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.
And? Any Republican could give money to Obama. That wouldn’t make the President a Republican.
Similarly Don Black’s contribution, which was refunded, says nothing about Ron Paul’s politics.
Actually, it wasn’t refunded. Paul said he welcomes anyone who wants Liberty.
My tagline says it all. I prefer Palin. But I’m tired of the mindless, kneejerk anti-libertarianism that fills FR every time Ron Paul’s name comes up.
I’m hoping Republicans will have a big enough tent to defeat Obama and the liberal Democrat congress in 2010 and 2012. That’s far more important than the Republican party’s ideological purity.
So far tho, I’m not very encouraged given what I’ve seen here, today on FR.
oops, forgot the link.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/11/06/ron-paul-wont-reject-any-donat
What can we say, a lot of us came from the William F Buckley camp that restored the Republican party to Conservative principles by purging the neo-confederates and birchers- which led to the Reagan Revolution.
Or, we appreciate Ayn Rand who called the Libertarian Party “hippies of the right to trade capitalism for anarchy”.
Correction: Those ideas (and the other more radical ones you forgot to mention) are just fine for libertarians, and libertarian conferences, and libertarian websites. Unfortunately, they frequently conflict with Conservative ideals. That's why Ron Paul had to run for president as a libartarian, and that's why they have no place on this website. I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that there is a difference. Libertarians have no popular support, so they constantly try to co-opt conservative values. I encourge libertarians to do their own thing. They know it's a waste of time to do so.
Thanks for providing the link. I note that only you and I have been willing to provide evidence in this discussion.
The link I found on this was that Ron Paul was “going to return” the donation. I guess he changed his mind.
Still, Stormfront thugs endorsed and supported George W. Bush in the 2004 election. I doubt that unwanted endorsement changed many Republican’s votes.
Two years is an eternity. If Ron Paul even runs, he will be out of consideration quickly. If Sarah Palin runs, she won’t do as well as people are expecting right now. Romney continues to make stupid choices. There’s a good chance that the front runner after New Hampshire will be non of those three.
That's an ignorant thing to say. We have repeatedly welcomed libertarians into the Repubublican Party. We reject libertarians from the the Conservative Party, because they are a less evolved type of monkey. Get your own website, and take your caucus with you.
Unless you and the rest of the libertarian children have the wherewithall to take on every terrorist in the world simultaneouly, everything you’re saying on the subject is blathering and excuse-making.
This is arguing for the sake of arguing. The only libertarianism relevant to this discussion is American libertarianism. Is British socialism the same as Cuban socialism?
I don't think it's mindless or knee-jerk on anyone's part here. I believe FReepers who are opposed to Ron Paul (and that includes our site's founder) have observed the facts and made a decision based on the overall picture.
I've said many times on here before that Paul has made some sense on economic issues and I applauded the speech he gave during the debates preceding the vote on the bailout in October of '08.
However, he wanders waaaay off the rationality scale on other issues, most notably foreign policy.
I agree that defeating Obama and the Marxists is our No. 1 priority. What's frustrating is that the Paul Cult is infiltrating organized approaches to true conservatism and their intent is not the same as ours. They are more interested in getting Libertarians into high-profile offices and they do our cause more harm than good.
Paul-spammers have been on FR for years, calling those of us who oppose him all kinds of names and accusing us of being moderates. They are divisive and I doubt they'd support Palin or DeMint or any of the others. They're all about Ron Paul and that's it.
What's your point? Barak Obama was good at meeting the people too.
Do you regularly believe the New York Times over other Republicans?
I trust my dog more than the NYT or you as your selective links are showing that you lie by omission. You not posting them doesn't make them go away.
I never use these silly anagrams, but I feel compelled here:
LOL! Ronald Reagan's ENTIRE presidency was a tour de force in conservative values and a complete rejection of libertarianism!!!
Thanks for this. I forgot about it the last time one of these fools posted that quote where Jim paid libertarianism a tepid compliment ten years ago.
I came from he William F. Buckley camp camp too. I remember watching FIRING LINE regularly while I was still in junior high school.
I support Ron Paul based on his willingness to “walk the walk” about spending and constitutional issues regardless of the dictates of party leadership.
Yet I’m not in favor of unilateral withdrawal from overseas. We clearly need to engage and defeat Al Qaeda and its allies. Often in the past, this position has been called “strong defense libertarianism.”
Liberals and "independents" mostly.
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.