Posted on 02/21/2010 6:01:04 AM PST by bayliving
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) ran away with the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference Saturday, with 31 percent of the vote. Paul's libertarian conservative message has made him a hero to small- government Republicans for years, but this is the first CPAC straw poll he has ever won.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicsdaily.com ...
(Shrugs). From what I can tell, Free Republic is pretty much Sarah Palin Country. Which is fine by me; I've liked her since long before McCain ever chose her for Veep. Watched her performance in the Alaska gubernatorial debates long before most people had ever heard of her. (What can I say; I have a soft spot for Alaska. Worked on a salmon-fishing boat and a dungeness-crabbing boat there, years ago; the wife and I did our honeymoon in Alaska. I love the place.)
And Rand Paul is Sarah Palin's golden boy.
So, here's how I think it will shake out: As goes Sarah Palin, so goes Free Republic. You betcha!
I think so. I don't like the kind of Interventionism we saw from the Bush dynasty one little bit; but I do want to know that if the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor, I can at least count on our President to actually shoot back.
And, yeah, I do get a stronger sense of that from Rand Paul, than I do from Ron. Much as I might otherwise love Ron Paul on all things domestic policy.
Gotta get to church. Thanks for the discussion.
I respectfully disagree. We’ve never had free trade because the gov’t has always stuck it’s hand in trying to help one business or another. Recall FDR’s bunch destroying food to try and keep the prices high to help the farm lobby. Eventually, command economies always come up short, but a free economy can ride any trend imposed by command economies.
Lets take the car business. Japan has subsidized it’s auto industry for a long time, but it took a long time for it to become competitive with the U.S. car makers. How did we react? We ignored the Japanese “threat” and kept politicos in there who favored unions, environmental lobbies, etc. By the time Detroit reacted, it was too late.
How about the Steel Industry? We subsidized the building up of the Chinese Steel Industry with below-market-interest loans through the Import/Export Bank. This was to make them friendly to us, but also to aid in getting cheap steel for the auto industry.
And finally, the Soviet Union. Gov’t intervention managed to get us into the position of making too much wheat here in the U.S. To get rid of some of it, to make the Ruskies like us, and to help the farm lobby, we sold the Ruskies approximately 30% of the wheat they needed to survive. They didn’t have the money, so we took it from taxpayers (somehow the gov’t calls this a sale), but then the gov’t tacked on administrative fees here and the Ruskies stuck even more admin fees on till the bureaucrats were fat and happy, the U.S. citizen was stuck with the bill and the Ruskies lived to threaten another day. The Soviet Union wouldn’t have lasted 20 years without our subsidies and the U.S. taxpayer paid for this and all the defense to keep them at bay and now we wonder why we’re broke.
I am awake, and the communists aren’t all overseas. The scariest ones are right down there on the Potomac...
>Yeah you are right. Ron Pauls are on par with the Founding Fathers while yours (and good many Republicans) is on par with liberal President Woodrow Wilson.
People love to make all sorts of claims not overly based on reality. When you say Founding Fathers, you might be prudent picking which one in particular since they (gasp) actually had differences of opinion. Hamilton, for example, was big on central banks. Is Paul more of a founding father than Hamilton?
How about we consider James Monroe? You know the Monroe Doctrine? He was a bigwig in the ratification of the constitution in Va. The Monroe Doctrine was in no way isolationist (and was also fairly delusional given the scarce power the country had at the time).
Then we have Jefferson. Do you consider the Louisianna purchase something Paul would have done? I doubt it since it spent a lot of federal money and expanded the borders a great deal. Heck, it also involved us in European politics to a degree.
John Adams was unquestionably a founder, but what about those Alien and Sedition Acts?
You might want to try learning a bit of actual history before you spout off about your savior.
As for claiming my views have anything in common with Wilson is nonsense. He was a progressive of the worst stripe.
>Yes Ron Paul is a real Radical just like the Founding Fathers.
I don’t know that he’s a radical. He’s just manifestly unrealistic. In the real world, where the sky is blue, you can’t sweep the fact that people outside the U.S. dislike us under the rug and forget about it.
Given that there are plenty of people out there who have a great desire to kill Americans which is not based on any rational cause, all you do by pulling within your borders is make their attacks have to hit us at home.
>He believes in Borders, language and Culture.
I find it very amusing that if you are claiming that Paul is all about individual freedom you also claim he wishes to push a single language and culture. You know, plenty of people would call such things mutually exclusive. While assimilation is probably a good idea, any government push for it is not exactly limited government.
Though again, I’ll simply say most of what Paul preaches domestically may sound well and nice but he wouldn’t be able implement a whit of it as president since the majority of what he talks about is in the Congressional purview. You know, we have this document called the Constitution which enumerates powers, and in case you are too unfamiliar with it, the president’s powers are generally more related to the foreign policy sphere.
Please don't lecture me on what you know. I'm not impressed at all. Moreover, you have made me not want to listen to a word you have to say. You have a debate skills of a sophomore in high school. Do me a favor and don't ever reply to me again. You are a WASTE of my time.
If Dr. Paul refuses to protect the natural rights of American citizens from foreign external threats, he is committing political malpractice, and will never get my vote.
So the FReeper straw poll is two for Gecko, one for the Caveman, and none for Rue Paul.
I doubt you'll need to worry about it. There's very little about Ron Paul's policies with which I disagree (I do think he's softer than I might personally prefer on some facets of national security, but I don't think he's nearly as bad as many of his detractors claim); but that doesn't really matter, because I think he's too old for another Presidential run. He and Carol really deserve some time to take it easy, stay off the national stage and just tend to their district. (IMHO).
Mind you, I think (and hope) that he'll still be a great (Constitutionalist, if admittedly quirky) Congressman for years and years to come. But President? No, I think he's just too old to run an effective campaign anymore.
Assuming Rand Paul wins in Kentucky, I expect he'll become the new torchbearer for the Paul faction. And, since Rand seems to be at least a couple of degrees stronger on national security than his dad Ron, I expect that many 'round here will have an easier job supporting him in the US Senate. (But Rand Paul for President? I can hope, but it's probably not likely in the near term. 2012 is shaping up to be Palin's turn, at least if she can prove herself in the Primary vetting process the way every candidate has to do).
You’re absolutely right, I’m just namecalling. I’ll admit it.
Can you imagine how the media would spin this, if she was attached to the extremists who surfaced at this?
Chalk one up for the Palin camp!
>LMAO! Wow I feel like I am back in high school! Hey Genius! When did anyone EVER SAY all the founding fathers agreed on EVERYTHING 100%? When I or anyone makes that statement smart guy. It means what the founding fathers agreed to by vote. You are a freaking genius! I guess that one just went over your head!
You made a general statement that Paul’s views were those of the Founding Fathers. If the Founding Fathers didn’t have only a single viewpoint, then how could the single viewpoint of Paul’s be aligned with theirs? This is rudimentary logic, but even that may be too much for you.
Even what the Founding Fathers ended up going with after votes doesn’t align with what Paul is selling. I gave examples, but you’re too busy in your dreamworld to bother regocnizing facts.
>Please don’t lecture me on what you know. I’m not impressed at all. Moreover, you have made me not want to listen to a word you have to say. You have a debate skills of a sophomore in high school. Do me a favor and don’t ever reply to me again. You are a WASTE of my time.
Better I lecture you on what I know than you continue to blather on what you don’t know.
WTF is happening to CPAC? They’re getting increasingly loony, as if someone has spiked their lemonade.
What happened to CPAC this year to cause them to go off the rails? Something had to have happened.
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.