The American Spectator

Kay Brooks| 7.20.09 @ 2:13PM

Down in Nashville we spell Tennessee with two n's and accommodating with to m's. ;-)

JP| 7.20.09 @ 2:56PM

One of my biggest critiques about Ron Paul is that despite serving over 2 decades in the House, he has little to show for it other than being a crank. Now, if his constituents in his district don't mind that's thier problem. But, it kind of goes against all that he stands for. He does collect his House pay and perks, doesn't he? He will receive a nice federal pension and he will be able to keep his war chest tax free when he does decide to retire from the House. Try liquidating your company when you retire without paying your taxes -see how quickly the IRS reacts to that.

The biggest attraction that Ron Paul has is his ability to say, "A pox on both your houses." He can sit back and vote nay without ever chairing a sub-committee of any import and declare himself clean. For many this is as good as politics gets -being the outsider by choice. But few of his many rabid fans ask the simple question, "Is this man just taking us for a ride? Is his shtick really that effective? After-all, when he retires he will be taking with him millions in unspent camptaign contributions, all tax free.

James hit the nail on the head. Ultimately politics is about people and relationships. President Reagan as well as both Bush43 and Clinton were at thier most effective when signing on the opposition to thier agenda. President Obama is learning fast that even with a "supermajority" shoving legislation down the throats of the opposition is not only counter-productive, but also hazardous.

I think most conservatives are sympathetic to Paul's way of thinking. The GOP since 1988, has in many ways been a rubber stamp for liberal policies no matter what its standing is in Congress. But this is probably more a reflection on the US electorate as a whole than it is on individual lawmakers. The US isn't quite as conservative as many of us had hoped. But it isn't nearly as liberal as Obama, Pelosi and Waxman wish either.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle, and it is the task of conservatives to "evangelize" conservative principles -namely Federalism and Fiscal Discipline. Ron Paul's solution isn't politics, but dropping out.

yoikes| 7.20.09 @ 3:04PM

"And most of all, it is about keeping from sight the knife you wish to plunge into a man's back until you are strong enough to strike the finishing blow. "

If stabbing people in the back is required for the success of a political movement then I think that the liberty movement is better in failure than in success.

I hope that you are mistaken and that the liberty movement can be both genuine and successful.

W. James Antle III| 7.20.09 @ 3:08PM

Kay, I should have known to look for typos after publishing my post on "affirmative actin."

yoikes| 7.20.09 @ 3:08PM

JP, a quick google search will reveal that Ron Paul has called the congressional pension plan immoral, and he refuses to participate in it.

Joe| 7.20.09 @ 3:11PM

I just want to set the record straight on Congressman Ron Paul.

Named the “#1 Tax Cutter in Congress” - Human Events magazine

Nine consecutive years as the “Taxpayers’ Friend” - National Taxpayers Union

One of the “50 Most Effective Legislators in Congress” - Congressional Quarterly

Has NEVER voted to raise taxes

Has NEVER taken a junket during his service in Congress

Refused to accept the plush Congressional pension

Regularly returns funds from his Congressional office budget to the U.S. Treasury

Dr. Paul is a shining example of what the founding fathers envisioned Congress to be.

Ran| 7.20.09 @ 4:18PM

Mr. Antle,
Politics is about... power. Power and the money behind it. I've never seen a political relationship that survived a contrary dollar.

As the rogue base sends it's precious $20's to local libertarian and conservatives candidates, by-passing the creaking, squishy RNC, all the glad-handing and smarmy condescension in the world isn't going to save the RNC's sorry derrière. "The Establishment" had, too, better start building bridges. Those twenty's add up quickly to substantive power.

Josh| 7.20.09 @ 4:23PM

TRANSLATION:

If the Ron Paul supporters would only learn to sell out and water down their philosophy, the ruling elites of the GOP would gladly throw them a crumb or two.

Deborah K| 7.20.09 @ 4:24PM

What a joke! Matt is displaying that he is a principled man who bristles at those who would subvert the very foundation of our nation. He is going to get criticized for everything he does while people like this writer talk out of both sides of their mouths!

Matt made an important statement not shaking that subverter's hand. Kudos to Matt.
__________________

Sean| 7.20.09 @ 4:25PM

JP, sounds disappointed that Ron Paul votes no and is the lone opponent of big government in Congress . If only he would have come up with the Medicare prescription drug plan. Then he would have something to his name that we could all be proud of. If only he could have come up with TARP or maybe a stimulus plan or two.

Me I think we could use a few hundred more Ron Paul clones in Congress. I am not interested in either Republican socialists or Democrat socialists.

Elisha Dorfsmith| 7.20.09 @ 4:32PM

Good for Matt! It's about time someone stood up to scum like Zach Wamp.

W. James Antle III| 7.20.09 @ 4:45PM

The point that some of you seem to be missing is that Ron Paul consistently stands up for his principles but also behaves like a gentleman. He even shook Rudy Giuliani's hand. Yes, even the Ron Paul movement could use more Ron Paul clones.

Deborah K| 7.20.09 @ 5:11PM

You Sir, are the one missing the point. We are not the borg. We do not wish to be clones. There is nothing at all wrong with standing on principle. He made his statement. He wishes not to be in the company of those who would subvert the Constitution. If he had spit in his face, you'd have a point. But he didn't, and you don't.

Tim| 7.20.09 @ 5:16PM

Perhaps more citizens and local party officials should take a similar stand? What it the point of glad-handing and slapping politicians on the back if they are just going to return to washington and vote for more bigger government? What kind of message does THAT send?

Andrea| 7.20.09 @ 5:27PM

Mr Antle, you're right. Ron Paul has even said explicitly that his supporters should not be rude.

Having a reason to be rude doesn't excuse rudeness, nor does it make it any less rude.

But you got a flood of traffic and Collins's point is being circulated, so it turned into a win/win.

Alan A| 7.20.09 @ 6:00PM

Matt stated his reasoning...

He did a very patriotic act, I salute him.

There's a revolution brewing and growing stronger by the day. We will not stand for politicians ignoring our constitution...the written law of the land.

Rand Paul for U.S. Senate 2010
Peter Schiff for U.S. Senate 2010

Jack| 7.20.09 @ 6:02PM

Why would Matt want to shake the hand of somebody who violated the constitution in order to steal from his constituents??

http://RandPaul2010.com
http://Schiffforsenate.com

Roy| 7.20.09 @ 6:42PM

Honestly my main concern is whether they are going to make the mistake Communists made in 1930's Germany, where they were more interested in destroying the Social Democrats than the Nazis, thereby performing a mighty service for those Nazis.

I agree with Ron Paul on a lot of economic issues, don't agree on a lot of foreign policy issues, hear that he is pro-life(but doesn't really put any emphasis on that, or he wouldn't have a lot of the supporters he has), and I don't like the way his supporters sometimes talk. I'd still vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat over any Democrat, in any way, under any circumstances, anywhere, ever.

Do his supporters feel the same way? Let's read a few more stories about their refusing to shake hands with Democrats.

Tim| 7.20.09 @ 6:48PM

^Roy, you are mistaken.

Ron Paul is very upfront about his pro-life positions (he was an ob-gyn) and his supporters are comfortable with his pro-constitutional stance on the issue. In fact he has called out his own party for failing to take action on the issue when they had the power to do so.

For futher reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act
"Pro-life advocacy
Paul's reintroduction of the bill was widely seen as direct pro-life action in Congress as opposed to ordinary political claims.[5] It was introduced the same year as the We the People Act, which would have removed “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction” from federal court jurisdiction. After neither bill passed the 109th Congress, the GayWired internet portal criticized Paul's legislation, saying that "the woman bearing the fetus is also an individual whose rights seem less important to Paul than those of the fetus or the state government"; Paul's political positions are available on the internet encyclopedia Wikipedia.[6]

Paul spoke passionately about his pro-life position, which includes his introduction of the Sanctity of Life Act, while campaigning for U.S. president in 2007, such as in Lawton, Iowa.[7] Paul Dorr of nearby Ocheyedan became Paul's Iowa campaign field coordinator because of Paul's strong pro-life stance, stating that unlike other Republicans, Paul does not abandon his position while in office; Paul's sponsorship of the Sanctity of Life Act was immediately cited.[8]

When Paul mentioned the legislation in a personal "Statement of Faith",[9] CBN News White House correspondent David Brody noted that Paul was an exception to the pattern of the 2008 Republican candidates for president not engaging in "God talk".[10] The California Catholic Daily also cited Paul as "abortion's 'unshakeable foe'" with the Act as evidence.[11]"

Red Phillips| 7.20.09 @ 8:05PM

I am a huge Ron Paul supporter, but there is no implied endorsement in the common social gesture of shaking hands. A better way to make a point would be damning by faint praise in an introduction, passing a not so veiled resolution expressing disappointment in a certain vote, etc.

JP, saying someone is a "crank" is passing a value judgment. It is not simply a descriptive term. If you think standing firm on principle makes one a crank then that says a lot. You may think it is an ineffective strategy. Fine. But can't others disagree without being a crank?

NavyBrat| 7.20.09 @ 8:52PM

I dig Ron Paul. I agree with Mr. Antle in the respect that his ideas would DEFINATELY be a much needed "breath of fresh air" for our party. However, I'm reminded of one of Cicero's quotes about bureaucrats, which ALL politicians are. Hence my reticence to trust one more than the other, regardless of party:

"A bureaucrat is the most despicable of men, though he is needed as vultures are needed, but one hardly admires the vultures whom bureacrats so strangely resemble. I have yet to meet a bureacrat who was not petty, dull, almost witless, crafty or stupid, an oppressor or a thief, a holder of little authority, in which he delights, as a boy delights in possessing a vicious dog. Who can trust such creatures?"...Cicero

This is not to say that I equate quite the same level of contempt for Congressman Paul that Cicero does for bureaucrats in his quote. I believe him to be an honorable guy. However, I apply this quote, on some level, to ALL politicians. After all, who are they, other than ELECTED bureaucrats?

dan| 7.20.09 @ 9:15PM

NavyBrat, I invite you to learn more about Ron Paul and where he stands on the issues.. Obviously you are a fan, but you haven't delved into him enough to see his anti-establishment side that goes against everything in your post.

NavyBrat| 7.20.09 @ 9:40PM

Dan. I WILL look into him a bit more. I'm just dubious of ALL of them by nature. We've been told quite a few sea stories by politicians we've liked, haven't we?

Tim| 7.20.09 @ 10:15PM

^NavyBrat, thats exactly why he has more than just supporters, he has fans.

I'd suggest you start reading here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

I doubt you will find a politician that is a more prolific writer who says what he means and sticks by his positions -- popular or not.

NavyBrat| 7.20.09 @ 10:27PM

Tim. Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. From what you say, Paul is not unnlike my home state hero, Davy Crockett.

"I have sufered my self to be politically sacrificed to save my country from ruin and disgrace & if I am never again elected, I will have the gratification to know that I did my duty."... Davy Crockett

They sound like clones. I like the guy more already.

PJ| 7.21.09 @ 9:02AM

Maybe Matt was practicing appropriate infection control procedures. Isn't the next terrorist threat coming from the swine flu? Is that the next fear-based control mechanism that the republicans are going to use to scare everyone into voting them back into office?

RandPaul2010.com| 7.21.09 @ 10:34AM

Americans are finally letting criminal politicians know they are not welcome.

I associate with honest people.

Bill Moore| 7.21.09 @ 10:49AM

Kudos to Matt. I hope he gets many more hit pieces proving that he's on the right side of the movement.

Barry S.| 7.21.09 @ 11:42AM

Peculiar amount of interest in this story... I wonder if this is due to Paultards calling on their spammers to attack.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=200656

Ruth | 7.21.09 @ 11:52AM

It seems to me that only way to get the "establishments" attention is by letting them know loud and clear that enough is enough. It's too bad that so many conservatives support candidates who ignore the Constitution in primaries to beat other candidates who ignore the Constitution in the general election.

Tim| 7.21.09 @ 12:41PM

^Barry,
Spamming? Please...
Was not this blog entry and the ability to comment on it intended to promote discussion? You have a problem with people on a public forum pointing out an article of interest to its members? Nobody there is directing people to come "spam" here. In fact, I see very little "spamming" in these comments, most are reasonable replies.

One must wonder why you seem to equate "peculiar amount of interest" as a bad thing or people feeling free to express their own civil opinions as an "attack". I would think that is the exact effect the author intended....

Keith| 7.21.09 @ 1:01PM

The article seemed pretty positive overall. Or maybe I just don't freak out about lack of hand shakes. Maybe the author and Matt are friends?

Matt Collins| 7.21.09 @ 4:19PM

HERE IS THE RESPONSE TO THIS ATTACK UPON MYSELF AND THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=22231

Matt Collins| 7.21.09 @ 4:20PM

Here is my response to the attack upon myself and the liberty movement:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=22231

MattCollins| 7.21.09 @ 4:21PM

My response....

A.C. -
First and foremost you misquoted me. I never stated Representative Wamp was a "traitor to the Constitution" and for you to put it in quotations was intellectually dishonest. To read what I actually stated the original blog post can be read here:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=21733

Secondly I would think that you would be above name calling by labeling an entire political movement as "crazy Paul types" but apparently not. And, while being necessary to an open and free society, I welcome debate and even criticism, I am however disappointed you resorted to such a disparaging statement.

But third, my encounter with Congressman Wamp needs to be put into perspective. Let's say you live in a fairly nice neighborhood. And one night you are asleep and someone knocks on your door. You go to answer it and it is your neighbor from down the street accompanied by the police. Your neighbor leading the way, they barge into your home without asking, restrain you, and begin to take valuable items from your house. All of your cash, your wife's jewelry, any investment certificates, and your kids' college fund. Then they turn around tell you "by the way it's legal because we say so" and also mention "this money isn't for us, we're going to give it to our buddies". Then a month later you get another knock on your door during the daytime. It's your thief of a neighbor again. He says it was a mistake to do what he did, but that you can't get your money back, however he is running for the chair of the neighborhood association and would appreciate your vote. The audacity! Most human beings would feel anger and betrayal towards this neighbor; not shaking their hand nor voting them to chair the neighborhood association is indeed the minimum action many would take.

So my quesiton is would you shake the hand of someone who robbed you? Would you support this person for the chair of the neighborhood association? Would you elevate this individual to a higher position? Would you want to give this person more power over you and your life? Would you trust this individual? If one is prudent to the ideals of freedom and liberty, then I think not!

You also claim that the "liberty movement" and the call for limited Constitutional government is marginal. If the movement is marginal why are we growing in numbers every day? If we are marginal then why is our legislation getting introduced and passed in both state and federal legislatures? If we are marginal then why are our ideas and our leaders receiving more mainstream press coverage than ever before? If we are marginal then why has the Republican Liberty Caucus seen an increase in new chapters? If we are marginal than why has the Campaign for Liberty encompassed hundreds of thousands of members since the 2008 primary? If we are marginal then why do we hold 5 officer positions within the Nashville Republican Party? If we are marginal then why did we completely "take over" the Los Angeles Republican Party? If we are marginal then how did we cause a cataclysmic split within the Nevada GOP? If we are marginal then why is the Florida GOP attempting to exorcise us? If we are marginal then why did the Louisiana GOP use questionable tactics against us at their state convention? If we are marginal then why did the RNC enforce Draconian rules against Congressman Paul during the '08 convention? If we are marginal then why did a liberty candidate receive 25k votes in North Carolina while the difference between McCain and Obama was only 14k votes? If we are marginal then why is our rhetoric being echoed by more and more mainstream talking heads (Beck, Hannity, Dave Ramsey, Michael Savage just to name a few)? If we are marginal then why has the modern Tea Party concept, an idea that originated in the Ron Paul 2008 campaign, become a national sensation? If we are marginal then why is it are we beginning to influence the political discourse within this country?

The writing is on the wall and if you cannot see that then you are blind. Those of us who are conservative/limited-government Republicans are tired of being tricked by those who claim to be conservative but yet vote for bigger government. We are tired of being tricked by Republicans who vote for reduced liberties. We are tired of being tricked by Republicans who vote to take our money. We are tired of being tricked by Republicans who vote to increase spending. We are tired of being tricked by Republicans who ignore the Constitution and trample respect for property.

And whether you know it or not you also confuse the "right-wing" with genuine (limited-government) conservatism [otherwise known in academic circles as classical liberalism]. If the GOP leadership and elected officials adhered to these principles of less government, instead of mimicking big-government Democrats, they would win more elections across the country. Both the Cato Institute and the National Taxpayers Union have demonstrated why in this video: http://www.rlc.org/2008/06/15/introduction-to-the-rlc/

But it appears you, like many others, are still stuck in an overly simplistic, obsolete, currently false paradigm of the "right vs left" 1-dimensional spectrum. If you want to fully understand modern politics and the direction which we are heading I would suggest you study the Nolan Chart as well as reading Brink Lindsey's work entitled "The Age of Abundance - How the Culture Wars Made us More Libertarian" (Cato Press). It is no longer left "wing vs right wing", but instead it is "supporters of big government vs supporters of limited government". For further books on the subject feel free to sift through this list: http://www.amazon.com/wishlist/21RMJJRMN70ZX

Your assumption that those of us who value Constitutional and limited-government conservatism are only on the scene to make a symbolic statement is incorrect. We are here to influence the direction of the Republican Party, and ultimately the nation, by restraining our government, by standing solid on principle and refusing to compromise our principles in exchange for political power. We are holding big-government Republicans accountable for their actions which the GOP rank-and-file should have done years ago. In fact if someone is a Republican and supports big government, then they need to ask themselves if they are indeed the correct Party and should consider following Arlen Specter's lead. It is time to publicly call those out who purport to be conservative when in fact they are not. It is time to publicly call those out who infringe on our liberties. It is time to publicly call those out who take our money and our property. It is time to publicly call those out who make the government bigger.

Now is NOT the time for moderation, now is the time for bold outspoken actions. We do not restrain our government and hold others accountable, even within our own Party, by attempting to pander. Just imagine if more voters begin to shun those elected officials who did what Representative Wamp did to us? It is also worth remembering that the Founders were not so polite to those fellow Britons who were complacent in the abridging of their liberties either.

Oh - and for those who are also in the liberty movement and may disagree with my actions it is worth noting what Dr. Ron Paul had to say about his fellow Republican President George Bush:
""I was not going to break bread with people who do those kind of things"

Filmer| 7.21.09 @ 6:41PM

Barry S., the use of the term "Paultards" is childish. You should be ashamed of yourself.

To my fellow Ron Paul supporters, Jim Antle is not the enemy. What is the point of “working within” the Republican Party, as many C4L types are trying to do, vs. working through the LP or the CP? It is naive to think we can "take over" the GOP and morph it overnight into the C4L. “Working within” the GOP implies a certain amount of give and take with the party regulars. And it requires not necessarily any weakening of principles, but a certain temperament and mindset. (A temperament that I don’t really have which is why I generally work in the GOP for specific candidates but my heart is with the CP, but it is a temperament I recognize I don’t have.) Work to defeat Zach Wamp in the primary with a candidate that is acceptable. If Wamp wins then withhold your support from him and vote third party in the general. But stridency and incivility is not going to help in the “working within” model and is counter to the whole idea. If you can’t keep that under wraps then you are better off joining the LP. Those who are not yet on board need gentle persuasion not indignant displays.

Making an analogy between Wamp and an armed home intruder is not helpful either. It is dichotomous philosophical brinkmanship. And the logical conclusion is to talk yourself into anarchism, which many end up doing. People have to be judged according to their times otherwise you will be like the self-loathing liberals always wringing their hands because the Founders owned slaves. Armed home invasion is a crime and the people who do it are criminals and sociopaths. Joe Blow who supports taxes to pay for this or that unconstitutional expenditure is 98% of the population and 100% -1 of the political class. Many are hard working, salt of the earth types who go to church, try hard to raise their kids right, etc. They are not all on the order of criminals. They are working within the dominant paradigm that is all they know. Many may have never even heard principled constitutionalism intelligently expressed. Principled constitutionalism needs to be presented and sold to them. They do not need to be compared to criminals. That will get you nowhere, and is actually counterproductive.

Barry S.| 7.22.09 @ 2:20AM

Hardly childish as the foolish system of quasi-anarchy that Paul advocates. Libertarianism is grossly irresponsible. Mr. Collins won't shake a "theif's" hand, and I won't talk civilly about a group of young and naive group of racists (There's far more racism outside of the race-baiting he and a Lew Rockwell did in his newsletters. For just one example, look here: http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/05/ron-paul-no-on-rosa-parks-yes-on.html)

Ron Paul isn't even that radical. You all are just a fanatical cult built on hype. You attack "Obama-bots", while you are the very type of enemy you claim to hate. He supports the "traditional" definition of marriage as between a man and woman, would like to lower taxes (irresponsibly ignoring our growing national debt), introduces the same kind of legislature he allegedly opposes (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx14_paul/efficientcars.shtml), and opposes the free immigration that would be the logical end of his system of beliefs.

The man is a hypocrite on a grand scale and that you all are unable to see it goes to show how easily manipulated Paultards are. You guys have truly reached a new level of delusion and it's so sad.

StephenP| 7.22.09 @ 3:21AM

Hey BarryS, can you explain why our national debt is growing?

Also, you seem to be lumping together all libertarians as people who have to believe in everything Ron Paul says or has done. You are stereotyping them.

As far "quasi-anarchy", what are you talking about exactly? The Constitution isn't "anarchy". Free markets, on the other hand, may be what you are talking about. They could use a little "anarchy", which is not actually the correct explanation, I'm just using your words.

I would say that taking on the Federal Reserve is pretty radical. Not as radical as a President buying up a country's major economic sectors and doubling the monetary base and racking up SO much debt (maybe that's the irresponsibility you should be speaking of?).

Finally, since you called me a Paultard, which is actually a pretty funny word by itself, I'd like to tell your stupid @$%#@% to shut up. You're an idiot.

Filmer| 7.22.09 @ 2:02PM

Barry, do you think strict constitutionalism is anarchy? What parts of the Constitution do you believe can be casually ignored?

Paul is a constitutionalist and a paleolibertarian. As a paleolibertarian he is not hostile to traditional social authority such as the family and Church, unlike many modal libertarians who feel these things are as much a part of the oppressive system they are objecting to as is the state. In fact, paleolibertarians such as Paul feel these traditional extra-state sources of authority are an essential part of an ordered free society.

Paleolibertarians generally recognize unlimited immigration as unsustainable in a welfare state. They also recognize immigration restrictions as a rational objective of a voluntary self-governing nation, something along the lines of gated communities writ large. See Hoppe, a purist anarcho-capitalist if there ever was one, on immigration.

And throwing out the racism charge is shameless PC bootlicking, and a sign of desperation. Libertarians do not support state mandated segregation, but neither do they support state mandated integration. They support complete freedom of association and oppose laws prohibiting discrimination. Most would consider Federal Civil Rights legislation unconstitutional.

Also tax credits and tax deductions are perfectly consistent with libertarianism because they cut the amount of taxes individuals owe and the government receives without being a direct payment to people. (As long as the tax credit is only counted against what is already owed and can’t result in a direct refund such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.)

Mind you, I am not a paleolibertarian (nor are all Paul’s supporters for that matter). I am a paleoconservative, but I am familiar with how they think.

Matt Collins| 7.22.09 @ 4:58PM

Roy -

I am not interested in destroying the GOP as you have subtly alleged. My only interest is restraining our government back to it's proper limited and Constitutional role. The first step to do that is to hol Republicans accountable to their core values.

We have to clean our own house before we can invite others in and be functional. If the GOP is to have any credibility whatsoever there must be a return and a steadfast adherence to principle.

I want the government restrained; and with some tweaking, the Republican Party is presently best positioned to do this.

satchelmcqueen| 7.23.09 @ 5:09PM

i think matt not shaking wamps hand was the very thing i would have done. i cannot pretend to like or support anything people that vote for bailouts or big government do. i think wamp owes the state of tennessee an apology.

Barry S.| 7.24.09 @ 1:54PM

Wow, that's a cute response, Stephen. I guess libertarians really are as rude and thoughtless as Matt Collins.