Posted on 05/30/2007 4:44:20 AM PDT by BGHater
As some readers of this column may know, the first "real" job I ever had was working for Rep. Ron Paul back in 1976. I went to visit the Texas Republican a few months ago and was pleased to see he had not changed much at all since the days when I was a legislative assistant on his congressional staff.
At that time, I did not know Ron planned a run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. When I later learned of it, I thought he was being hopelessly Quixotic -- tilting at windmills. I thought Ron's views about limited constitutional government and nonintervention in the affairs of others nations were hopelessly out of step with the vast bulk of Republican primary voters.
On the war, these voters remain solidly in the George W. Bush camp -- willing to defend the war in Iraq to the bitter end and highly intolerant of anyone who raises doubts about its wisdom or continuation. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani exemplified this attitude in the debate two weeks ago when he demanded that Ron apologize for his antiwar position.
However, significant cracks have developed in the wall of conservative support Mr. Bush enjoyed at the beginning of the war. Today, much is known about the lack of verifiable evidence of Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), about how the White House bullied those urging caution into reluctant support, and thoroughly screwed-up the Iraq occupation. Even Arizona Sen. John McCain, still a strenuous war supporter, has become outspoken on Bush's poor management of it.
Consequently, more than a few conservatives have gone over to the antiwar side. Unfortunately for Ron, they are mostly former Republicans today, unlikely to vote in a Republican primary.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
You just keep on with your highly active fantasy life then. It seems to be all you've got left...
Is Ron Paul still in the race?
I haven’t looked at this thread for a week.
The media is ignoring him as expected.
But anything the media ignores is probably something a billionaire like Ted Turner, Richard Mellon Scaith or Rupert Murdoch does NOT want us to see.
I noticed that a Ron Paul “supporter” kept arguing above that it was wrong to give Iraqis a chance (the Shiites and Kurds at least - the Sunnis cheered on 9-11 and they’ve been getting payback ever since).
But much of the conservative interest in Ron Paul has been in spite of his stance on the war on terror, not because of it.
They don’t necessarily want Ron Paul to be a spoiler in the general election, but they do want him to be a power broker in the primaries if he can stop spewing anti-war nonsense and stick to his correct policy against lawmakers making so many new laws to fence us in.
Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo are the only candidates willing to vote against feminist laws that too many Republican women go along with the Democrats on.
Keep in mind that, on the subject of anti-feminism, Republican male voters are NOT going to lie down. For us, a Republican candidate who is afraid to even mention the word “feminism” is almost no better than her Heinous.
That said, Ron Paul has not been talking about his anti-feminism recently. So I see no reason to vote for him or care much if he becomes a power broker.
Keep in mind, BlackElk, that half the Republican Party is relatively anti-Socon, regardless of whether they consider themselves Libertarian or libertarian or even know what that means. They know the history of “Victorianism” where males agreed with Queen Victoria about regulating male behavior. Today’s Queen Victoria is the National Organization for Women and its various Republican offshoots (women’s organizations that pretend to be anti-feminist by saying they are pro-life and anti-lesbian).
Combatting abortionism and lesbianism might be a start, but is NOT combatting the greater scourge of gender feminism. To combat feminism, one has to make sure that the Bipartisan Women’s Caucus doesn’t get laws passed that men would disagree with (such as the VAWA).
When socons and feminists agree on everything else on the feminist agenda besides abortion...the 50% of male Republicans who aren’t socon aren’t happy.
On this thread, I have seen no discussion at all about the book “The Elephant in the Room”.
But the fact that half of Republicans are not socon, really is the elephant in the room or the 800 pound gorilla.
We are all going to lose the next election badly if we do not come together on something other than the war and abortion, where we mostly all agree.
The socons can start “agreeing” with the non-socons by immediately reading Robert Bork’s book “Slouching Toward Gomorrah” and reading the chapter on the danger of feminism.
Then the Republican candidates need to start mentioning the word “feminism” in their speeches and outlining concrete ways in which they will keep feminism from spreading.
But the Republican Party has, for the past 2 years, adopted a policy where they are embarrassed to mention the word “feminism”...because they think that Republican women embrace that ideology and they want to keep this “the women’s vote.”
Actually, RP was DBA (Dead Before Announcement).
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
I meant to say that we mostly all agree here on the war and abortion. Where we may not agree is on the following:
Just because some of the support that most of us have for OIF comes from feminists who want Muslim chauvinists dead, it was NOT acceptable for anyone in the Bush Administration to accomodate these war supporters by cutting deals that would help feminists in the social arena (VAWA).
It should have been a deal-breaker for the Bush Administration to work with feminists at all.
Regarding abortion, there are many Catholic countries that have a deal on this issue that keeps it out of politics:
1) it is officiall illegal but not punished if
2) there is a 72 hour waiting period
3) and the woman was counseled by the church or pro-life organization
4) health insurance does not cover it and the state has nothing to do with it
5) the abortion must be within the 1st trimester unless it is necessary to save the mother’s life, in which case the father can decide if the mother is unconscious
The Republican Party in the USA could clean up if they offered the above conditions and the Democrats refused to negotiate.
But they won’t.
They came in illegally in 1984 (that is 23 YEARS ago, clyde. Osama bin Laden was still listening to rock and roll music back then!), and NO ONE knows what port of entry they sneaked through. It could have just as well been over the bridge at Niagra as through Brownsville. God you people get boring and stupid sometimes.
Wow. I am shocked that you haven’t been zotted Polycarp because FReepers are normally extremely sensitive.
You are probably allowed to keep posting because JimRob thinks it is entertaining to see Ron Paul supporters where it is threatening to see Rudi supporters.
Since you are so hot on Ron Paul, why don’t you go back to the candidate and ask why he is afraid to talk about feminism?
He does have the best feminist-fighting record in Congress, which isn’t saying much.
So why is he talking about the war?
Does he really think he will get the important military vote with talk about how they put their lives on their line for nothing?
I can tell you that the military vote will go for the candidate who speaks out against the feminist takeover of both political parties.
The war is a fait accompli. It happened. We didn’t start it. Please get over it.
It doesn’t matter that it was Reagan who built up radical Islam as one of his 5 bulwarks against Soviet communism.
Let me make something clear:
1) The military vote will not go to an anti-war candidate
2) The military vote does not hang on the abortion issue
3) The military vote hates feminists with a passion
4) The military vote is split on porn but mostly for it
5) Ex-Military wants their VA benefits to be expanded
Now ask yourself: what candidate is even trying to get the military vote?
Answer: None so far.
The proof will be the world class rejection that paleoPaulie is sure to receive in the primaries if thge paleofool is around that long. Pat Buchanan is a far smarter politician than the paleowonderwimp but he does not run for office any more, having learned what embracing the paleo foreign policy insanity can do to destroy an otherwise fine fellow like Pat. Furthermore, sticking one’s paleonoggin in the san like an ostrich accomplished nothing but a sod-ridden scalp.
So you say but you are a political love slave of paleoPaulie. and therefore no one takes you seriously.
Simple. Feminism is not a political issue, but a cultural one, if one believes the constitution is more than "just a god damned piece of paper." A president who comes out and proposes federal "opposition" to "feminism" is just setting the stage for the next lib who will simply reverse the legislation and we will have defacto legislated a cultural set of values. THIS IS NOT THE JOB OF THE FED, according to that quaint old document called the "constitution."
It is not the job of our legislators to "fight feminism." It is their job to legislate within the bounds of the constitution. Why is is so difficult for you people to get that through your skulls?
I think feminism is a silly brainless and dangerous movement as well. However, it is not the fed's job to combat PHILOSOPHIES, whether it be radical Islamism or feminism.
Only the most stupid ones. It didn't used to be that way. Things were much more civil and people could discuss, argue and intensely disagree without all the fire works. I have watched this board for some years. A new crowd of people have drifted in, who really don't know what conservatism is. They get mightily offended if you demonstrate they are liars or imbeciles (or both) and go running to the mods. There is nothing worse than a dunderheaded fascist who thinks s/he is a great patriot and defender of "the cause" when you tell him he is destroying the republic in the name of saving it. The heat from the righteous indignation can be felt a block away. I mostly laugh at them. I do miss the days when conservatives believed in liberty.
Umnnnhhhhh...
An illegal is an illegal is an illegal. I don’t give a rip HOW long they’ve been in the country.
Newspaper reports at the time of the arrests stated Brownsville. They could have been wrong.
Don’t like concerns about security? Your children will thank you.
It is not that. I just don't like dishonest attempts to pull a terrorist plot into the present border mess we have. As for where it was, be it Brownsville, Niagra, or the Florida Keys, WHERE is not that important, unless you have a southern border agenda.
Actually, the biggest collection of islamist radicals are on our NORTHERN border, which has even less security than Mexico. With all the caterwauling about security, one would think that the focus would be THERE, wouldn't you? Unless, of course, your "security" concerns were just another front for something else (actually, an "any excuse will do" agenda).
You may have noticed that the thread has focused on the Southern border, when the immigration issue has arisen. That happens to be the reason I mentioned the NJ6’s point of origin.
But your point regarding the northern border (and, for that matter, POE’s NE and West) is valid. However, nobody, to our knowledge, has walked over the border between North Dakota and Canada with intent.
Be that as it may, I have no problem whatsoever with securing the northern border just as tightly as the southern one.
Make you happy? Or are you another of those wet-panted “no-borders” types?
[It is not the job of our legislators to “fight feminism.”]
This is where you are being incredibly naive or willfully ignorant of what is going on.
Of course it is the job of our legislators to fight all proposed feminist legislation.
Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo both voted no to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 2005 while the rest of the entire Congress voted yes (the 2 were joined by two Dems voting no in Congress but not the Senate).
If you go to www.mediaradar.org, you will see that this anti-male law was passed by the socalled “Bipartisan Women’s Caucus” and the worthless shrinking violets that pass these days for white male Republican politicians mostly rolled over and voted yes.
Your problem, Polycarp, is that you are stuck on the war.
And that is where the DU and KosKidz are stuck.
Complaining about the war is a waste of time on FR because the military vote, especially, does not agree that OIF was not necessary...and most do not agree that it has not been necessary to “drain the swamp” over the past few years where the kill ratios have been in the west’s favor and no new terrorists are being created that wouldn’t have been recruited if Saddam were still in power (remember that the Saudis issued Bush an ultimatum before the Iraq War saying “if you do not remove Saddam, we will join him”).
We’ve created a killing field where most of the deaths are the type of guy who would otherwise drive a nuke into Washington on a speedboat five years from now.
The Europeans aren’t talking about the war now. Just the American left wingers and the type of Ron Paul supporter that Ron Paul does not need to be taken seriously for his other views.
America had no choice but to invade Iraq when it did. The Marines had no choice but to overrun Salmon Pak (sic) when they did.
The Libertarian Party made the same mistake as you in 2006 when they concentrated on the war and gay rights, not distinguishing themselves from the far left in the process.
What about heterosexual rights?
Why is the Christian website EHarmony now being attacked in the 9th Circuit because it won’t serve lesbians?
And, if you are a male, it is unacceptable to simply pretend that feminism is just a bad ideology that has no political power.
Have you read the minutes of the last session of the Bipartisan Women’s Caucus?
100% of US politicians, inluding Ron Paul these days, are terrified of mentioning the word “feminism” in public...showing how strong that ideology is within politics these days. Do you have any idea how many Republican Legislative Aides and Federal Court Clerks fully agree with the ideology even when their bosses do not?
Has it occured to you how that can hurt you personally? Ever been married?
The FR Mission Statement considers “fighting feminism” a priority.
But, sadly, that has not been happening much in the past year.
That, Polycarp, is where FR “didn’t used to be that way”.
If you think this forum has “dumbed down”, it is on this issue, not the war.
Consider concentrating on Ron Paul’s ability to stand up to feminists, at least with his votes, and maybe there will be a chance to make a difference in the primaries.
You clearly need to do a Google search on VAWA and feminism and look at why Paul and Tancredo tried in vain to stop some laws from being passed that make Sharia Law almost look like a better alternative.
Talk of the Iraq War will just drive Paul and his supporters into oblivion.
The Iraq War happened. Making it a political football now only serves to get the troops targeted more. The three captured troops that were killed were killed because the enemy figured it would score political points inside the USA.
You cannot win an argument here that the war should not have been fought.
I can write a book on why the war was necessary.
[Simple. Feminism is not a political issue]
What?!
This shows that the only thing you know about Ron Paul’s legislative history and attitude is the one about the war.
Which proves a point that too many Ron Paul supporters are chasing his vehicle only because they are trying to bite the shining metal wheels that say “no war for oil”.
They know little of his more realistic policies and the actual good he could do if he were the attorney general or anything that had no effect on foreign policy.
My contention is that a good, but eccentric, politician’s campaign has been hijacked by the anti-war crowd who are single-issue voters or capital L Libertarian types who like tilting at windmills in, for instance, an all-or-nothing drive to be part of the 1% of Americans who vote to eliminate the IRS and DHS and the Fed immediately.
If you support Ron Paul, then help get him on the right track by concentrating on policies that would attract the white male Republican vote and the Military Vote.
Please do some research on what, exactly, Ron Paul has to say about the politicization of feminism and the unstoppable stream of lawmaking that has long since begun and shows no sign of stopping.
It kills me to see the guy supported for the wrong reasons, when there are actually things about him that one should support, at least long enough for those good policies to be adopted by the actual Rep nominee.
Actually, before the New Jersey 6, the only publicly documented case of illegal immigrants being arrested here on terror conspiracy charges was a muzzie who came over from Canada. He was planning to blow up the space needle in Seattle.
I am happy you want to see both borders controlled, as I do. I am convinced that the greater threat lies to the north, where all the lunatics live. Of course, at this point, it is like asking if you prefer to be killed by a 20 megaton or a 40 megaton nuke by standing at ground zero. Both borders are an absolute mess.
Interesting set of “L” words you’ve got there. You know, “Liberty” is another word that shares the same root as your three. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?
*****************************************************************************************************************
Yes I have heard of it, and if we lose the WOT like Ron Paul wants it is something we will quickly do without.
This is where you are being incredibly naive or willfully ignorant of what is going on.
Actually, no. I don't think that it is the job of the fed to fight feminism. This does not mean that attempted legislation to codify feminism into federal law should not be resisted. Of course it should. Not because it is "feminism" but because that is not the job of the fed. Ron Paul hates feminism as much as I do, but that is NOT why he resists legislation, including what you mentioned. Ron Paul routinely votes no on ISSUES NOT DELEGATED TO THE CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION.
Your stuff about the war is simply incorrect. I don't support Ron Paul simply, or even primarily, because of the war. I was, in fact, in favor of going into Iraq and removing Sadam, without a dec of war, which Ron Paul opposed (he thought it a UN action). I could support Fred Thompson without reservation, whom I disagree with on the war. Ron Paul IS popular with a bunch of kids b/c of the war, but that ain't me.
I love the man, and have for 30 years, because HE IS A CONSTITUTIONALIST. He believes in the rolling back of federal usurpation of power, be defanging and defunding of the fed, preservation of rights and liberties of the individual, municipalities, states and finally the fed (in that order), the cessation of crooked bookkeeping by the gov't and the restraint on both spending and taxes by the fed, the abolition of the income tax, coinage of honest money, and so much more. The war is a central theme with alot of freepers and gets alot of splash here. It is really an afterthought for me, because I do not believe the threat of Islam (and it is a threat) is worth surrendering every freedom we have to "resist" it, only to find out we have defeated one form of fascism only to substitute another for it. I guess in THAT sense, the war matters, but only in that sense.
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.