Posted on 02/22/2010 6:28:24 PM PST by presidio9
Over the weekend, Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll for president. Many pundits immediately dismissed the win, for a lot of reasons. (The Atlantic did a roundup of all the "he's irrelevant" comments.) My take on Ron Paul is this: He says a lot of off-the-wall stuff, but his bottom line is that he's a limited-government libertarian. And he's not Mitt Romney, the establishment GOP choice. I think that's why he won.
Joe Scarborough likes to say that if you look at where Ross Perot did well in 1992, those are the same places that tea party candidates are doing well. That may be, but I think there's some overlap between Ron Paul supporters and the tea partiers, at least some of the younger ones. Ross Perot has a website, PerotCharts, that illustrates the government's fiscal responsibility; but Ron Paul supporters have an interactive site for those who want to meet up at campaign rallies (with over 100,000 people either already members or interested), and according to the timeline posted, it looks like many of them have joined in the last two years.
I came across a bit of a tea party manifesto, if you want to call it that, in Politics Daily on Sunday: "A Grassroots View of the Tea Party," written by Roy Nix, a golf pro in Florida. Here's how he describes the average tea partier:
"They don't dream of power, and they don't dream of telling their neighbors how to worship, how to spend their money, what kind of car to buy, what kind of food to eat and how to save the environment. They expect their neighbors to decide all of those things for their own families.
"They don't want big government, they don't want socialistic policies and they don't want to spend more money for things they don't need. They don't see Washington as Robin Hood, robbing the rich to help the poor, but as the Sheriff of Nottingham--taking their tax money and giving it to big business while we starve.
"They don't want to have to march in the streets, and they don't want to be 'activists' in politics because they have lives to live.
"They don't hate immigrants, but they don't like lawbreakers who come here illegally. They don't mind helping people, but they are out of money and want to help those closest to home first until their bills are paid off ...
"These lawmakers have forgotten what 'representative' means, and they end up in Washington doing what their party tells them to do, rather than what their constituents tell them to do ... And that's what's motivating so many who've joined the Tea Party movement."
Nix hits the nail on the head, in terms of the anti-Nanny State, limited government message of the tea partiers, and how all incumbents, not just Democrats, are at risk: "The Tea Party is sending a genuine grass-roots message to both Democrats and Republicans. And they'd better listen up and learn fast," he concludes. A New York Times/CBS poll from earlier this month supports this: Only 8 percent of respondents think that most incumbent members of Congress deserve to be re-elected; a whopping 81 percent said it's time to "give new people a chance." That's putting it nicely--I think if the election were held today, it would be a tidal wave against incumbents.
I don’t know where Chris lives. Where I live there are more than a few brinwashed leftists and wierd Ron paul supporters.
When it comes to the leftists, they live in a parrallel universe. Most of them are incapable of discussing issues, so they tend to simply insult anyone who doesn’t buy the party line.
“Maybe not in on the actual planning”
Exactly my point ... the rest of your (anti-Muslim) statement is not relevent to the point, which is that its highly contradictory to blame “Islam” while leaving actual Al Qaeda perps off the hook and opposing (as Ron Paul did) attempts to go after said perps by taking out the AQ-supporting/harboring Afghanistan Taliban.
“The Tea party movement is made up, in good part, by Ron Paul supporters”
... and a good part grassroots conservatives ... and a good part Reagan Republicans ... and a good part people who just ‘woke up’ to politics ... and a good part disgruntled independent conservatives (fiscal and social) ... and a good part libertarians.
They (... WE ... )are an assorted collection who are all patriots who care about liberty and the future of our country. They / We dont agree on all things, but ...
Thank god they (... WE ... ) ALL are fighting to secure our liberty.
"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."
-Ronald Reagan, 1975
“I am not a libertarian, because I recognize that culture is intertwined with the understanding of our rights, so we cannot be “culture-neutral.” I am, however, a small government conservative. I’m afraid that small government conservatives have been about as rare as libertarians over the past couple of decades, though. Hopefully, the tea party movement changes that. “
Honestly, small-government conservatives are more common than ‘libertarians’. You are not as rare as you think you are. A society can be free only so long as its people are moral, and it can be moral only in a system of freedom.
A libertarian view is ‘principled’ but self-defeating when it undermines the moral basis for the free society.
“most political experts point to Paul’s campaign as the genesis for the idea.”
They are wrong. Rick Santelli on CNBC made the proposal in Feb 2009 and it became a Chicago event in late February.
Then it spread to a nationwide series of events on April 15th 2009. Chicago activist Eric Odom and a number of activists around the country were instrumental in making it happen. But the REAL juice for the Tea Party success was millions of patriots deciding to stand up and be counted.
Ron Paul was not at any of these events.
The media wants to pin the Tea Parties to Ron Paul as a way of marginalizing both, just as they have spent the last 12 months smearing, defaming and otherwise mis-reporting on the Tea Party phenomenon.
Exactly. They show up in packs everywhere to infiltrate any conservative gathering or organization. Their entire MO is built around "spammy" behavior. They all pretty much have the same talking points and they accuse everyone who does not support Ron Paul of being "neocons" and "statists.." They'll fling names like McCain and Romney at us, implying that if we don't worship Paul, we must support RINOS like those.
These next two general elections (this fall and 2012) are very critical for our country and the only thing the Paul Cult contributes is chaos and dissension. Look how many recent Paul-kook sign ups there are on FR alone.
These people are not on the side of conservatism. These people are all about getting Libertarians who support the Head Nutbag into as many high-profile political offices they can. They run on the Republican ticket because they know there's no way people are going to vote for the (L) ticket.
They had quite a few people going with Debra Medina. She certainly sounded impressive at first, but a closer look revealed the strong Ron Paul ties and then she went and outed herself more than once on some radio interviews.
She was a good example as why we have to look at every new candidate who seemingly appears out of nowhere and sounds like a good conservative at first. The Paulbots have learned a lesson with Medina; they will be more careful with their candidates in the future.
Let's keep a close eye on them so that we are getting good conservatives elected, not a bunch of Paulbot truther moonbats. I'm sure we all welcome the prospect of new, conservative leaders.
But we must make sure that is what they are. The Paulbots will continue trying to plant their own people in these campaigns.
The truth is anti-muslim? Maybe in your world not in the real one where I live.
Nailed it!
“They arrive at the same point and vote the same”
Who’s ‘they’ here? My point was about the fallacy of the ‘pro-choice’ = ‘liberty’ position. Being pro-choice is a denial of the rights of the unborn. “libertarians slavers when their whole existence is the antithesis of slavery” - not when it comes to denying the right to life of unborn humans, is my point.
“I choose logic and reason over feelings every time.” Then use it. I was not rejecting libertarianism, I was rejecting the flawed viewpoint that supports legal abortion-on-demand. Prolife libertarianism is more consistently in favor of people’s rights.
I would be much happier if libertarians would unite with conservatives and ‘vote the same’. That would be great.
“Ron Paul has not announced a decision to run.”
He organized a straw vote of college kids in DC and he is already organizing a straw vote for the 2011 Iowa Caucus. He’s running, he always runs lol...and he always loses...BIG.
So, relax you’ll have your liberal loon to vote for. He’ll probably run as an independent to help out Obama. If Obama wasn’t so “tough” on terrorists he’d likely endorse him lol.
Ron Paul is the closest candidate the Republican Party has to Ronald Reagan. For ample evidence, see “REAGAN, IN HIS OWN HAND, THE WRITINGS OF RONALD REAGAN...” which is available at Amazon.
We understand that for some reason you hate the libertarian wing of the Republican party. But you’ve shown yourself unwilling to provide even the most basic research to support your contentions. Given that, there’s no reason to take you seriously.
I have listed plenty of reasons on this thread alone. Further I do not have to justify my opinion to you. You certainly have not offered anything to change my mind about the old goof.
Rather than FR check Storm Front if you are looking for kindred spirits. They pop up on most searches I have done on Ron Paul. On your visits there you will apparently find plenty of pro libertarian and Ron Paul info. I would provide links but that is against FR policy.
Speaking of not being taken seriously none of you Paulbots have offered any reason I should rethink Paul or trutherism much less any honest ones.
Very telling and I agree with Jim Rob.
Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!" -- Jim Robinson, 09/30/07
You’ve falsely accused Ron Paul and me personally of being neo-nazis. So I declare victory by invoking Godwin’s law.
“(T)he first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
LOL!!!
The bit about Storm Front is true so Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply and you know it as I am sure you Googled it and were shocked.
You are just being a typical Paul/Medinabot and running away as the truth scares liberals and truthers alike.
Well stated, Allegra!
Ron Paul’s ‘tea parties’ are not ours.
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.
Perhaps I am giving the attendees to much credit.
Oh my gosh.. he has... invoked.. run for the hills...
Actually, you do know that Godwin's law doesn't state that whomever breaks it 'loses the debate'. Godwin's law simply states that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. You probably are actually referring to "Quirk's Exception". I should remind you that Reason magazine a few years ago pointed out that the invoking of Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule valid comparisons.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)
“During the primary campaigns, The New York Times mistakenly claimed that Stormfront had donated US$500 to Republican Party candidate Ron Paul...”
Do you regularly believe the New York Times over other Republicans? If so, what other beliefs do you share with the New York Times?
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.