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.
Advocating means nothing without the vote to back it up, which is why I stated in an earlier post that I rely of how a politician votes, not on what he says.
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.
My apologies on this one. It appears to be a good thing:
Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures.
Wilson (WWI)
FDR (WWII)
LBJ (VIETNAM)
I wonder why?
Because they are weak and unprepared.
Peace through strength is the best policy.
Well, as far as his overall voting record, we do have this:
Look, I might disagree with the idea of leaving abortion up to the States as a "permanent solution", but overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the issue to the States would at least allow the 30-or-so Red States to pass laws against abortion.
Unless and until we CAN get a Federal amendment against abortion passed, or a SCOTUS ruling applying 14th Amendment protections to the unborn -- what if Ron Paul's advocacy of permitting the States to pass laws against abortion is the best we can get, for now?
Neo-cons lol.
Did the Paul Directive point toward Jews today or just anybody that is not a pacifist like Paul?
No threat from Iran hugh?
They have been the number one supporter and exporter of terros since 1979. They consist of a bunch of Theocrat mullah dictators.
You don’t allow a country as radical as that acquire nuclear weapons. It will eventually lead to war in the Mideast. That is a direct threat against our national security.
More direct is letting a terrorist country get nuclear materials which could be sold covertly to a terrorist to bring to the US. Especially a dirty bomb made out of nuclear material.
Yes, we should use Israel as a proxy or directly take out their ability to build and deliver nuclear weapons.
Our policy...is to deny the regime nuclear weapons. Whether it is enforced by Obama is another matter.
I’m not willing to accept that. For this and other reasons, I think we can do better than Ron Paul.
Well, that's fine. You've certainly got every right to oppose Ron Paul, for "this and other reasons".
I'm just talking about the argument for overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the issue to the States (I don't care if it's Ron Paul making this argument, or Congressman John Q. Public). IF we are unable at this time to pass a Federal Amendment or get a favorable SCOTUS ruling protecting the unborn under the 14th Amendment (and, I'm sorry, but I just don't think we presently have the votes for it in the Blue States or enough pro-life Justices), then at this time I would rather see abortion restricted or outlawed in the 30-or-so Red States, than no restrictions on abortion at all.
Abortion is murder. Either one believes that and what it implies, or one does not.
“I wonder why?”
We haven’t had too many conservative Presidents. Certainly not since Reagan - and he did fight and win a war - the Cold War.
Murder laws are determined at the State level.
I'd like to see abortion defined as Murder, and see every State treat abortion as Murder under the 14th Amendment. But if I could only get the 30-or-so Red States to do so tomorrow, I'd take that much -- for now.
If there was a big red button that said, "Roe v. Wade is overturned RIGHT NOW; the States may pass laws against abortion RIGHT NOW" -- and it doesn't have to be the "final say" on the issue -- would you press that big red button?
I would.
Yes, I would. But Ron Paul is an unacceptable candidate.
Okay. Then we would agree on taking what incremental gains we can on this issue; you just oppose one particular politician who happens to advocate said incremental gain.
Well, that's fine. Personally, I liked Bob Casey's opposition to abortion also, but I didn't agree with all of his socialist economics. Whereas I like Ron Paul's economics just fine; but if you oppose him for other reasons, that's entirely your prerogative.
I expect more of an elected official than what Ron Paul has done regarding abortion. I don’t have the feeling that you understand that. From his voting record, I do not see that he is fully committed to ending abortion.
If I, as a voter, were offered a choice that was incrementally better and would save the lives of the unborn, I would take it. I am not a member of Congress. Ron Paul is. Think of his perspective regarding term limits. He has voted for term limits, but remains in office. Imho, he’s a phony.
“I expect more of an elected official than what Ron Paul has done regarding abortion. I don’t have the feeling that you understand that.”
What do you expect a single Congressman to do, when even his own party is lukewarm on abortion?
But, if our opinions differ, that's fine. I was mainly interested in knowing whether you took an "all-or-nothing, right now or never" kinda attitude on abortion, or if you were willing to support incremental gains on the issue (whether or not you support or oppose any one particular politician). Thanks for that discussion.
He might have voted “Yes” on the following:
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 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)
Thank you.
Ron Paul Acolyte Glossary:
Neo-Con: Anybody who does not worship Ron Paul.
Statist: Anybody who does not worship Ron Paul.
Paul-Hater: Anybody who does not worship Ron Paul.
RINO: Any GOP candidate who is not Ron Paul.
Small-government conservative: This only applies to Ron Paul or Ron Paul disciples such as Debra Medina or Rand Paul. Nobody else is allowed to claim this.
Big-government supporter: Anybody who does not worship Ron Paul.
People who understand and support the Constitution: This only applies to Ron Paul or Ron Paul disciples such as Debra Medina or Rand Paul. Nobody else is allowed to claim this.
Feel free to add any that might not be noted here.
Heck, even Rand isn’t ‘Ron Paul’ enough for his real over the top cultists.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=231917
“He might have voted “Yes” on the following:”
There are reasons beyond being an abortion supporter to vote that way.
At least the last three should not be federal crimes, as they federal government has no Constitutional power there.
Just like murder is a state crime.
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.