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.
Pointing out that US interference into other nation's affairs can motivate them to strike at the US is not the same as blaming us for the attack, it's just stating fact.
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...
He doesn't have a lot of support here because most freepers are big-gov't republicans - you know, people who think massive, all-intrusive fedgov is good as long as the guys running things have an (R) next to their names.
A lot of y'all know that if you admit that Iraq & the endless occupation of Afghanistan were mistakes, then you admit that hundreds of thousands of unecessary deaths and trillions of dollars in wasted capital is your fault.
Also, many (most? all?) of you neocon war-lovers are parasites, sucking up the tax-dollars of productive workers like me. The thought of a principled reformer like Ron Paul gaining power and cutting you off from the gov't cheese scares the crap out of you.
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.
Maybe he thinks that...
a. he doesn't have one.
b. if he gets one, and there's a credible threat that he'll use it, the Israelis will deal with the threat long before it threatens the US.
The world's full of potential threats, my FRiend. Cower under your bed in fear of them if you must, but otherwise just sit back & let the adults deal with those threats, if they ever become actual problems.
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.
“Pointing out that US interference into other nation’s affairs can motivate them to strike at the US is not the same as blaming us for the attack, it’s just stating fact.”
This is so true, it deserves being repeated. It’s amazing how many on the right can’t understand this.
Mitt Romney has a better chance at President than Ron Paul does.
Libertarians are not conservatives.
And Ron Paul is a surrender monkey!
“But wait! There is more! If Ron Paul were strong on defense, much of his support would evaporate overnight”
Then NONE of the GOP standard bearers you prefer are strong on defense. None of them have any interest in defending United States territory.
Maybe Palin does, but the rest don’t.
I see the term “conservative” bandied about on this forum by people who agree, fundamentally, with the Democrats on the purpose of government.
I think most of them understand it just fine - it's just an excuse to attack Dr. Paul. If GW Bush had said the same thing, they'd have no problem with it.
It's kind of like when they attack Dr. Paul with the earmark thing... he forwards on requests from his constituents to get some of their tax dollars back from DC, and he's viciously attacked for it. If he refused to pass on those requests, he'd be attacked for that too ("old, crazy Run Paul - the people in the district he's supposed to represent just want back a few cents on the dollar of the taxes they pay, and he refuses to help them get it").
...
Also, many (most? all?) of you neocon war-lovers are parasites, sucking up the tax-dollars of productive workers like me. The thought of a principled reformer like Ron Paul gaining power and cutting you off from the gov't cheese scares the crap out of you.
Ah...posting from an alternate reality, I see. Ooh, I'll bet the version of me over there is clean-shaven, since I wear a goatee. Pretty cool.
Yeah, we're all such a bunch of neocons and statists and we love people like McCain and Romney and we want HUGE government. We realize that Ron Paul is the only one in the world who isn't like that. < /sarc>
"Ron Raul peolple" {shudder!} have been around here for a long time now. We've heard all of the talking points and the tired old insults/accusations hurled at those of us who do not drink the Koolaid.
We want conservative leadership. Not weak, lily-livered, cult-driven, truther kooks running the show.
Hmmm...You make a good point.
He couldn't even run a newsletter.
I disagree with quite a bit of his voting record. Imho, the only thing to look at regarding any politician is their voting record.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
She makes a lot more sense than Ron Paul does. So does Jim DeMint, Mike Pence and Duncan Hunter to name a few.
Ron Paul is certainly not ready to be president....and never will be.
with someone else’s appendage.
“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.”
Losers do NOT set the agenda.
“Why does having a pro-Constitution & America First President bother you so much?”
After a long and stressful day when I am almost positive that I cannot sleep that night, I rest comfortably in the profound knowledge that Ron Paul will never be President of the United States of America.
The link is here....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22379112#22379112
20:15 is where they discuss Reagan.
The whole interview is most instructive, displaying a few decent ideas mixed with moments of insanity and lunacy.
“just sit back & let the adults deal with those threats, if they ever become actual problems”
The reason why we aren’t scared is because we are strong and handle threats.
Paul talks of the military industrial complex. He’d weaken our defense and withdrawl from the world.
Obama is stronger on terrorists than Paul. He is at least putting drones into Pakistan to go after Taliban and AQ.
Paul is to the left of Hussein Obama....lol...what a fruitcake Paul is.
Not scared of the non-threat of a nuclear-armed Iran? Then why have you neocons been crying about this for years? You're either scared, or you are using the Iranian boogyman as an excuse to start another criminal war.
You neocons handle threats? Let me get this straight... the potential threat of a nuclear-armed, muslim Iran is such an imminent danger that Iran must be stopped?
Well, if that's so, what about Pakistan? Nuclear-armed and overrun by nutty muzzies. How come you strong, threat-handling he-men have passed on a current threat in order to tackle a potential future threat?
I'll tell you why - you guys think Iran will be a pushover but Pakistan just might use those nukes to defend themselves if attacked.
That's the reason I'd never support a pre-emptive US strike against Iran - what with being threatened daily by the US & it's european puppets, the Iranians would be fools to not take every measure open to them to increase their ability to deter or withstand US attack.
Paul is to the left of Hussein Obama....lol...what a fruitcake Paul is.
Barak Hussein Osama appreciates your kind words and support, and your lies... 2006 ACU rating - Ron Paul 76, barry osama (your guy) 8
Paul votes against pretty much any Federal restriction of interstate transport. Doesn't change the fact that he has long advocated for overturning Roe v. Wade and passing State laws against abortion.
I might disagree, but I understand his vote (without approving it).
- Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004) - Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Same story here. Ron Paul votes against pretty much any Federal Crime law, unless it's one of the crimes specified in the Constitution as being a Federal prerogative: Treason, Piracy, and Counterfeiting.
I might disagree, but again: I understand his vote (without approving it).
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
This one is surprising, and disconcerting to me. I'd be curious as to which Bill they're referring -- mainly because it's so rare for Ron Paul to vote for Federal funding for, well, much of anything. Do you have more information on this vote?
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.