The American Spectator : Ron Paul's Party

Text Size

Ron Paul's Party

By W. James Antle, III on 2.22.10 @ 6:09AM

Can his movement be brought into the mainstream of the Republican Party?

WASHINGTON -- "Hey," a young man shouted to his friends in the hotel lobby. "This guy doesn't know who won the straw poll!" He was referring to the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the nation's largest gathering of conservative activists. The crowd told "this guy" -- your humble servant -- that the winner was Ron Paul.

It wasn't even close. Paul, a Republican now in his 11th term in the House, took 31 percent of the vote. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who had won the straw poll for the last three years, came in second. Nobody else broke into the double digits, with Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and Republican vice-presidential candidate, running a distant third at 7 percent.

Ron Paul has bested his more famous GOP rivals in unscientific surveys before. His ardent supporters were numerous enough to dominate Internet polls and raise millions of dollars but too thin on the ground to deliver any primaries or caucuses during the 2008 Republican nomination fight. With the exception of Romney, the campaign teams for the other candidates listed on the CPAC ballot were either nonexistent or in their infancy.

But straw polls are a legitimate test of organizational strength and grassroots enthusiasm. Even in 2008, Paul had the latter in spades. But Paul-affiliated organizations like the Campaign for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty are starting to come into their own, becoming savvier and more sophisticated. Paulites blended more naturally into their CPAC surroundings than during the previous two years. And the movement is even losing its cult of personality aspect, as former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and bestselling author Thomas Woods become significant figures alongside Paul.

Glenn Beck, one of the country's most popular television commentators and another CPAC star, has moved substantially in Paul's direction on domestic policy and has inched a bit closer on foreign affairs. This is true of the conservative movement as a whole. The Mount Vernon Statement signed last week by leaders of perfectly mainstream conservative organizations was a thoroughly constitutionalist document. Every Republican in the House has signed onto Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve, including the entire leadership team.

Even back in the 1990s, the previous modern heyday of the anti-statist right, conservatives tended to pinpoint the 1960s and the Great Society as where the country went off track. The more radical among them identified the 1930s and the New Deal. Under the influence of Beck, many Tea Party activists say the country went to hell in a handcart under Woodrow Wilson. Asked about the platform of her congressional candidate, the campaign team member of one Alabama Republican at CPAC replied simply, "He's running on the Constitution."

Foreign policy remains a huge dividing line. Most self-described conservatives believe not only that the Iraq war was just, but that it was a success (thanks mostly to the surge). A Campaign for Liberty panel discussion at CPAC questioned not only the Iraq adventure but the entire concept of the war on terror. But foreign policy has clearly taken a backseat to the economy and the growth of government. And Republicans have proved more willing to criticize military interventions now that there is a Democratic commander-in-chief.

The antagonism between conservatives who identify with Paul and the rest of the mainstream movement still remains, however. Many people at CPAC booed Paul when the straw poll results were announced. At the Paulian events, contemporary Republican leaders aren't referred to any more glowingly than Barack Obama.

Already this year, two candidates for statewide office have far exceeded expectations running as representatives of the movement Paul started. One is Ron Paul's own son, Rand Paul, who is running for the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky. The other is Debra Medina, who is running in a contentious GOP gubernatorial primary in Texas.

The younger Paul now leads his main primary opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, in public polls by margins as high as 19 percentage points. Medina has seen her numbers zoom from the low single digits to as high as 24 percent -- enough to potentially force Texas Gov. Rick Perry into a runoff and perhaps overtake Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for second place. Both candidacies are fueled by Paulities and the broader Tea Party movement.

But there are differences in their approaches. Rand Paul emphasizes tax cuts, balanced budgets, and his opposition to future bailouts rather than the war in Iraq. He politely refrains from criticizing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, even though McConnell is supporting Grayson. "I believe in the fusion of bringing people together," Rand Paul told TAS. "As Republicans we should be focusing on our agreements, not our differences."

Paul's campaign manager, David Adams, buys into Grover Norquist's argument that American politics is divided between a "Leave Us Alone Coalition" on the right and a "Takings Coalition" on the left. And they are quick to distance themselves from the 9/11 truthers and other revisionists who have sometimes gravitated toward Paulite circles. "We are not to blame for people attacking us," the younger Paul told a Kentucky television station.

Debra Medina was not willing to sound so certain a trumpet. In Feb. 11 radio interview, Glenn Beck asked her about accusations that she was a 9/11 truther. She did not embrace the label, but neither did she clearly disavow the views associated with it. "Do you believe the government was in any way involved in the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?" Beck asked.

"I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard," Medina replied. "There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that." Beck followed up by asking if there were any truthers on Medina's staff. She answered, "I'm certainly not into mind control or thought policing people. We've got a very diverse team in this state and that's because Texans are standing shoulder to shoulder to support and defend the Constitution." Medina subsequently issued a statement clarifying that she was not a 9/11 truther, but she sure seemed unwilling to alienate such people with her initial statements.

Medina's primary is in early March, Rand Paul's is in May. It remains to be seen how both candidates will do when they face the voters. But when it comes to mainstreaming the ideas that brought Ron Paul his surprise CPAC victory, we don't have to wait that long to determine which is a more promising strategy.

topics:
Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Debra Medina

About the Author

W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/Jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (262) | Leave a comment

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 7:35AM

Here is what the anti-state right (aka the Ron Paul wing) would like to see: the federal government reduced to the role defined in the constitution (with all unconstitutional programs devolved to the states), spending and taxes cut dramatically, the market freed from excessive regulation, and a foreign policy of peace and commerce with all friendly nations, in which the American military only wages war in defense of the United States.

That's all. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not these are desirable goals. I happen to believe they are.

Melvin| 2.22.10 @ 7:48AM

Absolutely correct. You may have and argument on your hands from the military industrial complex, but every dragon does have a weakness in it's armor.
Ron Paul's supporters and or movement should not join the Republican mainstream until the Republican Party completes it's purge of RHINOS.
Even then I would have serious doubts of joining with the GOP. The GOP and the Democrats have developed a very cozy relationship and the powers that be will fight tooth and nail to maintain it.
We are surrounded by very bad juju on all fronts, and what you have spelled out in your post will not be something that would be nice for America to do, but it will be something that America must do if we are to survive and thrive.

Don| 2.22.10 @ 8:51AM

Melvin, you assume that the Republican party wants Ron Paul. I am one of those. Ron Paul is a typical politician when asked about subjects like the 9/11 truthers... "I think it needs more investigation."

The Ron Paul "party" or "movement" is made up primarily of the "anti-war" left. With Ron Paul in charge, our defense would be reduced to a minimum. This is the same attitude that got us into both world wars, that is, stay out of conflicts until it is too late.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 9:00AM

"The Ron Paul "party" or "movement" is made up primarily of the "anti-war" left"

That's simply false. The "left" - in its totality - despises constitutionalism, and while the anti-war left agrees with Paul on the wars we are currently fighting, the left is no more non-interventionist than the neoconservatives.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 10:06AM

Uh, I am an anti-war registered republican. I am a fiscal conservative that sees the failures of socialism. So your statement is not true. However Paul does draw all types to the freedom message.

Brandon Yates| 2.22.10 @ 11:57AM

There was no good reason for the US to get involved in WW1.

Our interventionism in WW1 is what ultimately allowed Hitler to come to power and caused WW2.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 12:08PM

What histories have you read?

It was the OTHER allies' push for egregious reparations that helped bring about the Nazi party and pushed the Germans into WWII.

American involvement shortened the war and possibly prevented Mexican invasion to keep us out.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 12:11PM

National socialism would have failed regardless of our involvement. It is always important to think outside the box on some of these issues. Saying that our involvement was fine with me.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 12:38PM

As a policy, maybe, but it would have taken 50+ years to fail and more genocide.

Militarily, without our aid, Germany would have won (barring something the Soviets may have pulled off, but that would have meant Soviet expansion even further). Most of Europe would have been under a fascist bootheel, and we probably wouldn't have any Jews outside the US.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 4:51PM

50+ years I seriously doubt it. There was plenty of German resistance. In fact there were attempts on Hitler's life. He would not have lasted. nor would German dominance over Europe have lasted. The real question is whether or not our involvement was a good thing or a bad thing. I say it was a good thing since we were attacked. I was just giving a contrarian viewpoint for discussion in my previous post.

Occam's razor| 3.3.10 @ 8:43PM

Sorry, Pal, but beating the Nazis WITH American help was a near run thing. Without it? Probably not. Imagine Stalingrad with 20 more German divisions.

Patrick| 2.22.10 @ 7:11PM

Without American industrial and monetary support, the Soviets would have never held back the Nazi advance, weather included. Of course, without that very support, Nazi Germany would have been stretched beyond its limits and China would never have fallen to Mao.

Of course, the wiser of choices would have been to let the Soviets fall without a penny of support, then go to war, but FDR liked his Uncle Joe best.

John| 2.23.10 @ 2:40PM

Yes, I think Hitler would have suffered the same fate as Napoleon if he'd been successful.

Mike W| 2.22.10 @ 12:02PM

"With Ron Paul in charge, our defense would be reduced to a minimum"'

Rons major criticism is foreign policy. How we as a nation conduct ourselves in this world. Anyone that has studied liberty knows that to have rights you must have the power to assert those rights, by force otherwise you have NO rights. It is one of the sole purposes of Gov. Ron knows this. There is also the expectation that you must use those rights responsibly ie with rights come responsibility. As an individual you cannot use force on someone because you think they might have a gun. Everyone around will work tooth and nail to deny that if you are indiscriminent with using force. The current forign policy does indeed make the US less safe and enabled our government to use its greatest tool to work outside the constitution, debt financing, all in the name of false patriotism.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 8:22AM

There you go again.

First, I pretty much agree with you on most of the first part of what you said.

Nice last sentence there with a jab that completely mischaracterizes the motivations of us who believe in that defense of American MUST be proactive, and, at times, preemptive.

Of course, Paulites make the mistake of taking militant Islam at their word of only wanting us out of the region as well, and don't take into account that they want us conquered or dead.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 8:38AM

"Nice last sentence there with a jab that completely mischaracterizes the motivations of us who believe in that defense of American MUST be proactive, and, at times, preemptive"

You mean "preventive".

And I think you're being disingenuous. I did not even mention that neoconservatives and the like do *not* believe America should wage war only in defense of the United States, although that is certainly true. In other words, I did no "characterizing" to mis-characterize - I only described OUR positions.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 8:59AM

Preventive AND preemptive. Slightly different, but enough that I think both work.

"whether or not these are desirable goals..."

Your use of the word "desirable" is your mischaracterization, as if those of us who believe in preemption don't "desire" properly defending America.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 9:03AM

"Your use of the word "desirable" is your mischaracterization, as if those of us who believe in preemption don't "desire" properly defending America."

You may have inferred that, but I did not imply it. You do NOT believe it desirable that America wage war only in defense of the United States - you believe America should wage war for other (MANY other) reasons.

Just because having it plainly and straightforwardly written makes you feel uncomfortable does not make it a "mischaracterization".

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 9:39AM

Again, a mischaractarization of my beliefs. I believe that a good offense is the best defense, and that a "defensive war" takes more forms than you presume it does.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 9:53AM

Yes, you believe "defensive wars" more often than not take the form of "offensive wars".

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 10:45AM

Precisely.

That does NOT make something an "offensive war." We are not seeking to make Iraq nor Afghanistan vassal states (or shouldn't be); simply create environments for democracy to prosper (which takes a bit longer than 8 years).

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 11:05AM

Right - so you believe the United States should wage wars in order to nation-build, rather than only for defense.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 12:05PM

An oversimplification.

We're nation-building FOR defensive purposes in Iraq - at least we should be. Was Iraq the right target? Maybe, maybe not. It's gotten more debatable, but the idea is there.

Modern democracies are NOT belligerent entities. Building one in Iraq creates an atmosphere more conducive to preventing attacks on the American mainland.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 1:20PM

The U.S. federal government is not "belligerent"? What nation state has started more wars than we have in the past 20 years?

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 4:48PM

Well, considering the consistent turmoil in Africa and all the name-changing of countries down there; and outside of MAYBE Kosovo all American engagements have been retaliatory in one aspect or another.

Occam's Razor| 3.3.10 @ 8:45PM

Iran, Russia

INOV8TN| 2.23.10 @ 12:35PM

Before 'W' got involved Iraq and its inept military was tied up in middle eastern pissing contests. We may build a nation there but when we leave it will go back to its old ways.

E. Roth| 2.24.10 @ 6:00PM

You call polluting Iraq with toxic radioactive depleted uranium munitions building a democracy?

Type "depleted uranium" into a youtube search and see what you find.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 9:06AM

And the difference between "pre-emptive war" and "preventive war" is profound. Pre-emptive war, i.e. war waged to preempt an imminent attack, is not something foreign policy Washingtonians like myself categorically reject. Preventive war, i.e. war fought to prevent some hypothetical future scenario at a time when no *present* danger to the United States is *clear*, IS rejected by the majority of Washingtonians and non-interventionists.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 9:41AM

Then you see the definitions further apart than I do. Case in point - the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were well-advised to prevent the clear and present danger of militant Islam.

Their prosecution may have been faulty, but that does NOT mean that they weren't needed.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 9:54AM

Yes, but you're simply inventing a justification after the fact for Iraq (for both, really), which had nothing to do with "militant Islam".

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 10:37AM

Where were the militant Islamists centered, then? Where were their training camps?

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 10:49AM

Militant Islam is not "centered". That is why it is so hard to eradicate. And whatever concentrations it might have had, none were in the hands of Saddam Hussein. Unless you believe Bush lied through his teeth about the reasons for taking out Hussein - who was himself not a "militant Islamist" - then the invasion of Iraq was not about preventing "the clear and present danger of militant Islam".

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 12:02PM

If militant Islam isn't "centered," then what's the point of being in Afghanistan?

Saddam wasn't militant, but there was plenty of areas in Iraq that were/are - it wasn't exactly infriendly ground for training camps.

True, Iraq wasn't quite about preventing that danger, but it WAS an element, but was a bit too much of an excuse when we probably should have gone more full-bore into Afghanistan instead.

However, to state that they weren't there is wrong as well.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 1:19PM

"If militant Islam isn't "centered," then what's the point of being in Afghanistan?"

EXACTLY!

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 4:11PM

"Preventive war, i.e. war fought to prevent some hypothetical future scenario at a time when no *present* danger to the United States is *clear*, IS rejected by the majority of Washingtonians and non-interventionists."

And Christians following Christian Just War Doctrine.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 10:10AM

Why is Islam militant, and more importantly why do they want to kill us? You need to answer these fundamental questions instead of proposing endless war against these people in light of the fact that we are bankrupt as a nation. We were spending $720 million a day on the two wars a couple of years ago. I believe the figure is now about $500 million a day. The empire costs us $1 trillion a year to fund. Paul makes very good points, and I personally believe the hatred stems from the belligerence and arrogance of our foreign policy and how it has disrupted their lives.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 10:41AM

Don't misconstrue the terminology.

I'm saying "militant Islam," not "Islam is militant." It's a faction within Islam apart from those who AREN'T militant about their beliefs (ie, most American Muslims with Arabic/Iranian origins).

They want to kill us because we aren't Muslim and we won't convert. It's their literal interpretation of the Koran and something they have done historically since the founding of their religion. They have been militant since BEFORE the Crusades, so their militant ideals predate any belligerence on the part of the West.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 10:50AM

If Al Qaeda wants to kill us only "because we aren't Muslim and we won't convert", then why do they not target Switzerland in the same fashion they target the U.S.?

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 11:59AM

Have you been missing anything? Militant Islam has been attacking Europe for some time since 9/11, and attempting similar scales with varied degrees of success. Do the attacks in Europe mean anything else?

New York was a bit of a public target. Does attacking Switzerland attempt to prove as much of their point?

Is militant Islam NOT at war with the West?

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 12:16PM

Europe made big mistakes with regards to immigration. Militant Islam is at war with us because of our belligerence over the last 60 years. But like all wars, it can end, but it will require those with the power to listen to the grievances of the weak. Of course our sense of military profligacy might prevent reconciliation.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 12:43PM

Militant Islam has been at war with the West since its inception that PREDATES the crusades (or am I wrong?)

They have STATED GOALS to retake lands that they once held - which included Spain and pretty much anywhere outside of Greece and Italy that touches the Mediterranean. They continually attack Europe in hopes to drive them into political submission, with a good bit of success.

And calling the militants "weak" is a misnomer. They're mostly decentralized, but suicide bombers don't, as a rule, come from poor families - they're typically middle class.

And if anyone is being oppressed, it's the Palestinians by their fellow Muslims (in Palestine AND abroad) who have more than enough resources to provide for them.

They will NOT stop if we just leave them alone.

If I am wrong, how so?

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 1:15PM

"If I am wrong, how so?"

Religiously motivated Islamic terrorists never attacked the United States before our government started backing Israel and installed the Shah.

Why?

ted| 2.22.10 @ 2:27PM

They never attacked us before the Shah? Have you never heard of the Barbary pirates and what Jefferson did to stop them?

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 2:44PM

"Have you never heard of the Barbary pirates and what Jefferson did to stop them? "

Yes I have. I recall the Barbary Pirates practicing piracy and attacking our ships, and Jefferson sending our Navy and Marines to defend American shipping. I did not ask why no plunder-seeking pirates attacked the US before our government started backing Israel and installed the Shah, I asked why religiously motivated Islamic terrorists never attacked the United States before our government started backing Israel and installed the Shah.

Why?

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 3:34PM

"I asked why religiously motivated Islamic terrorists never attacked the United States before our government started backing Israel.."
Toddard never ceases to blame Israel and America for terrorism.
You are a disgrace!

Wesley Mouch| 2.22.10 @ 10:27PM

I was just remarking to myself how much the dialogue has improved around here since I have been gone & here comes the Israel firsters. Way to go Margie.

Margie, the neocons had a chance & they BLEW IT. Time to let the adults talk & start using some neocortex.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 4:50PM

You didn't answer the question.

Mostly they were involved in the cold war (Afghanistan vs the Soviets) or attacking Israel directly.

Occam's Tool| 3.3.10 @ 8:50PM

They started attacking us almost as soon as the Soviets went down---and they attacked us before. SL, always remember to blame the Joos!

Doghouse Riley| 2.22.10 @ 1:22PM

America can defeat "militant Islam" only by destroying its sources of ideological and financial support, most of which are to be found in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

If we're not willing to face that fact and

Patrick| 2.22.10 @ 7:23PM

Mohammedanism is definitively violent. The infidel is to either be killed or enslaved (dhimmitude being the kindest form). The women of the infidel are to be made as wives to the faithful, by force if need be. There is no peace to this religion on this side of the grave, whether you are Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, or Secularist. Deal with it.

Now, that does not mean that Iraq and Afghanistan were necessarily appropriate, on paper or on the ground. I certainly would have conducted matters differently.

tatosian| 2.22.10 @ 9:41PM

A most accurate description of Islam.

Had the appropriate governmental departments bothered themselves with an even cursory study of this vile ideology, the spilling of American blood to establish 2 Islamic republics based on sharia might well have been avoided.

Ah, but the poor dears are so overworked aren't they?

INOV8TN| 2.23.10 @ 12:54PM

Thank you, tatosian - accuracy and logic: A long awaited breath of fresh air.

The GOP "Small Govt" Fraud| 2.22.10 @ 7:49AM

"There's a major political fraud underway: the GOP is once again donning their libertarian, limited-government masks in order to re-invent itself and, more important, to co-opt the energy and passion of the Ron-Paul-faction that spawned and sustains the "tea party" movement. The Party that spat contempt at Paul during the Bush years and was diametrically opposed to most of his platform now pretends to share his views. Standard-issue Republicans and Ron Paul libertarians are as incompatible as two factions can be -- recall that the most celebrated right-wing moment of the 2008 presidential campaign was when Rudy Giuliani all but accused Paul of being an America-hating Terrorist-lover for daring to suggest that America's conduct might contribute to Islamic radicalism -- yet the Republicans, aided by the media, are pretending that this is one unified, harmonious, "small government" political movement.

The Right is petrified that this fraud will be exposed and is thus bending over backwards to sustain the myth. Paul was not only invited to be a featured speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference but also won its presidential straw poll. Sarah Palin endorsed Ron Paul's son in the Kentucky Senate race. National Review is lavishly praising Paul, while Ann Coulter "felt compelled [in her CPAC speech] to give a shout out to Paul-mania, saying she agreed with everything he stands for outside of foreign policy -- a statement met with cheers." Glenn Beck -- who literally cheered for the Wall Street bailout and Bush's endlessly expanding surveillance state -- now parades around as though he shares the libertarians' contempt for them. Red State's Erick Erickson, defending the new so-called conservative "manifesto," touts the need for Congress to be confined to the express powers of Article I, Section 8, all while lauding a GOP Congress that supported countless intrusive laws -- from federalized restrictions on assisted suicide, marriage, gambling, abortion and drugs to intervention in Terri Schiavo's end-of-life state court proceeding -- nowhere to be found in that Constitutional clause. With the GOP out of power, Fox News suddenly started featuring anti-government libertarians such as John Stossel and Reason Magazine commentators, whereas, when Bush was in power, there was no government power too expanded or limitless for Fox propagandists to praise.

This is what Republicans always do. When in power, they massively expand the power of the state in every realm. Deficit spending and the national debt skyrocket. The National Security State is bloated beyond description through wars and occupations, while no limits are tolerated on the Surveillance State. Then, when out of power, they suddenly pretend to re-discover their "small government principles." The very same Republicans who spent the 1990s vehemently opposing Bill Clinton's Terrorism-justified attempts to expand government surveillance and executive authority then, once in power, presided over the largest expansion in history of those very same powers. The last eight years of Republican rule was characterized by nothing other than endlessly expanded government power, even as they insisted -- both before they were empowered and again now -- that they are the standard-bearers of government restraint.

What makes this deceit particularly urgent for them now is that their only hope for re-branding and re-empowerment lies in a movement -- the tea partiers -- that has been (largely though not exclusively) dominated by libertarians, Paul followers, and other assorted idiosyncratic factions who are hostile to the GOP's actual approach to governing. This is a huge wedge waiting to be exposed -- to explode -- as the modern GOP establishment and the actual "small-government" libertarians that fuel the tea party are fundamentally incompatible. Right-wing mavens like Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin and National Review are suddenly feigning great respect for Ron Paul and like-minded activists because they're eager that the sham will be maintained: the blatant sham that the modern GOP and its movement conservatives are a coherent vehicle for those who believe in small government principles. The only evidence of a passionate movement urging GOP resurgence is from people whose views are antithetical to that Party. That's the dirty secret which right-wing polemicists are desperately trying to keep suppressed. Credit to Mike Huckabee for acknowledging this core incompatibility by saying he would not attend CPAC because of its "increasing libertarianism."

These fault lines began to emerge when Sarah Palin earlier this month delivered the keynote speech to the national tea party conference in Nashville, and stood there spitting out one platitude after the next which Paul-led libertarians despise: from neoconservative war-loving dogma and veneration of Israel to glorification of "War on Terror" domestic powers and the need of the state to enforce Palin's own religious and cultural values. Neocons (who still overwhelmingly dominate the GOP) and Paul-led libertarians are arch enemies, and the social conservatives on whom the GOP depends are barely viewed with greater affection. Sarah Palin and Ron Paul are about as far apart on most issues as one can get; the "tea party movement" can't possibly be about supporting each of their worldviews. Moreover, the GOP leadership is currently promising Wall Street even more loyal subservience than Democrats have given in exchange for support, thus bolstering the government/corporate axis which libertarians find so repugnant. And Coulter's manipulative claim that she "agrees with everything [Paul] stands for outside of foreign policy" is laughable; aside from the fact that "foreign policy" is a rather large issue in our political debates (Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia), they were on exactly the opposite sides of the most intense domestic controversies of the Bush era: torture, military commissions, habeas corpus, Guantanamo, CIA secrecy, telecom immunity, and warrantless eavesdropping.

Part of why this fraud has been sustainable thus far is that libertarians -- like everyone who doesn't view all politics through the mandated, distorting, suffocating Democrat v. GOP prism -- are typically dismissed as loons and nuts, and are thus eager for any means of achieving mainstream acceptance. Having the GOP embrace them is one way to achieve that (Karl Rove: some "see the tea party movement as a recruiting pool for volunteers for Ron Paul's next presidential bid . . . . The Republican Party and the tea party movement have many common interests"). Additionally, just as the Paul-faction of libertarians is in basic harmony with many progressives on issues of foreign policy and civil liberties, they do subscribe to the standard GOP rhetoric on domestic spending, social programs and the like.

But that GOP limited government rhetoric is simply never matched by that Party's conduct, especially when they wield power. The very idea that a political party dominated by neocons, warmongers, surveillance fetishists, and privacy-hating social conservatives will be a party of "limited government" is absurd on its face. There literally is no myth more transparent than the Republican Party's claim to believe in restrained government power. For that reason, it's only a matter of time before the fundamental incompatibility of the "tea party movement" and the political party cynically exploiting it is exposed."

http://www.salon.com/news/opin.....index.html

Copyleftr| 2.22.10 @ 8:26AM

Glad to see that at least SOME folks on the right have figured out the GOP. They're not a conservative party, folks; they simply use you for your votes, and then ignore everything you wanted.

Now, _I_ wouldn't want you to get what you want either... but then, I'm not pretending I agree with you in order to scam your votes.

Ron Paul is a real conservative I'd be glad to run against; he has worthwhile ideas that I can honestly debate and disagree with, but that are actually worth hearing. The Republican noise machine has had nothing to offer for a very long time now.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 8:31AM

You probably won't hear a lot of debate on the matter on this board about the kowtowing of Republicans after Bush was elected to the left, and really had little to offer.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 10:11AM

Ron Paul is the real deal. I didn't vote for him last time. My wife actually did. I will not make the same mistake next time.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 8:29AM

"torture, military commissions, habeas corpus, Guantanamo, CIA secrecy, telecom immunity, and warrantless eavesdropping..."

All issues that, with some study beyond the surface opposition presented by opponents, had complete and good Constitutional justification ("warrantless" eavesdropping being the worst mischaracterization of what went on...)

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 12:19PM

I saw something on CNN and ABCNEWS discussing how NSA agents were taping our soldiers overseas having phone sex with their wives back here and then sending the files to each other. While who knows the extent of such activities, I am sure this goes on. The phone companies giving cart blanch access to phone records without warrants is disturbing.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 12:45PM

Not saying it was right and is probably overstepping the bounds, but simply yelling "warrantless wiretapping" completely misses the point of modern technology and what is required for intelligence agencies to do their job.

Making big issues out of small instances like that do NOT address the bigger issue.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 1:18PM

Ryan, it was illegal - it was the United States government spying on its own citizens without first acquiring a warrant as is required by FISA. It was a crime, plain and simple.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 1:44PM

Again, an oversimplification of a law not written to deal with modern technology.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 2:04PM

"Again, an oversimplification of a law not written to deal with modern technology."

You are quite wrong. As I wrote before, FISA (the law you allege was "not written to deal with modern technology") was amended multiple times since it was first made law. In fact, in 2001 (*after* 9/11) the GOP congress amended FISA to George Bush's specifications to update it sufficiently. When *George W Bush* signed it into law he - president *George W Bush* - had THIS to say about the new amended FISA law (which he later violated, committing multiple felonies):

"The changes, effective today, will help counter a threat like no other our Nation has ever faced. . . .

We're dealing with terrorists who operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, some of which were not even available when our existing laws were written. *The bill before me takes account of the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists*. It will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt, and to punish terrorists before they strike. . . .

Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. *This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones*. As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology"

The next day, President Bush said:

"The bill I signed yesterday gives intelligence and law enforcement officials additional tools they need to hunt and capture and punish terrorists. Our enemies operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, using the latest means of communication and the new weapon of bioterrorism.

When earlier laws were written, some of these methods did not even exist. *The new law recognizes the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist*. It will help us to prosecute terrorist organizations -- and also to detect them before they strike. . . .

Surveillance of communications is another essential method of law enforcement. But for a long time, we have been working under laws written in the era of rotary telephones. Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists."

So you see, according to George W Bush himself the FISA amendment gave him all the powers he needed, and yet he still conducted surveillance on American citzens on American soil with no warrants - a clear, unambiguous CRIME.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 4:52PM

Even when they were communicating with others on foreign soil NOT allowed the protections of the US Constitution, or when their signals were just being transferred through US soil? With millions of signals and also NO large amount of proof that it was an egregious, widespread, deliberate intention to spy on American citizens?

S.L. Toddard| 2.23.10 @ 7:40AM

Come on, Ryan. If our government is going to eavesdrop on American citizens on American soil, a warrant must be obtained - period. And warrants were *not* obtained. If it was a Democrat caught breaking the law and spying on American citizens you and everyone here would be up in arms, going berserk.

If everyone on the Fox News Right converted from being hard-core, die-hard Republican Party Loyalists into conservatives our country would not be in the mess its in today. Republican Party Loyalists talk a lot of garbage about respect for the Constitution, and are more than happy to jeer when Democrats violate it, but because they are more loyal to the Republican Party than the Constitution they don't care when a Republican violates it. When a Republican does that, as George W. Bush did, they first A) stick their head in the sand and deny the incident ever took place ("the Bush admin never had Americans eavesdropped upon without a warrant!"), then they B) pretend nothing criminal happened ("It's not even unconstitutional to tap Americans phones without a warrant - there is a long, proud tradition of due-process-free domestic spying in America!"), then C) they (finally) admit crimes were committed (though they use euphemisms like "circumvented legal procedures"), argue they weren't really crimes because they were committed in order to Keep Us Safe ('The Constitution is not a suicide pact!"), and then DEMAND that our political elites not be held accountable for breaking the law ("Look Forward, Not Backward!" and "we can't criminalize policy differences!").

What I find most disturbing is that seemingly good Americans reach this stage, and find that their loyalty to the Republican Party supersedes even their own sense of honor, and still don't care. They don't even blink at bending over backwards, making excuses and lying through their teeth to protect The Party. They are like nothing so much as Communist Party apparatchiks.

Why make excuses for political elites who have done nothing for you except rob you blind and lie to your face? The biggest lie in American politics is that the dominant dynamic is between the Republican Right and the Democrat Left, when really it is between the political/corporate elite and the American People whom they dupe, spy on, abuse, and rob.

S.L. Toddard| 2.23.10 @ 7:42AM

"If everyone on the Fox News Right converted from being hard-core, die-hard Republican Party Loyalists into conservatives* our country would not be in the mess its in today"

And I do not mean only non-interventionist conservatives. I mean, simply, Americans whose conservative principles are adhered to no matter who is in office, and who hold both parties accountable equally when they violate those principles.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.22.10 @ 8:32AM

"Small government fraud"
(A commercial announcement from the west wing of the whitehouse.)

My problem with Mr. Paul is that his movement is too apt to fold into the "make love not war" crowd.

US Isolationism just most likely was a major cause of WWII.....along side pacifism...

The US had already proven in WW I to be the "deal changer" for any would-be aggressor in Europe.

Opting out as the facists began their march gave those facists a reasonable chance of success.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 8:42AM

"US Isolationism just most likely was a major cause of WWII"

Not Versailles?

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 9:02AM

Siding more with SL Toddard here. The Treaty of Versailles called for war reparations from the Germans, which were onerous and vengeful, leading to the collapse of the German economy and the rise of enough of a populace to put a party in power that fed off of fear and retaliation - the Nazis.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.22.10 @ 11:24AM

Ryan,
Please refresh my memory. I seem to recall that President Wilson withdrew from post WW I treaty/reparations talks, when in fact we could have again been the 'deal changers'.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 11:53AM

My understanding was that there was continued frustration on the part of the US because Britain and France were after reparations, and the US wanted to go light. Wilson predicted the treaty wouldn't work, and couldn't get his way on a large portion of it.

The senate didn't ratify it, either.

Doghouse Riley| 2.22.10 @ 1:12PM

By the time the post-WWI treaties were being written, the damage was already done. Had America stayed out of the war and let the Allies and Central Powers fight it out to an even-handed armistice, the world would have been very different and not, I think, for the worse.

If the Germans had not been so stupid as to have sent the bloody Zimmerman telegram it may have come to pass.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 1:46PM

That much I can agree with. We had no real place in the war until then.

Of course, there are elements that probably still believe that the Zimmerman telegram was a setup (which it was proven that it wasn't surprisingly not all that long ago).

Patrick| 2.22.10 @ 7:32PM

Versailles, yes.

Don't forget the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. It devastated markets around the world, killed Germany's feeble industrial footing and incited the Japanese into conducting an unlimited "prosperity by conquest" effort.

Occam's Tool| 3.3.10 @ 8:51PM

Without the US, the League of Nations did not have the muscle to enforce Versailles.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 8:56AM

And Mr. Bean - whatever our differences, I saw your website and very much respect the good work that you do. I am not trying to imply that you care what I think - I know you don't. Nevertheless, it is impressive indeed and your pride is entirely justified. May I ask if you started PPI because of your experience in the service?

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.22.10 @ 11:04AM

SL
I was not in the Service. As a pilot at the time I was drafted, I volunteered to be a med-evac chopper pilot (Army warrant officer program). Essentially, since we were winding down in Nam, I was "warehoused" as were many others against future needs.
My full bio can be found on our website "investor relations" tab.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 12:46PM

Oh - I'm sorry. Were you a policeman? I'm not trying to pry - only asking because of our "buttons and zippers" conversation before.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.22.10 @ 2:27PM

SL,
If you go to the website, you will discover that I was a "CB"....(Civilian Builder). (Smile)...quite often one of my teams was in an area before the military.
Radar sites...bunker building...sandbags filling...

Indonesia...Viet Nam... Thailand...Phillipines...???... and ...???

I got hurt worst in Indonesia.
Like my fellow CEO at Texas Instruments...I "walked around". I went out to thank my teams all over the earth...and sometimes got caught in the crossfire. Ouch (smile).

I will never know if it was an RPG or a mortar that got me worst.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 2:40PM

Wow! I see. Okay, well thanks for your time.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 3:59PM

Since Americans at the time did not have the benefit of either a crystal ball or hindsight, exactly when do you think the US should have intervened in WWII? How would you have convinced a populace that did not want to get involved in another European War? How do you know that whatever position you take now isn't entirely influenced by hindsight which they didn't have?

Patrick| 2.22.10 @ 7:46PM

My biggest problem is that we gave aid and comfort (in vast supplies) to the Reds. All those resources would have been better used by the British prior to our military involvement. Further, if Hitler defeated Stalin, holding the whole of Russia would have crippled the Nazi Western Front.

Italy from the south was a fool's errand, and anyone who seriously studied Roman military history would have to agree.

Lastly, giving de Gaulle credit for saving France after the fact was pure idiocy.

Michael Tomlinson| 2.22.10 @ 8:39PM

Ken, the Ron Paul zombies who sound so much like the Obama drones don't know much about their guy. He stays in office, because he shovels the pork back home and the Democrats in his district love to vote for him, because he keep the slop bowl full and the peace beads handy.

Shamus| 2.22.10 @ 9:05AM

The only problem with this analysis is that it leaves no hope for the voters. It's as if we're back in 1931 Germany and the only choice on offer is between the Nazis and the Communists.

jcm| 2.22.10 @ 7:51AM

Agreed, SL. It is time that conservative candidates put the rule of law on the line. Statists who support judicial activism must be forced to admit they are anti-Constitution. That kind of negative campaigning would be more effective than whining about what radical preachers a candidate hangs out with.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 8:05AM

I think the best course for an anti-state right candidate to take would be to emphasize culture war issues (esp patriotic immigration reform) while simultaneously advocating for constitutionalism and Washingtonian neutrality.

GW| 2.22.10 @ 3:29PM

Agreed, but how many conservatives are actually sticking their necks out on immigration? I can name Tancredo as one, but many others don't want to talk about illegal immigration or if they do try a "moderate" approach that will still lead to amnesty. How many speakers at CPAC actually brought up enforcing our immigration laws???

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 3:45PM

I agree, but that issue is always a winner, isn't it? Witness the outrage every time Amnesty comes up.

Melvin| 2.22.10 @ 8:09AM

This weekend I had visited some Republican web sites and ones that lean Republican, and I posted that Libertarians and Independents need to keep the Republican Party at arms length and then some.
Oh, jeez you would have thought by the replies to my posts that I was a child of Satan. Not only was I lynched by the Party faithful, I was pilloried by the holy joes.
I'm still trying to figure out why the holy joes crossed swords with me, maybe it's because I critical of Sarah Palin because she demanded that members of the Tea Party must join with the Republican Party.
Sometimes my opinion isn't worth squat, but as I read the tea leaves right now, the Republican Party's core beliefs are still in the 2006, and 2008 mindset.
Nothing has really changed as S.L. pointed out in his post.
Oh sure the sound bites have changed to appear Conservative leaning to disguise the business as usual with the Democrats.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 8:27AM

One thing that I think IS going to happen is that we will see several elected officials that at least lean and vote with Paul on lots of issues; at least enough to make a caucus, but I would be surprised if there is enough to make a true, sustained, national movement. Heck, I'd vote for a similar candidate for the house or senate.

Melvin| 2.22.10 @ 8:37AM

The GOP is like a favorite old worn out T-shirt. Ya, know you have to change it because it is worn out, but you don't feel comfortable doing so, and you just can't bear to part with it, because you've had it so long.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.22.10 @ 8:37AM

The author's claim that "The more radical among them identified the 1930s and the New Deal" as the course where the country went off track shows the real problem. That in fact was just a different turn of the screw of big government which Teddy Roosevelt created with his trust busting form of government. Remember, Teddy Roosevelt was considered a progressive. President Taft then followed through with twice as much trust busing legislation. That lead to the progressive Woodrow Wilson, another big government type.

It's not radical to note that all progressive-ism from either party has lead to bigger government, which leads to even greater seizures of power within the beltway.

Obama is just another version of progressive-ism, seizing power by making various claims that various sectors are cheating the public. In fact, it's the progressives that are and always have cheated the public.

It started with Teddy, Taft, Wilson, Franklin Delano Spendo, and there are several more examples right up to today.

All these progressive types were typified by seizure or creation of massive government regulatory power and/or spending.

It's not radical to point it out. It's only radical to salute it and not the flag.

Jeff Davis| 2.22.10 @ 9:29AM

Actually it started before that. If you want to really see where big government started in the USA, look no further than the presidential election of 1860. Taxes, imperialism, special interests trumping the will of the people, total disregard for the Constitution, consolidation of power by the Executive branch, etc. It ALL started with Lincoln.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.22.10 @ 10:46AM

I don't disagree with you one bit. The only reason I didn't mention Lincoln was that he was not generally regarded as a progressive.

Jeff Davis| 2.22.10 @ 1:34PM

You might say the Lincoln was a "progressive" before the term was even coined. Whatever term you want to call Lincoln--Whig, big government nationalist, Progressive--it all fits and the "imperialist presidencies" don't start with TR or Wilson as Beck states, but with Lincoln himself. One of the reasons I will not attend Beck's 8/28 event is because he is holding it at the Lincoln Memorial. That the USA has a memorial to this tyrant is beyond the pale.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.22.10 @ 3:21PM

Just be grateful there isn't a monument to FDR.

Eisenhower| 2.23.10 @ 1:36PM

Actually there is one: http://www.tourofdc.org/monuments/FDR/

slvrfx| 2.22.10 @ 1:35PM

Any relation to Jefferson Davis?

Jeff Davis| 2.22.10 @ 3:32PM

no relation, i just share jefferson's and davis' reverence for the original intent of the constitution.

JimH| 2.22.10 @ 8:41AM

I was lambasted at this site last week after making an observation about how seniors have more political power then kids and how social security payouts are disproportional to contributions. I guess some 'conservatives' favor reducing government as long as its for other people. As sung by Pink Floyd 'Share it fair but don't take a slice of my pie.'

Shamus| 2.22.10 @ 9:14AM

The problem with Social Security is that it was never put on a sound financial footing. Private plans actually pay out at a much higher rate than Social Security. Inflation must be considered when evaluating financial returns, as money is rapidly debased by our central bank. The value of the dollar was steady until the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, but has lost over 90% of its value since then.

Louis Jenkins| 2.22.10 @ 8:48AM

Melvin:

Your martyrdom is appreciated. Bearding the lion is not an easy task, but hopefully you made those people think. While I shutter at the thought of a third party, if enough true Conservatives express their thoughts in unwelcome website maybe, just maybe, the dead Elephant party can be goaded into walking the walk. We are in a struggle against municipalities and high paces were nafarious customs and activities are practiced.

Melvin| 2.22.10 @ 9:04AM

You know Louis the funny thing about this is, that the Elephant doesn't really need to walk that far, all the Elephant needs to do is walk from whence he came and he is home.
I suppose that maybe the old Rep. lions became, old toothless lions that would rather placate than to confront.
I fault allot of the misery that is in the Republican Party is that the leadership didn't cultivate new younger candidates, even it they had cultivated newer and younger candidates the younger candidates were more conservative than the entrenched leadership so that in-itself would have created a schism.

Anastasia Mather| 2.22.10 @ 9:25AM

I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul if Hitler was his opposition. He's a total nut job. Just because he's correct about some things does not make him suitable for the presidency.

Melvin| 2.22.10 @ 9:40AM

What aspects of Ron Paul's views do you find to be qualified as, "Nut-Job."
Comparing Ron Paul to Adolph Hitler is a bit out there isn't it?

Occam's Tool| 3.3.10 @ 8:53PM

Comparing Ron to Adolf isn't out there: STORMFRONT supports both. Ron is in favor of letting Israel be destroyed; he would stand by while Holocausts are performed. He's a dimwit.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 9:55AM

Anastasia please elaborate because I don't believe you. You need to articulate with facts and policy stances that would make him a so-called "nut-job". I on the other hand would say there is nothing nutty about being fiscally responsible and not attacking people that haven't attacked you.

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 12:12PM

Anastasia,
You are correct. How can anyone possibly back a man who blames the terrorists for being terrorists on America? These Ron Paul militants are losers and they back a loser. There is absolutely no reasoning with them. They ask for "reasons" and "facts" on why he is no good to us and then they completely disregard them. They are liars as well. Sarah Palin did not demand for members of the Tea Party to join the Republican party. In fact she said just the opposite. She said that whatever party you're in you ought to work to restore it!
Ron Paul and his ilk are nothing but liars and back a liar. America is not the "Aggressor" and we are NOT the reason terrorists are terrorists as Ron Paul says.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 12:24PM

So Margie you see no blame being placed on America with regards to 911, etc. I would like to put forth something for you to chew on. Under Clinton in the 90s, sanctions were put on Iraq that are said to be responsible for 1 million Iraqi deaths. When Leslie Stahl interviewed Madaleine Albright about it on 60 minutes, Albright said that the 1 million deaths were tough but worth it. This of course was played all over the Arab world. Bin Laden said that one of the big reasons for 911 was the fact that American foreign policy has killed scores of Muslim women and children and that now he wants Americans to feel the pain. So I guess my question to you Margie is how you can ignore both logic and the motive straight from the lips of the transgressor? Again how am I a liar. You spectator neocons make no sense.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 12:49PM

First, you are taking a militant Muslim at his word when he is at war with the West - and is allowed to lie by the Koran.

Two, sanctions were on Iraq because of their immoral activities. The deaths are more on their own leadership than anything of ours. Sanctions weren't placed in a vacuum.

Also, "logic and motive" don't readily apply for those who use extremism and the death of innocents as both an excuse and as a tactic.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 1:12PM

"Two, sanctions were on Iraq because of their immoral activities"

What immoral activities are you talking about - and please confine your response to activities that took place while Reagan/Bush were not allied with Saddam. And were these activities more immoral than the killing of a million children?

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 1:48PM

Gassing its own populace.
Maintaining and seeking WMD's (during Clinton's term).
Failure to cooperate with inspections and the UN in general.

Simply because they were doing some of this during the "alliance" with the US (in the context of the Cold War) doesn't mean they aren't criminals and the deaths of anyone while they were upon their own heads for denying humanitarian aid to their own populace.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 2:00PM

"Gassing its own populace."

Sorry - the Republican government of the United States supported Saddam throughout that shameful episode - AND AFTERWARD.

"Maintaining and seeking WMD's (during Clinton's term)."

How is that "immoral"? The U.S. possesses WMD.

"Failure to cooperate with inspections and the UN in general."

How is that "immoral"? Israel does not allow inspections of its WMD, or comply with the UN in that regard.

And on what planet are these last two more immoral than the killing of a million children?

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 4:55PM

Support of Saddam throughout doesn't justify his actions nor mean we couldn't hold him accountable.

The US possesses WMD as a defensive measure, typically a deterrant during the Cold War. Militant Islamists seek them otherwise, and Saddam had used them offensively.

Israel also doesn't excessively expand its borders beyond reason, and uses them in defensive measures...and has yet to really deploy them.

Ben| 2.23.10 @ 8:52PM

Bin Laden should intervene here in order to eliminate our abortion mills. Surely 1.5 million a year far outdoes Saddam.

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 3:17PM

Ben,
As I've said before~ the lie is that America is to blame for the terrorists being terrorists. If you back R. Paul when he is a man who says this, is to back a liar. Because it IS a lie. Why would anyone wish to align themselves with him?
That is what I mean.
Use your reasoning ability. A reasonable person cannot discount this fact about this man in their consideration of backing him. How could you consider someone who thinks this way for President of the very country he believes is an enemy?

Ben| 2.23.10 @ 12:01AM

From there prospective, we are terrorists.

What is your dribble trying to get at? America shoulders plenty of blame.

Occam's Tool| 3.3.10 @ 8:55PM

Dear Ben:

From the Nazis' perspective, Orthodox Polish Jews were terrorists. By the way: "their perspective."

It's good to see you support girls getting acid thrownin their faces.

Franklin| 2.22.10 @ 12:42PM

Margie, I agree.

While there are some points that Ron Paul makes that I agree with, I cannot back him in this one. Islam has been at war with others since 600AD. People can debate why, but facts are facts. War after war for the last 1400 years…

I don’t think that anything we did, do or are going to do will keep Islam from hating us. They hate us because we are.

If we had stayed out of the Middle East it might have delayed their aggression against us, but they would still hate us. We would have been hit sooner or later. Trying to bury your head in the sand only gets your butt blown up.

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 1:07PM

What is at the root of Ron Paul and his followers, and what is at the root of the terrorists?
Ron Paul is delusional. Because he believes a lie. That is a fact and not an "insult." He believes we are the bad guys, the provokers of otherwise good people who otherwise wouldn't be attacking us if we didn;t attack them for attacking us!
The truth is it doesn't work that way. In reality, the terrorists are terrorists because they also are delusional. They actually believe that we are their enemies. Because they choose to believe a lie, according to their "Religion" which says that all "unbelievers" are infidels and should be killed! THAT is what they believe. Their koran says so, and they believe it. Now why is it that Ron Paul and his followers cannot deal with the facts, and choose rather to blame America for the behavior of the murderous terrorists? These people are not only delusional, but are also dangerous.
They are trying to take over the Republican party. Ron Paul is a Libertarian who registered Republican in order to get elected. Not saying Libertarians are all like him or think like him. Some just want to be Libertarian because they think it's freeing, and that they're escaping from the establishment Republicans. Most will vote for a good conservative Republican.
But Ron Paul's frame of mind is a dangerous one.
Terrorists minds can only be changed through the Grace of God. Many are converted to Christianity (to Christ) through other Christian missionaries. Other than that, they will keep being terrorists. And that is no fault of America.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 1:11PM

"He believes we are the bad guys"

No, Marge, Ron Paul doesn't divide the world into "bad guys" and "good guys" - because he isn't a child.

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 1:18PM

A childish view of the world would be exactly what he does in putting the blame on America for the terrorists being terrorists.
He also needs a conversion. As in~ "Come to your right mind and sin more." 1Cor. 15:34.

Occam's Tool| 3.3.10 @ 8:56PM

Sometimes, it isn't childish to realize some people are evil, SL. You, for instance.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.22.10 @ 2:38PM

Well spoken, Margie!

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 3:04PM

Thank you very much, Ken. Your approval means a lot to me. I also think the same of your lengthy and meaningful post today.

Pingback| 2.22.10 @ 9:34AM

The American Spectator : Ron Paul's Party links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…politics is divided between a “Leave Us Alone Coalition” on the right and a “Takings Coalition” on the left. And they are quick to distance … View post: The American Spectator : Ron Paul's Party Posted in American | Tags: alone-coalition, buys-into, campaign-manager, coalition, david, david-adams, distance-, divided-between, grover, grover-norquist, left, right, takings-coalition,…

Pingback| 2.22.10 @ 9:34AM

The American Spectator : Ron Paul's Party links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…politics is divided between a “Leave Us Alone Coalition” on the right and a “Takings Coalition” on the left. And they are quick to distance … More here: The American Spectator : Ron Paul's Party Posted in American | Tags: alone, buys-into, campaign-manager, david, divided-between, grover, grover-norquist, the-left Comments are closed. Search Search Categories American (818)

Neo-libertarian| 2.22.10 @ 9:35AM

Can his movement be brought into the mainstream of the Republican Party?

More likely, can the Republican Party be brought into the mainstream consensus that is exemplified by Ron Paul?

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 9:43AM

Paul isn't mainstream. His basic views of small-government may be, but he has made motions of non-mainstream thought in foreign policy and conspiracy.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 10:00AM

Here is a conspiracy for you:

CDC=Pfizer
USDA=Monsanto
Treasury=Goldman Sachs

There are plenty of conspiracies. i.e. special interests at work in our government which must be addressed. As far as foreign policy goes, Ron is correct. Let me submit to you the following:

The USA, the only nation to use nukes on civilians and a nation that attacks someone new every other year or so, is telling Iran, a nation that hasn't attacked anyone preemptively in over 100 years, that Iran can't have nukes because they threaten Israel, a nation that practices cruel apartheid in the occupied territories through continued demarcation, settlement expansions, water diversion, search and seizures, collective punishment, etc. One has to take a step back and say what is going on here? Me think Osama was probably justified in his attack. Oh and then there are the Clinton sanctions that took out a million Iraqi civilians in the 90s. Oh and Operation Ajax should make Iran show us one of their fingers when we berate them.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 10:36AM

Wow.

Like I said. Non-mainstream.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 10:45AM

Glad I wowed you. Please point out any inaccuracies if there are any. Remember we overthrew Mossadeq, a guy that wanted free market reforms in Iran, with the Shah, a cruel opulent dictator who turned Iran into a police state, in order to land favorable oil contracts. The people of course revolted and installed theocracy. So because of US intervention, Iran went from possible quasi-free markets to theocracy. Again if you take issue with what Paul supporters are saying you must articulate your responses better.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 11:47AM

Read some of my above posts.

As for Iran not being belligerent, where is most of the equipment that is attacking our troops coming from?

And Mossadeq's overthrow was probably an idiotic move, but that was also a LONG time ago. What does that mean we should be doing NOW? That's more often the problem with quoting history - anyone can point out past mistakes and how they affect the present. The question is how to move forward.

Also, such a view of Israel is typically an overstatement, and again, takes groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah at their word rather than examining their motives for making such points.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 12:31PM

Where do the weapons that Israel slaughters Palestinians come from?

Ya it happened a long time ago. What does that have to do with anything. The transgression is still raw given our constant threats towards them. By the way our threats are "NOW".

You spectator types go all the way back to the bible when you lend Israel justification for their cruelty.

"such a view of Israel is typically an overstatement" No its not. Hamas would not have support if Israle would not have obliterated Palestinian societs over the last couple of decades. Hezbollah would not have broad support if the Shiites in Lebanon were not politically and financially marginalized by the Christians and Sunnis over the last several decades.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 12:53PM

Where is the mass slaughter of Palestinians from Israelis that doesn't occur because the Palestinians place military elements in the midst of populated civilian areas...and even if the Israelis manage to miss the military targets?

If Hezbollah has "broad support," then why are the Palestinians financially destitute? Where are their Muslim brothers in aiding them out of poverty? Where is their aid in supporting and promoting Palestinian society?

What should we be doing NOW?

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 1:34PM

We should extricate ourselves from the situation entirely, aiding neither side.

Occam's Tool| 3.3.10 @ 8:58PM

"Me think Osama was justified in his attack."

I think you're a traitor, Ben.

Sean| 2.22.10 @ 9:37AM

I think we have to be very careful with Beck. He is a phony who comes out and attacks Constitution minded candidates when it really matters. He did this with Ron Paul and he has now done it with Medina. If you listen to the whole interview it is clear from the start that Medina laughed off his assertion. She then went on to talk about legitimate questions regarding the investigation and government incompetency leading to 911. Beck even went so far as to rearrange audio of the interview on a subsequent program to hide the fact Medina told him that the assertion was absurd. People that listen to KLIF in Texas know that Beck is getting hammered by multiple hosts on the station that actually carries Beck in the DFW area.

followthemoney| 2.22.10 @ 10:07AM

Beck does what he does for $. Of course you have to take everything he says with a grain of salt.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 10:14AM

I agree, but I must say that if he spreads a message of liberty and freedom, then it is a good thing. I don't want to have to fight these knuckleheads for ever. I hope they do see the light, and this should not be discouraged.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 9:53AM

I agree with Paul that our foreign policy needs some serious changing. We slaughtered another 27 women and children today over in Afghanistan. It may have been a mistake, but if Bin Laden's ilk decide to carry out another 911, it could be wholly justified. Understanding root causes of serious issues is what makes Ron Paul so special. I am a young 34 year old, and I fully support Ron Paul.

Hardcard| 2.22.10 @ 9:58AM

This is how bo and soros win. We must unite to conquer the evil. Divisiveness = soros +bo. let's return to Our Constitution and a government of laws.

Matt Morehouse| 2.22.10 @ 10:04AM

Have you Pualtroons taken complete leave of your senses?
RP has less chance of becoming President than I do, yet he has the power to assure BHO another term. Remember that other whack job Ross Perot?

Now if you really want to bury what remains of the Conservative movement support RP for President with Perky for VP.

Sean| 2.22.10 @ 10:13AM

I remember two Bush whack jobs and a McLame.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 10:17AM

So basically you are saying that the country's populace is stupid and that we are all going down because of it. Fair enough. Ross Perot was another honorable man who tried to show the public the trouble we were in. People from Texas with the initials RP seem to be full of integrity and knowledge. Paultroon, eh? Nice. When you slander, please give policy reasons, etc. You can do better.

Matt Morehouse| 2.22.10 @ 12:45PM

Sean & Ben---Basically I am in agreement with what you say.
The country's populace is stupid and those that would support the likes of RP are beyond stupid.
Slander, eh? Would you prefer Paultards to Paultroons?
Support of fringe candidates benefits only the Democrat Party and its titular head, BHO.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 3:47PM

"Support of fringe candidates"

Wanting to follow the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders is fringe? Interesting. What part of the Constitution do you have a problem with?

Matt morehouse| 2.22.10 @ 7:56PM

Fringe as used in this context means any candidate that has no chance of winning but has a very good chance of helping the opposition.

What part of the Constitution do I have a problem with? The 16th ammendment springs immediately to mind and with thought I could find other "problems".

Siegfried X| 2.22.10 @ 11:09AM

Ronald Reagan welcomed libertarians into the party and his administration.

Melvin| 2.22.10 @ 11:16AM

This is true, but the Republican Party Country Club Blue Blood Purists loathed President Reagan for doing so.
Since that time they openly vowed revenge on Conservatives.

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 12:17PM

And I agree. Anyone is welcome to vote Republican. No one is welcome to try and take it over with America blaming, and anti-Israel agendas! Including non-interventionist B.S. which is what the Ron Paul ilk represent.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 12:34PM

So America can do no wrong? Are you kidding me. Overwhelming support for Israel is in our best interest? I support Israel's existence. I do not support what they are doing in the occupied territories.

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 2:58PM

I said ANTI-ISRAEL.
Fact: R. Paul voted AGAINST a bill that recognized Israel's RIGHT to DEFEND Herself! He voted against it! Wake up and quit lying Ben.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 3:44PM

Margie, we have been over this. Ron Paul doesn't believe the US Congress has the Constitutional authority to offer up these sorts of bills. He would have voted against a bill supportive of the Palestinians as well. Why do you care so much about Israel anyway? Aren't you an American?

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 4:23PM

Aren't you an American? If you were you would want to back Israel's right to defend Herself, as she is our friend and ally.
Do you disagree with that?

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 4:38PM

Israel is more of a friend and ally than is Jordan for example, but the defense of Israel is entirely the responsibility of Israel. England is our friend and ally. Do you fret as much about England as you do Israel? If not why not?

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 4:48PM

There is no arguing with you, as usual. You are a non-interventionist. You blame Israel, and America's backing of her for the world's ills, along with Ron Paul and Toddard.
You truly don't fool me. And you are so wrong in your Leftist, anti-war brain.

Wesley Mouch| 2.22.10 @ 10:40PM

It's looking bad for the Israel firsters. The whole good-bad world dynamic just doesn't persuade like it once did. True conservatives demand an end to all foreign entanglements & unjustifiable alliances, as dangerous & fiscally unsustainable. Only those with other agendas, contrary to the best interests of America, could argue for our present course. So ends neoconservatism.

Ben| 2.23.10 @ 12:03AM

Well said Wesley. By the way are you not a moocher in Atlas Shrugged?

Brent Hartman| 2.26.10 @ 10:17AM

Margie,

How much money did Bush send to Israel's enemies during his 8 years in office? Ron Paul would stop funding the enemies of Israel, unlike republicans you support.

INOV8TN| 2.23.10 @ 1:53PM

Reagan may have welcomed L/libertarians but he didn't heed them. He made deals with the D's and pretty much signed off on everything they wanted as long as they went along on Starwars. Ronnie was pretty smart wrt how to bring down the USSR (economically) but he didn't lead/educate the nation so as to slow down the social spending so here we are: Broke.

Ron Paul and the L/libertarians know that whatever government gives it must take and they know that 'taking' costs. So what is given is only a portion of what is taken

Pingback| 2.22.10 @ 11:28AM

Edging The Conservative Movement In A Paulite Direction : Post Politics: Political N links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Edging The Conservative Movement In A Paulite Direction : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee Southcomm Set: NashvillePost.com The City Paper Nashville Scene BusinessTN MusicRow Her

Pingback| 2.22.10 @ 11:29AM

National Aboriginal Month June 2011-2012 Canada – The Petition Site | Educational Col links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Colorado . Go here to read the rest: National Aboriginal Month June 2011-2012 Canada – The Petition Site Related Blogs on Proactive Movement HealthCorps – a proactive health movement The American Spectator : Ron Paul's Party Steeping in Transparency: A Recommendation for the Tea Party Related Posts New National Poll: Teens Value 'Doing Good' More Than Making Money … Colorado Technical University…

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.22.10 @ 11:42AM

Matt
I'm afraid you have gotten to the heart of the matter, above here. Paul can only be a "spoiler", and never President.

Bottom line, now that Americans are waking up, the Republican Party is what WE will make of it going forward. They already have a pretty good "platform". We just gotta' walk the walk, and hire congress critters with courage and integrity.

I do hope everyone here will give Jim DeMint a second hard look. His book "Saving Freedom" was a little sad for me to read. He correctly points out that it took many years for us to drift so far "Statist", and it is going to take longer than the remainder of my life for us to successfully "unwind" it all.

...First though, we gotta' stop this bunch of communists, (pardon the shorthand), and their useful idiots in their tracks.
I hope each of you will sign in and read our thoughts at www.myteamusa.org on how we do that.
Best regards

INOV8TN| 2.23.10 @ 2:05PM

If Ron Paul runs on as a third party candidate he certainly will be the spoiler and BHO will have another 4 years to make his mischief - but if Ron Paul runs on as the Republican candidate with a feisty, principled, and prepared running mate (Jim DeMint?) then I think that's another story.

Today, I think Ron Paul would beat Obama but things change and the Republicans could be back to their old unprincipled ways by 2012 and without Tea Party/Libertarian support Barry will win in a landslide.

Yosemeti Sam| 2.22.10 @ 11:53AM

Paul equals Perot-lite.

Shoo-in for BHO if Paul is 3rd party candidate.

Warning - Will Robinson - danger ahead.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.22.10 @ 12:02PM

OKOK (smile)
Here pasted is a recent article from "da Judge"
at www.myteamusa.org

On Republicans vs. Democrats...or Third Party?

I wrote the following comment in answer to a "Third (political) Party" advocate on another website.

*
""When one is in the desert, and has only one horse...and out of water... the appropriate response is to walk beside the horse with a loop around one's hand and the saddle-horn.

One does not shoot the horse.

Yes, you and I both want to kick the Republicans in the butt...for lots of reasons. But!

They are the only horse we have in this "desert" of totalitarianism.

The worse we get dehydrated, the worse we need the darned horse.
We know, (generally), where the nearest water should be, but the horse will smell EXACTLY where the nearest water is, and it may just save our life. If you simply cannot quit bitching and walk, you will die in the desert. ""

Alright, TEAM, let's get serious! Launching a third (political) party at this time is simply stupid. A third party vote is a wasted vote. I don't particularly enjoy writing that, but it is the simple truth. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have too much "infrastructure" to be defeated by a third party, short of a violent revolution.

I don't believe any of us with half a brain want a violent revolution in the dangerous world in which we live. Yeah, we would win that revolution, but what kind of world would we find at the conclusion of it? (Remember when the last "third Party" happened in 1860? OOPS!)

{So here is our game-plan: Find the "straight arrow" candidates among us and {catapult them into power. Then we keep a close eye on each one of them, and {fire them if they let us down.}

I am personally an "independent". I define that as ready to vote for the best candidate for a particular office. There is one problem, however. The lunatics on the "Left" always vote a straight, Democrat ticket, along with the ignorant, the lazy, and the millions of government employees. "Birds of a feather" included with all of the other metaphors with which we are so familiar. So, my default option has been Republicans most often these last few years even though they have so often disappointed me.

Together, as a TEAM, we can have our will implemented! Every single one of us has a unique set of needs and wants from our government, but all of us want a level playing field upon which to compete for jobs and in our business, and every one of us understands that government needs to be limited and prudent with our tax dollars. That is a great starting place. Oh! That, and let's fire as many communists and their regulators as we can find..

Even as I sit down to complete this article, Virginian conservatives are in the process of tearing up their support signs for their Republican gubernatorial candidate, Robert McDonnell. The Washington Post wrote some horrible articles about him, and in some Virginian minds he "folded".

Just how short are the memory spans .....of these idiots? Are they just stupid? Can't they remember what happened to our country last November?

People, forty million voters sat on their butts last November because they could not get "energized" by John McDufus enough to wander down to the polls and vote......or even fill out a mail-in ballot...or even get their damned voter registration cards updated!

Okay, McDufus is an idiot, but you know, if elected he would have bumbled along without trying to tear up our Constitution, and the dictatorship trying to happen right now...would not be happening.

Hmmmmm...come to think of it, perhaps this wake-up call was overdue. Perhaps we all needed our noses rubbed in our own mess to such a degree.

All right, now is the time to get organized nationally before the Republican nominating process begins. Let's become the vote bringers to the right kind of candidates, and trust me, the money will surely follow us to get them nominated, then elected.

Final Thought: Conservative, repeal minded Republicans MIGHT do the right things. We know the damned Democrats will not!

INOV8TN| 2.23.10 @ 2:16PM

I was tracking right along with you, Ken, until you got into 'McDufus'. I don't think 'M' ever saw a government program he didn't like. I fear we would be tearing up our Constitution with 'M' at the helm just as with 'O'.

Doctor Right| 2.22.10 @ 12:03PM

Ron Paul is an enigma.

He make sense on monetary and fiscal policy. He scores points for emphasizing the supremacy of the Constitution.

But his foreign policy is a joke.

Yes, it would be wonderful if we didn't involve ourselves in "foreign entanglements" and treaties that burden our wallets and impact our relationships with less-than-admirable foreign rulers...But that's pie-in-the-sky.

Our Founding Fathers never envisioned a time when a suitcase sized bomb could be smuggled into a major city by religious fanatics and kill 2 million people in the blink of an eye. Unfortunately, that's the reality we live with today, and if it means we have to lock arms with like-minded nations to stop this scourge, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan (and should be doing in Iran), then so be it.

And if that offends Mr. Paul and his diehard followers, too bad.

November looms large. If Ron and his gang don't get with the program (ie, you can't get EVERYTHING you want from ANY Party), stop the in-fighting, and focus on the REAL enemy - Obama - then Mr. Paul will cease being a wise sage.

Instead, he'll be the newest useful idiot for the Left...

...Like another one of his fellow Texans was in '92...

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 12:36PM

Ron Paul's foreign policy is not a joke. It should be in the discourse given the fact that we are spending $500 million a day on the overseas wars, and a trillion bucks a year maintaining the empire. Remember what happened to the Soviets.

INOV8TN| 2.23.10 @ 2:24PM

Thank you Ben. Doctor, one of the drivers of radical Islam is that we have pushed them and on the 'playground' the pushing goes back and forth, on and on. The moderates wouldn't be funding the radicals if we hadn't started messing in their governments overthrowing one for another.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 1:07PM

"Our Founding Fathers never envisioned a time when a suitcase sized bomb could be smuggled into a major city by religious fanatics and kill 2 million people in the blink of an eye"

No, they lived in a time where the dangers faced by the United States were profoundly greater - the very existence of the Union was threatened by empires far greater and far stronger. As the greatest military power in the history of the world, we face no threats even remotely as grave as those faced by Washington and co.

Doctor Right| 2.22.10 @ 1:18PM

Rubbish.

Inaccurate, and ill-informed.

Spoken like a true "Paulie-Girl".

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 1:22PM

That is not a refutation, it is simply childish sniping. What's inaccurate? What's ill informed?

My post stands entirely unchallenged and therefore victorious. I invite you to attempt to refute anything I wrote.

And I won't hold my breath.

Doctor Right| 2.22.10 @ 1:35PM

I guess you'd better exhale, then...

You're spouting opinion, not fact. That's what makes your post "inaccurate and ill-informed".

Your claim that "...we face no threats even remotely as grave as those faced by Washington and co." is based on nothing more than your own supposition. Do you have any facts to base this on?

Ummm...No.

You've been challenged.

You've been refuted.

You lost.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 1:52PM

re·fute
–verb (used with object),-fut·ed, -fut·ing.
1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
2. to prove (a person) to be in error.

Sorry - you have not "proven" anything I've written to be false or erroneous. You will have to do better than repeating your original puerile name-calling. I ask again: What's inaccurate? What's ill informed?

My post still stands entirely unchallenged and therefore victorious. I invite you to attempt to refute anything I wrote.

And I won't hold my breath.

Doctor Right| 2.23.10 @ 10:20AM

This is what happens when you try to be rational with the Paulistas...You might as well hit yourself about the face and neck with a brick.

In response to my pointing-out that his position is based on opinions, NOT facts, he basically says: "Well I stand by my opinions!"

What a moron. Typical Paulite...

Occam's Tool| 3.3.10 @ 9:05PM

OK, SL---it would be quite easy to smuggle six nukes into the US and take out (or severely cripple): Washington, DC, NYC, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles. The death and dislocation would greatly outstrip anything the founding fathers faced. Or, one properly exploded nuke could take out our electrical infrastructure, putting us back in the Dark Ages. Paul doesn't consider this. That's because he, like you, is no doubt supported by STORMFRONT.

(They hate us for reasons totally unconnected with Israel, incidentally. Defending Saudi Arabia with troops is one of them.)

Review the EMP threat, SL, which no less an authority that Gingrich believes is quite threatening. Refuted.

Ryan| 2.22.10 @ 1:36PM

Silence doesn't equal victory.

In which case, even if we face no grave threats, should there have been a military response to 9/11?

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 1:56PM

Yes, I believe there should have been. I believe we had cause to declare and wage war on Afghanistan for aiding the attack on the United States. That's not to say I believe we should have occupied the country for decades, as the imperialists believe we should have. But we should have gone in, annihilated the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and left.

Melvin| 2.22.10 @ 2:52PM

I'm sure your already aware of this, but going in and leaving is the best case scenario. Your correct that war should have been declared through the Legislative Branch.
By doing so that takes a good percentage of the politics out of how the President conducts the war.
Afghanistan had no functioning government other than the Taliban. We chase the Taliban out of Kabul who fills the vacuum. War lords, drug warlords most likely, with that we would have had a worst of all worlds.
I know many don't want to hear this, if we truly want to take the war to radical Islam, we have to first address the Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia, and the proverbial instigator Mr. Mahmoud.
Right now we are conducting the wack-a-mole technique in combating terrorism, in my opinion.

S.L. Toddard| 2.22.10 @ 3:43PM

"We chase the Taliban out of Kabul who fills the vacuum. War lords, drug warlords most likely"

That's absolutely acceptable. Local warlords and drugdealers in Afghanistan are of no concern to us. As for preventing their product from entering our country, we should redirect the money we are currently wasting managing our global empire into sealing our borders and entry-points.

INOV8TN| 2.23.10 @ 2:28PM

Bump.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 3:39PM

"Our Founding Fathers never envisioned a time when a suitcase sized bomb could be smuggled into a major city by religious fanatics and kill 2 million people in the blink of an eye."

DR, watching every season of 24 does not constitute informed foreign policy. Do a little research on suitcase nukes. They are incredibly complicated and expensive to make and maintain. No informed observers consider suitcase nukes much of a concern. If you disagree then show me some sources. Terrorism experts consider dirty bombs a much more likely scenario.

But even if suitcase nukes were a big concern, how does bombing far off Muslim countries reduce that threat? The threat would be most effectively reduced by immigration restriction and disentangling ourselves from the Middle East.

kenny| 2.22.10 @ 12:09PM

sl toddard, sounds right to me , for everyone else the ron paul movement is made up of everyone from all sides. I am a Republican, we are running a Ron Paul republican for county seat in Colorado(HE WILL WIN) he has the support from republicans,dems,indys,green,libertarians and a 52% voter block coalition i run. the last ron paul supporter that won was a democrat(who heard ron pauls message with 83% of the vote;) change is coming in 2010,2011 and 2012!!

Matt Morehouse| 2.22.10 @ 8:05PM

A "county seat in Colorado" is a good place for a Paultroon. I hope he wins and gets reelected, and reelected and....

kenny| 2.22.10 @ 12:17PM

dr right, the problem with the gop is not obama(he is a dem) the problem is the big government gop and the neo-con leaders within .My concern is the failed gop and the failed platform. unless obama registers republican? the problem is the gop not obama. As a republican i am here to reform the gop not the dnc!! NOBIGGOVGOPINMYTEA, the gop elected obama!!!

Doctor Right| 2.22.10 @ 1:22PM

Wrong. 100%, utterly, completely WRONG.

If you think we're going to win in November by bashing the G.O.P., and ignoring Obama, then you've already become a useful idiot for the Left.

The top-five issues for November are:

1. Obama
2. Obama
3. Obama
4. Obama
5. Obama

November's election will be a referendum on his character, his conduct, and his policies.

And by the way, in case you didn't notice, the American people hate ALL of them.

But go ahead...Keep chanting "Run, Ron, Run!"

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 12:25PM

If you want a coherent view of what is really going on in this crazy world of politics, read Mark Levin's post here. And within that is Bill Bennett's view, link provided. These 2 men do have it right, along with some others here.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/.....2101900945

Sean| 2.22.10 @ 12:41PM

Bill Bennett is one of the reasons the Republican party often acts like the Democrats. He is a big government liberal.

darcy| 2.22.10 @ 8:22PM

I agree with you, Sean. Bill Bennett endorses John McCain; that says it all, for me.

William R| 2.22.10 @ 12:52PM

Levin is a NeoCon crank!

Doctor Right| 2.22.10 @ 1:23PM

Before we start purging the Party of "NeoCon" cranks, perhaps we should instead purge it of ignorant, anti-semitic louts...

...Like you!

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 3:20PM

William R.,
You are sounding like a Neo-Con-Artiste!

Debra Medina is a 9/11 truther| 2.22.10 @ 12:35PM

Medina is truly crazy. A 9/11 truther. Stay away from Medina and her conspiracy theory drivel. http://rickvskay.blogspot.com/.....y-tea.html

Sean| 2.22.10 @ 12:42PM

Nice try neocon. Debra Medina is so much better than your two liberal, big government candidates.

Ben| 2.22.10 @ 12:37PM

Levin is a kook.

Doctor Right| 2.22.10 @ 1:25PM

...But Ru Paul is brilliant, right?

Mark Levin is the most brilliant Conservative philosopher that we currently have.

If you dislike Levin, you're clueless.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 3:28PM

"Mark Levin is the most brilliant Conservative philosopher that we currently have."

Doctor Right, the person you actually think is brilliant is whoever it was who ghostwrote Levin's book. Levin might talk a somewhat good game about limited government, but when all is said and done, he is a neocon interventionist first and foremost. His enemies list contains at least as many non-interventionist conservatives as it does liberals.

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 4:17PM

Mark Levin's Bio:
Mark Levin is one of America's preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers. He's in great demand as a political and legal commentator, and has appeared on hundreds of television and radio programs. Levin is also a contributing editor for National Review Online, and writes frequently for other publications. Levin has served as a top advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet - including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States. In 2001, the American Conservative Union named Levin the recipient of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award. He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington DC.
He is one of the best Conservatives we have. Take a listen, you would learn.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 4:34PM

Margie, nice cut and paste but where is the analysis. Levin's book is thoughtful and temperate, even though there is much I would disagree with. He even mentions different conservative factions including paleoconservatives. But on air, Levin is an intemperate ranter. I seriously doubt he even knows what a paleoconservative is. He gives them some respect in his book, but on air he is as contemptuous of non-interventionist conservatives as he is of libs. So the question remains, who wrote Levin's book? He is the one you should respect.

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 4:42PM

Analysis of what?
That he's a conservative?
What's your point?
That he ghost wrote his book?
You made the accusation. You prove it.

INOV8TN| 2.23.10 @ 3:00PM

Levin does rant on the air but his books are very well done and a tribute to our founders and freedom-lovers everywhere. It does seem that he has a great editor.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.22.10 @ 1:07PM

Ben,
Bye the way, welcome to the conversation.
Please see my article above in the comments.

GW| 2.22.10 @ 1:15PM

Where I love Ron Paul for a lot of his domestic/monetary ideas, the fact of the matter is he too often looks to blame America for Islamic policy. His bizarre isolationism also has little root in American foreign policy. Thomas Jefferson was NOT an isolationist...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

William R| 2.22.10 @ 1:20PM

Ron Paul is no isolationist. I suggest you get a dictionary and look up what it means.

Occam's Tool| 3.3.10 @ 9:12PM

He is happy to have free trade, but is unwilling to prevent attacks on America, only willing to fight after Americans have been killed. Sounds pretty isolationist in the most important sense to me.

The "America-Firsters" killed hundreds of thousands of America's kids by dissing preparedness before WWII, which CAME ANYWAY. Paul is a twit, and a Nazi.

Franklin| 2.22.10 @ 1:22PM

Taking this country back from the progressives is going to be tough. We have a movement that we want to capitalize on to march into the fray and declare victory in one fell swoop. It just won’t work that way; reality must prevail.

There will be times we must compromise and times we stand our ground. This isn’t TV or a movie; it won’t be resolved in 30 minutes or two hours. It won’t be resolved by picking one “savior” and then sitting back with a tub of popcorn to enjoy the show.

No human is without fault, so our duty is to find candidates that we can support and do so. If they disappoint you in one area, just don’t give up or run to another candidate. Talk to them, engage in the process and work it out.

Engage in the discussion, watch what your candidate does and says. Be careful when someone makes a statement about a candidate; don’t just take it for truth – do your research.

If we don’t get behind this movement to guide this country back toward its origins – Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – it will be no ones fault but our own. Not the Democrats, RINOs, Republicans or Progressives; but us.

As in US of A.

Melvin| 2.22.10 @ 1:32PM

10 years to screw it up and 40 years to fix it.

Cris Worth| 2.22.10 @ 1:32PM

It feels so good to see the GOP liberal establishment squirm. Their candidate Romney took a severe blow now they're desperate to find another loser in the mode of McCain/Dole/HW Bush/Ford to be their 2012 standardbearer. Constitutionalist conservatives need not apply therefore beware Jeb is lurking in weeds.

Doctor Right| 2.22.10 @ 1:37PM

I, too, despise the country-club, blue-blood Republicans.

But the antidote to their stupidity is not the quasi-3rd party appeal of Ron Paul.

That road leads to 4 more years of Obama in 2012.

Cris Worth| 2.22.10 @ 1:50PM

Two points:
Ron Paul is not a 3rd party candidate. He represents a major shift to enforcing constitutional restraints on the federal government.
It's important to vote FOR someone not against, liberal GOP'ers give me no reason to vote FOR them. At last this has dawned on conservatives hence the Tea Partiers providing a clear alternative to the Romneys and Bushes of this world.

Margie| 2.22.10 @ 4:33PM

Actually, R. Paul is a Libertarian who had to register as a Republican in order to get elected.
Didn't know that? Look it up, then.
He knows he has no hope what so ever in getting elected in a 3rd party so he's trying to co-opt the Republican party. Fat chance, though.
Obviously no Republican would suit your holier-than-thou personality and so you are relegating yourself to the edges, or fringes. I believe that is how you Lefties like to refer to us conservatives.
You say no GOP-er gives you a reason to vote for them. Not even Rubio? Not even Scott Brown? Not even Sarah Palin if she were to run? How about the good man in VA who just got elected~McDonell? Not good enough for you?
There are no perfect candidates, to be sure. But what is wrong with any of them?

bsdn| 2.22.10 @ 9:48PM

Ever heard of William Taft? A Repub that exemplified most, if not all of what Paul stands for. Did you hear Paul's address to CPAC? How many Repubs did he quote from the past that he agreed with? Today's Repugs are not. Neo-conservatism is not conservative. It's not that hard to figure out.

Brown voted for Romney care and if McMussolini had won, we would have had health care "reform" by now. This is not statesmanship or principle, this is partisanship.

IOW some Americans are getting tired of the warfare/welfare, bomb babies/abort babies syndrome brought to us by the ying and yang of the More Big Govt. Party, the Dims and the Repugs. The playpen cage match is just more boo bait for the bubbas so they can vote for the same old same old: Geo W. Bush or Geo. W. Obama.

Occam's Tool| 3.3.10 @ 9:10PM

I seem to recall that Taft opposed the formation of NATO when it was needed to protect Europe from the Commies. Paleo-Conservatives are idiots.

Cris Worth| 2.23.10 @ 4:44AM

You need to reread my comments. I wrote liberal GOP'ers. Constitutional restraint on the federal government is a true conservative position and lack thereof has given us trillions in debt, billions spent on undeclared wars and millions of aborted babies. Trillions-billions-millions it all adds up. Speaking of liberal GOP'er Brown, he voted with the Democrats already on the jobs bill...care to comment on that?

Lisa Graas| 2.22.10 @ 1:43PM

Wow! Another example of Rand Paul copying Bill Johnson! Thanks for the tip. See, Rand has been going all over the state ticking off GOP leaders. Johnson, who actually has more Tea Party support, has earned the respect of our Republican leaders here in Kentucky and is the unifying candidate. Seems Paul, who keeps copying Johnson, has copied him AGAIN! Co-opting is all the Pauls know. It's their whole strategy.......co-opting. They're astroturfing here bigtime in March, but the message Ron sent out didn't mention to the young people he's recruiting that his plan is that they work here for Rand. Anyway, thanks for getting this quote from Rand. It's priceless.

Pingback| 2.22.10 @ 2:05PM

The American Spectator : Ron Paul's Party | americantoday links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…politics is divided between a “Leave Us Alone Coalition” on the right and a “Takings Coalition” on the left. And they are quick to distance … View post: The American Spectator : Ron Paul's Party Share and Enjoy: Tags: alone, broad, david, left, right Politics Leave a Reply Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website Headlines America abc and- bac bbc best black…

Ted Agnew| 2.22.10 @ 3:08PM

I would have gone for Romney BUTT:

Nation building wars without end are helping to bankrupt us.

A blank check tail wagging the dog policy with Isreal IS MOST DEFINATELY a reason for Arab rage. At least Nixon had a dialogue with them.

Insane spending is completely out of control and the GOP was thrown out on their asses for it.

Why do we still have troops in Germany and Korea when those wars ended generations ago?

Paul raises many legitimate points here, and many more that I have not touched on.

NadePaulKuciGrav| 2.22.10 @ 3:34PM

bachmann bbc beck blitzer bolton breitbart cheney coulter cspan
gutfeld hannity horowitz huckabee ingraham krauthammer
kristol likud limbaugh malkin north npr oreilly palin perry
potok rivera rove scarborough stossel susteren

The 5 dancing Israelis arrested on 9/11 in NYC
were very proud of the work of the Mossad.
(no more Twin Tower asbestos problem)

Ventura USN Sheehan Perot Paul OathKeeper NamVet
Nader Medina McKinney Kucinich Kaptur Grayson
Gravel Gonzalez Fallon CoffeeParty Clemente
Choate Carter Baldwin Anderson

Northern Rebel| 2.22.10 @ 5:43PM

Seeing Toddard trying to match wits with Ken "old Texican", is like watching a rat running a circular maze, with no exits.

Ben| 2.23.10 @ 8:42PM

Toddard wins hands down.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.22.10 @ 7:18PM

Thank you for your kindness, Rebel.

I'm not "fighting" SL however. I am fighting a mistake in thinking. The problem between SL’s thinking and mine is precisely WHERE we “draw the line in the sand”.
As a sixth generation “Texican” my forebears lived in peace at the invitation of the Mexican government, until the dictator Santa Anna came along. He wanted to change all the rules and my ancestors said “Nope”.
The “line in the sand” was drawn with a sword in the courtyard of the Alamo…. Literally!
Every man there was killed…
I suppose that is why we Texicans respect the Israelis so much… surrounded by six gazilliann muslims, they have drawn another “line in the sand”.
We Texicans understand sacrifice, in our hearts and bowels. We are part of the “Great American Pax”.
Our “empire” is a non empire. “Nation-building” has become a curse word to wrong thinking persons. In our bumbling way, we Americans have tried to spread peace and “family security” to millions of people and their families. I am very proud of our successes, and saddened by the costs… on our part… and the families we could not save due to “collateral damage”.
I continually hear the old saw… “oil for blood”. The dumbshits who utter it don’t even understand that “oil” (fuel) saves millions of lives every year. DDT would save millions more …but there you have it.
Then I get pisthed off at the inflated numbers of “collateral death” in our efforts. Those “number liars” should be simply shot. Their lives are no more important than the lives they cost… are they?

JimE| 2.22.10 @ 7:40PM

Beforing deciding who is in charge, conservatives need to lay down the princpals they stand for, Paul like the others put forward are all over.
1. A real fiscal conservative
2. A real energy indepedence plan
3. An individual who will tell the UN to go to hell
4. A prudent statesman who realizes the US doe have global interests
5. Someone who will outlaw reality TV

Paul Freedman| 2.22.10 @ 8:00PM

Ron Paul senior = Confederacy + Anglo Saxon romanticism + isolationism + xenophobia + (enemy of my enemy here) justification of jihadists as aggrieved freedom fighters protesting imperialism and Zionism honorably. His balance the budget attacks on the Fed serve deeper discontents that go beyond economics and even libertarianism.

Good luck to a GOP that decides to outflank Pat Buchanan on the right.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 10:44PM

Mr. Freedman, the Confederacy was the conservative side in the War to Prevent Southern Independence. So this should bother conservatives because?

"His balance the budget attacks on the Fed serve deeper discontents that go beyond economics and even libertarianism."

Let me guess: they're anti-Semitic.

Michael Tomlinson| 2.22.10 @ 8:31PM

There is a lot of truth in the old political adage that the last speaker before a straw poll does well. Ron Paul's "win" at CPAC is proof of this. So is the idea that a phony that hides what he really stands for can win an election or two -- Barack Obama proved that as well as Paul this weekend.

Ron Paul, earmark king, is not a conservative. His foreign policy has more in common with George McGovern than Dick Cheney and his anti-American bilge sounds more like Markos Moulitsas than Ronald Reagan. If he is the future of the Republican party then we might as well vote for Obama, because underneath all the rhetoric Paul loves "pork" as much the Grand Mufti of BS Ayatollah Obama.

Sean| 2.22.10 @ 8:50PM

Who in Congress voted for less spending than Ron Paul? You name him and I will support that guy. I never heard him utter anything anti-American.

Red Phillips| 2.22.10 @ 10:38PM

Sorry Michael, but non-interventionism is THE ONLY foreign policy consistent with limited government constitutional conservatism. To think we can have limited government at home while policing the world is absurd.

Nick| 2.23.10 @ 12:59AM

Mr. Phillips,

You wrote in another thread that Mr. Paul's "[...] program is strict constitutionalism."

I replied as follows:
Shouldn't he be more well informed on the provisions of the Constitution, then?

Like the part about declaring war?

Mr. Paul thinks anytime the U.S. uses force, it has to "declare war", or it's unconstitutional.

somnolence| 2.22.10 @ 10:40PM

If Ron Paul supporters find a younger man who reflects the main policies (other than isolationist) of their hero, I might consider voting for that person in 2012. The man will be 77 in 2012. We need someone younger to run. And please don't cite me Ronald Reagan or Nelson Mandela or Konrad Adenauer.

Pingback| 2.23.10 @ 6:16AM

RON PAUL WINS 2010 CPAC STRAW POLL…Voters on Marijuana? « FactReal links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Doctor's Office Raid... http://drudge.tw/9oopNZ Drudge_Report: RT @abc7: BREAKING: VP Dick Cheney in a D.C. hospital after experiencing chest pains. Doctors are evaluating.. American Spectator Ron Paul's Party White House Accused of Federal Crime in Specter, Bennet Races Party Time for the Right Al Haig's Charge Taking Title to the Internet Is Our Children Learning? The End of History What We Believe…

Thorvald| 2.23.10 @ 10:02AM

Like Dr. Paul, I am going to try to stay above the fray. Ooops! Didn't work. Some guy with a bomb in his underwear tried to get me.
What Dr. Paul and the current crop of the (perennial) strain of "know nothings" fail to realize is that troops overseas should prevent violence at home. Take WW I: Wilhelm was agitating in Mexico. Patton killed Villistas who, granted, were pursuing their own aims, but aims parallel with the Kaiser's.
Let's just say it: for all the dark mutterings about "Neocons", a lot of these Paulites are anti-Semites. Period. I remember the USS Liberty, and I recognize that personal failure don't always cause political ones. However, if they fail to understand that our fighting men and women are "over there so they don't cut off your head over here," they are just as bad off as Barack Obama: "if we're just nice to them, maybe they won't be so mad at us." Sorry. Take that risk on your own, chumps.
OK. Bring it on. I have more ammunition than you do. Once you're dead, all your ammo now belong me.

INOV8TN| 2.23.10 @ 3:27PM

I hesitate to contradict a man who claims he has the most ammo. He might be my neighbor. But I must disagree with your point about keeping the war over there so it doesn't come here. Going into Afghanistan and getting out seemed like an appropriate response to 9/11 but staying there regardless of how it's justified by the military-industrial complex is just plain wrong. Ron Paul isn't a 'know nothing'. He's pretty savvy. He sees that the guidance of our founding philosophy as codified in our founding documents is timeless - something the GOP conveniently forgets when they want to make a deal.

Ben| 2.23.10 @ 8:41PM

The guy that predicted everything is a know nothing? Please.

Northern Grant| 2.23.10 @ 10:10AM

Thorvald is right! The belief that Muslim Fascists are agitated against is because of our support of Israel simply fail to realize that Fascists are always agitated against us.
You have an internet connection. Use your search engine and look for 'grand mufti hitler'. Here's one of many:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSUEx1cKUlg
You're welcome.

Yo, Vince| 2.23.10 @ 10:22AM

Some of these weenies who want to be friends with everybody don't get out much. Try wearing western dress and take a walk through, say, downtown Bethlehem (they know where that is, anyway).
Don't like the Mideast? Try it in Khartoum.
Don't like Muslims? Try it in PNG.
The point is not how they got to want to kill us, but WHETHER they want to kill us. Duh!

Yosemeti Sam| 2.23.10 @ 10:48AM

Re column - "Is our Children Learning?"

To American Spectator:

Appears I strike Liberal/Leftist nerves.

Do you or do you not validate email addresses
with posts?

You let an asshole - pardon the shorthand -
speak as if he were me.

Get your AS act together!

Do you have hacker firewalls - at all?

If not - moving on!

AS Webmaster - what's up with this compromise?

Pingback| 2.24.10 @ 2:23AM

Krys Barch VS Paul Bissonnette Fight 2/6/2010 | Dallas Stars NHL Announcer links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…| February 24, 2010 Dallas Stars’ Krys Barch vs Phoenix Coyotes’ Paul Bissonnette Related Blogs on Paul Trey Grayson, Rand Paul hammer each other for insufficient … The American Spectator : Ron Paul's Party Absurdly Premature 2012 Watch, Vol. 10: The Ron Paul Problem – The … Related Posts Paul Bissonnette vs Krys Barch Feb 6, 2010 Paul Bissonnette vs. Krys Barch Paul Bissonnette vs…

Pingback| 2.24.10 @ 5:38PM

Ron Paul’s Party By W. James Antle, III « Locust blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

blog Locust blog February 24, 2010 Ron Paul’s Party By W. James Antle, III Filed under: New American Revolution?, Republicrats, Rise of European Nationalism — whitelocust @ 10:38 pm Ron Paul’s Party By W. James Antle, III on 2.22.10 @ 6:09AM WASHINGTON — “Hey,” a young man shouted to his friends in the hotel lobby. “This guy doesn’t know who won the straw poll!”…

Pingback| 2.26.10 @ 6:16PM

peterbromberg at 02/26/10 11:09:56 | Exectweets links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…can add to the discussion? Let us know - even if it's yourself! - using the form below: I recommend @ (twitter id) as an IT Pro because: --> 543 members so far IT Pro Tweets http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/22/ron-pauls-party Interesting perspective on Ron Paul peterbromberg - Fri 26 Feb 23:09 All Things IT Case Study: A New Approach to Enterprise Security Demo: Learn about Forefront's Information…

Pingback| 2.26.10 @ 9:13PM

Weekly articles « Interned In Northfield links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

intended!! FREE! Home Interned In Northfield Weekly articles 26 02 2010 Is Ron Paul is back? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33225.html …in a related article http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/22/ron-pauls-party Michele Malkin says John McCain is the problem with the GOP http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/22/attention-gop-john-mccain-is-the-problem/ Eight coal state Dems challenge EPA on…

Albert| 3.2.10 @ 6:07PM

Internet Online TV full comments..

Pamela| 3.15.10 @ 7:53PM

Hi - thanks for the post. I never know what I will come across when I scroll these blogs. But just wanted to let you know I really liked yours. Keep it up.

Pamela

سوريا| 6.25.11 @ 1:14AM

tnanaank you
v
http://www.soryh.com

The American Spectator

Political Hay