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.
Hey...that sounds like tagline material!
Oh, we want to clean it up. We just don't believe Ron Paul is the right man for the job. Far from it. There are others such as Jim DeMint, Mike Pence, Duncan Hunter, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin who warrant a closer look for 2012. As far as this November is concerned, I fully support getting as many conservatives into Congress as we can. New blood would be great, just not libertarians. Conservatives.
What "claim" did I make that was "not credible" by the way? You keep dodging this. Can't you just admit that you made a mistake?
Your point was that I hadn’t read the quote. The only contention I made was that the Reagan Presidency agreed with libertarianism wherever it was compatible with Conservativism, and was in direct opposition where it wasn’t. You can believe in libertarian principles if you like. You can NOT suggest that Ronald Reagan wanted anything to do with libertarianism. He didn’t.
"Ron Paul is the closest candidate the Republican Party has to Ronald Reagan."
I have addressed statements like this in the past, but none that went to this extreme. When you say outrageous things like that on this website, you have to be prepared to justify them.
My counter point (post 176) was that Ronald Reagan was directly opposed to many of the things Ron Paul believes in. I am prepared to justify that opinion, but see no need to, as it is commonly accepted on this website. I asked you again to substantiate your opion. You refused to do so, and suggested the proof was somewhere in a book (which you presumably haven't read).
Next I selected you best defense: An out-of-context quote that appeared in Reason Magazine in 1975. The problem with this quote, is it doesn't mean what libertarians want it to believe. I have debunked it before, and I debunked it again in post 189. Do you even READ the things that get posted to you? This started a seperate conversation about this quote on this thread, with several other posters showing why the thread had zero to do with Reagan embracing or endorsing libertarianism.
Meanwhile, you and I went back and forth for ten posts, with you demanding I read an entire book and locate a part that might legitimatize your original stupid point. I continued to suggest you pick one point (persumably the best one) that might validate you. You refused to do so, bizarrely implying at one point that this would constitute a favor to me. If it was the work of typing a sentence or two, one can't help wondering how refusing five or six time could be less. At some point it became obvious that you were uble to produce an example, possibly because you hadn't actually READ the book (have you?).
This takes us back to the post I am responding to (post 236), where you suggest that the basis for "Ronald Reagan, closet Libertarian" is located on some loser's home page. In other words, you directed me back to post 227, where I guy says he has a link to (wait for it...) the 1975 Reason Magazine interview with Ronald Reagan. Yes, the same one that I warned you not to bother with initially, and that was debunked by FReepers on this very thread. The same one where Reagan himself said in the next paragraph "Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians,"
Why you guys continually fall into the trap of using that quote on this website, I have no idea. I suppose its because you have so little to work with. Reagan never said anything like this again. He was running a primary challenge to a sitting president when he said it. And he was saying it in the days before the internet, to a magazine read only by libertarians.
Meanwhile, as president, Reagan authorized a huge military build up, fought little undeclared wars all over the place, fired the striking aircraft controllers, hammered pornographers, fought against prostitution and abortion, and... what was that last one? Oh yeah, invented the Federal War on Drugs as we know it today. I'm ok with all of those things, because I'm a Conservatve, not a Libertarian.
Before responding to that last part, be sure to give me one example from your book that proves Ron Paul is the closest candidate the Republican Party has to Ronald Reagan. If you won't type one sentence to defend your moronic point, I will assume you never understood the book in the first place.
true....
Jim DeMint, Mike Pence, Duncan Hunter, Michele Bachmann, possibly Haley Barbour (still evaluating), Sarah Palin...
Conservatives.
Pesky “Ron Paul People”!
They're trying to get us to believe that it actually means something.
That statement is in direct odds to the quote I posted. His statement again: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism". That is a very different statement than claiming that he only agreed with libertarianism where it happened to have a cross-section with conservatism.
You can NOT suggest that Ronald Reagan wanted anything to do with libertarianism. He didn’t.
So he "didn't want anything to do with" a philosophy that he himself stated is at the core of his own? How does that work?
Only one of the above two statements can logically be correct. So which is it? Your own interpretation, or Reagan's own direct words? (And do note: I never "interpreted" his words. I did nothing more than post them exactly as he said them. As far as I can see, the only person "interpreting" them is you. I also, as an aside, never claimed that you did not read the quote, but simply posted it either way.)
Are you that oblivious that you are going to proceed with this argument despite the fact that I was the one who brought up this quote for you in the first place? Libertarians can be counted on to bring it up every time Conservatives try to educate them on this simple concept. Since you're either not very bright, or extremely headstrong, I'll repeat myself: Go ahead and read the rest of that quote. Reagan goes on to say that he is not a libertarian himself, and that he disagrees with the philosphy half the time.
It's also important to put the quote into context. He said it to the primary libertarian publication in the nation, at a time when he was engaged in a primary challenge against a sitting Republican President. He never said anything remotely positive about libertarianism again, and he actively opposed libertarian on every occasion after he was elected.
Now, if you have been following this thread, this will be the fifth or sixth time that this has been cleared up for you, by myself and several other posters. At some point, all of this should find its way through even a skull as think as yours: That Reason Magazine quote simply doesn't mean what brain-dead libertarians want it to mean, and it never will.
Read the entire quote. You're making an ass out of yourself.
It occurs to me that as much fun as slapfighting in Free Republic is, it’s not accomplishing much,
Ask yourself this simple question: Which of us is more able to speak to undecided and independent voters to get them to vote our way? After all, you’ve made it clear you apply an remarkably narrow ideological purity test before accepting like-minded people as your allies.
And as much fun as you’re having preaching to the choir, your debate style will never convince undecided and independent voters.
That’s fine if all *you* want to accomplish is to preach to the choir. But *I* aspire to rather more.
The next liberaltarian I meet who has the faintest idea how the two-party system works will be the first. We're mot trying to get the Conservative Party candidate elected here. He wouldn't get enough votes. We stand behind the Republican candidate, but we do everything in our power to make sure that that Republican candidate agrees with us on as many conservative positions as possible.
If I were a libertarian, I'd be doing the same thing. I just wouldn't be doing on a Conservative forum, where 98% of the members disagree with me.
And, BTW, most libertarians believe in a woman's so-called "right" to choose. There is no more narrow-minded political position in the history of the human race. Including slavery and the "Final Solution."
You can "asipire" to anything you like. You just can't do it here.
I am not in the polling business. That being said, I am pretty confident in saying that, yes, most libertarians are pro-choice. Thanks for bringing up Ron Paul. He gets a 50% rating from the National Right to Life Campaign. Plenty of people see nothing wrong with abortion, but still want to see the issue apporpriately settled by state legislatiures.
I would add that most libertarians I have met either believe that the government at least knew about 911 before hand, or else they are unabashed truthers.
If you’re as pro-life as you claim to be, you’d invest more time trying to change your own party’s positions on life issues, and less time trying to make a different party more like your broken one.
Lying about Ron Paul? I reference Paul's own words in opposing the nutcase.
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.