paul Tea Party video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0h69EazA0M
Beck mentioned the Ron Paul Tea Party on #7 youtube video, from 2007.
We need a Ron Paul who understands the disease that is islam.
“I have no problem w/ what Paul said about Reagan”
We know that here at FR, because we know that RonPaul people are not conservative.
LOL, “Reagan lost his bonafides”....
Enjoy your 1-2% in the real election.
He understands islam just fine. I've never heard him say once that "islam is a religion of peace".
I remember him advocating (and voting for) crushing the Taliban gov't that allowed terrorist attacks to be planned and launched from Afghanistan.
I remember him criticizing idiotic invasions and occupations of muslim nations that didn't pose a threat to us, thus radicalizing tens of millions of muzzies.
I remember him pointing out the stupidity of destroying muslim infrastructure and then rebuilding it, time after time.
I believe he is totally against things Bush did, like starting the program that imports muslims from terrorist-supporting countries into the US, or leaving the borders wide open to anyone who wants to walk across, which leaves this nation open to attack from inside.
I think he knows that muzzies are like primitive, stupid and dangerous animals - the ones not bothering you, you leave alone. The ones that do attack you, you pound mercilessly, time and time again as required, until they finally learn to associate the terrorist attacks they launch with death and destruction of themselves, their families and neighbors, along with their possessions and other property.
In other words, I think he believes in going back to the policies that western civilization used to keep the cancer of islam in check in the period between when islam was driven out of europe in the 1400's to when the west empowered muslims by sending them trillions of dollars in oil money and allowed them complete access to our technology, education and very nations.
ROTFLMBO!
Can you give me links? Couldn’t find it on YouTube. I’d love to drop that like a 16 ton weight on the Paul psychos around here.
Why does having a semi-pro-Constitution & Blame America First President bother you so much?
There, fixed it for you.
Be careful, Allegra, next he’ll be asking you when you stopped beating your husband.
Well, doesn't that say it all.
There’s a difference between the philosophy of libertarianism and the batch of goofballs and malcontents who call themselves Libertarians these days.
For example, true libertarianism wouldn’t be on the NARAL side of the abortion issue.
****************************
You got that right.
He’s not pro life, either.
Someday all Republicans will get it. Whoever in the party gets the most media attention, whoever the media touts as a challenge to the party in a positive way —be they McCain or Ron Paul—whoever the leftist forums want Republicans to elect or nominate is, with roughly a 99.99% certainly, exactly who the GOP should dump.
Blaming America for Al Qaida attacks is as bad or worse.
I remember him advocating (and voting for) crushing the Taliban gov't that allowed terrorist attacks to be planned and launched from Afghanistan.
Yes, but you left something out, didn't you? Or maybe, like so many of his supporters, you never even considered it.
Ron Paul has been saying for years that the authorization that allowed us to go into Iraq was unconstitutional, but in 2001 he voted for an authorization that had every single flaw he's cited as unconstitutional or was even worse. Heck, the 2001 authorization didn't even mention Al Qaida or Afghanistan, but he voted for it.
This guy's just a Beltway gameplayer. He calls other GOP members enemies of the Constitution because they voted for OIF, but when the chips were down he voted the same way to save his butt. If he had voted against the authorization, even his district wouldn't have tolerated it.
Ron Paul is a poser. When you RP supporters are mystified as to why he doesn't have more support on FR, that's your answer...we can smell the BS. He's just Newt Gingrich with libertarian flavor, another beltway insider who runs to the head of the movement to declare himself the only viable leader.
I think he knows that muzzies are like primitive, stupid and dangerous animals - the ones not bothering you, you leave alone.
Which is why he thinks it's no big deal if a "primitive, stupid and dangerous animal" like Ahmadinejad has a nuclear arsenal at his disposal. Yeah, he really understands radical Islam.
Agreed.
What do you mean?
100% correct.
If we look at just these votes, he is not pro life.
- Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
- Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
- Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
- Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
- Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
The only thing I have against Ron Paul being the 2012 nominee is his age, and I’ll accept that. Every other person mentioned who might be electable is worse — way worse, usually.
Paul is the *only* one I trust to seriously try to rein in out-of-control spending.
Palin isn’t ready to be president, and probably never will be.
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.