Posted on 07/29/2007 6:22:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Yesterday I looked at the Ron Paul phenomenon as an expression of the anti-big government sentiments among some people in each of the major parties. Such voters have limited options among the other candidates this year. While the Paul supporters commenting vigorously disagreed, I also expressed the belief that Paul cannot win the Republican nomination. What if I am right? What will his supporters do?
It is hard to see Paul supporters being loyal Republicans and backing their party’s winner–which should be a matter of concern for the Republicans. If I was a GOP leader I’d be questioning Paul’s loyalty to the party and pressing him for a pledge to support the nominee and encourage his supporters to do the same should he lose. Of course it is questionable as to how many votes he could deliver to the authoritarian war mongers who dominate the Republican field should he be willing to do so.
I don’t even know that Paul would agree to support another Republican candidate. Would Paul jump ship and run as a Libertarian again? If not, will the Libertarian Party candidate benefit from what Paul has done? That will depend partially upon the candidate, but the LP will have the problem that many people are reluctant to vote for a third party which has no real chance of winning.
If they are reluctant to support a minor party, will many Paul supporters back the Democratic winner as the best shot of having an anti-war candidate win? That will depend a lot on the nominee. Richardson already has some libertarian support but remains a real long shot. Edwards will have a real tough time attracting any libertarian support, between his previous support for he war and Patriot Act when in the Senate to his current populist economic policies. Clinton will also have problems here, but I could see Obama managing to find a way to bridge liberal ideas with libertarian ideals as he has shown he is willing to avoid pandering to traditional Democratic special interests.
While I don’t think Ron Paul has any real chance of winning the Republican nomination, his candidacy is doing far better than might have been expected initially, and he very well may have a lasting impact on the race. Between the out right libertarians, as well as the more traditional conservatives who are becoming increasingly outraged by the current Republican leadership, there will be a number of Republicans looking for an alternative. Whether the Democrats can become a majority party will depend partially on whether they can attract a portion of these voters. To do so will mean not only opposing the war but showing they recognize that the 2000’s are not the 1930’s and their old New Deal coalition is long gone.
See Estonia. Not exactly a first world utopia, but they have seriously embraced free market principals and are reaping major benefits.
As a Congressman, he’s merely doing his job by forwarding these requests to the Appropriations Committee. He never fights for them, and always votes against them on the House floor.
He doesn't support the Truthers, toots.
it is the fact the supports the constitution! ~snicker~
Unlike the rest of the Pubbies in the field.
You know, the first step in getting better is to acknowledge the problem, dear.
Sounds like you're the one that's off the wagon, not me.
agreed, and I kind of like the ‘letter of marque’ idea too. :)
I know soccermom can defend herself but TOOTS! You are in for it now!!!!
aww thanks, I would love to! :)
Zon, you’re saying something that the FairTax organization needs to start hammering on. That aspect of international relations was barely mentioned in Neal’s book, but it got me thinking.
Boys who call women "toots" have small....problems.
Believe me....we know.
I have heard him speak as well. But I have the intelligence and sense to put his words into context, look beyond the superficiality of the sound-byte, and comprehend the broader meaning of what he's trying to say. When you hear him "blame America for 9/11,” I hear him say that misguided American policies set the stage for and indirectly led to 9/11. When you hear him suggest that we should "surrender to the terrorists," I hear him say that an invasion and occupation of Iraq is not an appropriate and sensible strategy with which to combat Islamic jihadism. When you hear him suggest that the government might stage an event designed to lead us into war with Iran, I hear an understanding of history, a healthy and refreshing suspicion of government, and a recognition that governments lie and thirst for power.
LOL... since you follow a loon like Ron Paul, you have no intelligence at least no political intelligence.
See Estonia.
Just looked over at infoplease.com and their numbers look good. A real growth rate at 7.4% with 4% inflation. Their unemployment is at 9% and their currency is gaining steadily on the dollar for ten years. It's estimated to have 100% literacy. That seems odd with 9% unemployment.
Not exactly a first world utopia, but they have seriously embraced free market principals and are reaping major benefits.
Twenty-five percent of their roads are paved. They have twice as many cell-phone "lines" as land-phone lines.
They have an income tax and a VAT. Get this: JANUARY 2007 Income Tax
From 1.1.2007 -- the new flat income tax rate for companies and individuals is 22%(2006 rate-23%). The flat rate would be further reduced to 21% in 2008 and 20% from 2009.
They're headed in the right direction regarding income tax.
Can't speak for anyone else here, but...Ron Paul issues aside, that's way more information than i wanted.
A not so delightful unintended consequence is many countries will likely have tantrums over United States switching to the FairTax. That reminds me of a few years back the feds said no to France trying to persuade the feds to spy and report on French citizens incomes derived in the US.
He voted against petitioning the UN, I think.
And what’s the deal with “he does not hate all Jews”? you mean he hates some? Why does he hate anyone?
I was referring to your use of "anti-semetic," which imples he hates a Jews as a people or thinks they are somehow less human than the rest of us, etc. I have no reason to feel he believes this. Again, I am open to proof but not windy accusation. Him what accuses must provide the evidence, not the hearsay.
I do not believe that Jews and Muslim comes to the ethics table as moral equivalents, but as nations they may have equal rights to exist (until they threaten the USA or the freedom of its people).
H.RES.921
Title: Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, and for other purposes
Spring of 2006 - Paul voted NO
doesn’t prove anti-semitism, does it?
Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX]: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time in opposition to this resolution because I very sincerely believe that resolutions of this sort actually do more harm than good. I know that it is very good to condemn the violence, and I certainly do agree with that.
But I am convinced that when we get involved and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, that it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately it comes back to haunt us.
Generally speaking, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called noninterventionism. It is not generally acceptable in this current time that we do this, but I think there is every reason to consider it. It certainly was something that the founders talked about.
The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world. And for this reason, we should talk about it. And that is why I take this opportunity to do so, with the sincere belief that we would be better off with less intervention overseas.
The founders talked about that, about rejecting entangling alliances. And we have been involved in a lot of entangling alliances since World War I, especially after World War II, and we have been doing a lot of things, losing a lot of men and women and costing a lot of money; and too often, these events have come back to haunt us. There is blow-back from our policy.
The policy of interventionism, which I object to, really doesn’t work. It is well intended, and we have these grandiose plans and schemes to solve the problems of the world, but if you are really honest with yourself and you look at the success and failure, it doesn’t have a good record. I mean, are you going to defend the great victory in Korea, the great victory in Vietnam? And on and on. The great victory in Iraq?
And I see resolutions like this step in the wrong direction. Actually, I believe it is going to expand the war in the Middle East.
The other reason why I strongly object to interventionism is it costs a lot of money. And someday we will have to deal with that. Supplemental bills come up now to the tune of tens of billions, and next year, already, they are planning to come up with another $100 billion for our intervention overseas. But it is off the regular budgetary process, so it doesn’t meet the budgetary restraints that we are supposed to follow. So it becomes emergency funding, although we have been in Iraq for 3 years, and with plans to stay endlessly. We are building permanent bases in Iraq. So there is a lot of cost, and eventually that will come home to haunt us, and it already has.
And then there is the problem of unintended consequences. We went into Iraq for all kinds of reasons, some disproven, and all well intended, and who knows what the real motivations were. But one thing was that we would gain access to oil, and oil would be produced and would help pay the bills. Yet oil, when we went into Iraq was $28 a barrel. Now it is $75 a barrel. That is an unintended consequence.
We have done more to fall into the trap of what Osama bin Laden wanted in Iraq than anything else. And actually we have helped Iran. Iran is stronger. They have probably already more influence with the grass roots, the democratic process in Iraq, than we do. Those are the kind of unintended consequences that, on principle, I strongly object to.
I believe that the founders were correct in advocating avoiding entangling alliances, to have a strong national defense, to defend this country, I believe that is just plain common sense. Most Americans, if you just flat-out put it to them, think we should not be the policemen of the world. Do you think we should be involved in the internal affairs of other nations? People say no. We shouldn’t do this. The Constitution doesn’t give us the authority to do it.
And we now are in the business of maintaining an empire. A noninterventionist foreign policy concedes up front that is not our goal. We are not supposed to be going overseas and building permanent bases and staying there endlessly. Even the election campaign of 2000 was won partially on the foreign policy issue that, you know, it was said that we shouldn’t be the policemen of the world and we shouldn’t be in nation building.
I think those are good ideas and the American people agree. They didn’t object to it. But each step along the way we dig a deeper hole for ourselves. And that is the general philosophic reasons why I believe nonintervention is beneficial. Intervention is very, very dangerous. Later there will be a lot of specifics that I would like to mention.
You’re sure? Then why does he do it? Is it a charade?
Exactly. We all need someone to laugh at, and he and his oh-sooo earnest supporters are perfect. It’d be cruel if not for the fact that they force themselves on you, like a stange new cult. A good chuckle is a fine coping skill.
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.