The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Ron Paul and Liberal Republicans

By on 7.28.10 @ 4:11PM

David Frum has a post talking about liberal Republican support for Ron Paul in a recent poll of New Hampshire GOP primary voters. Although Paul’s conservative supporters would say the Good Doctor is self-evidently more right-wing than Newt Gingrich, that’s pretty consistent with the exit poll results from the 2008 primary. I made note of the data in my review of Bill Kauffman’s Ain’t My America for Reason (skip to the third paragraph).

Of course, Ron Paul wasn’t the top choice of liberal Republicans in New Hampshire. That honor went to the winner of the New Hampshire primary and the eventual 2008 GOP nominee: John McCain. (Incidentally, I think Mitt Romney’s lead in the early New Hampshire polls probably reflects his roots as a New England governor and McCain’s absence from the race more than it says anything about his perceived economic competence, though there could be some data that proves me wrong.)

View all comments (101) |

Occam's Tool| 7.28.10 @ 5:39PM

Paul is a strange bird---he votes farther to the Right than Jim DeMint on most areas of Domestic Policy, and farther to the Left than Kucinich on foreign policy and drug policy. I don't know what that makes him.

Margie| 7.28.10 @ 6:56PM

It makes him a Libertarian. He actually registered as a Republican so he could get elected. He's a Libertarian in Republican's clothing and a lunatic to boot.

William R| 7.28.10 @ 8:29PM

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.----Ronald Reagan

Warrior | 7.28.10 @ 9:44PM

Great quote.

victor| 7.29.10 @ 12:20AM

The "heart and soul" of "libertarianism" is as few laws as possible, no morality and being anti-semitic doesn't hurt either.

Freelancelot| 7.31.10 @ 9:17AM

Victor, Libertarianism is the continuation of classical Liberalism. What is classical Liberalism? It is, in fact, what today is called the conservative Republican philosophy. None of the problems that your addled brain has invented with Libertarianism exist. But, the actual problem with the Libertarians, as a party, is mirrored with high accuracy by Ron Paul (who is not a "loonie" as some loonie here says he is): brilliance and perfect adherence to classical Liberalism/conservative Republican philosophy/laissez-faire capitalism/the Constitution on domestic issues, but weakness on foreign policy and sometimes extreme positions on things like drugs. But the pro-legalizing-drugs stance is NOT endorsement of drug use, thus there is nothing "immoral" about it; it is consistent with Libertarian staunch limitation of the encroachment of government into personal lives (my personal take, incidentally, is that there do need to be anti-drug laws, but they need to punish actual crimes committed while under the influence as opposed to mere possession or usage; the "war on drugs" is an utter failure). Where you get the anti-Semitism notion from might reflect drug abuse of your own.

victor| 7.29.10 @ 12:48AM

Yo Will-I-Am, can you cite the source of that alleged quote?
Seems to me that you guys throw around these "quotes" without any citation or attribution.

Libertarianism is Conservativism without Morals or a Conscience.

doug| 7.29.10 @ 3:26AM

Your moronic comments have no basis in reality. The burden of proof is on you to explain why libertarianism is without morality and conscience and how it is anti-Semitic. I eagerly await your response.

Alec| 7.29.10 @ 8:57AM

The source of that quote is an interview with Reagan in Reason magazine. http://reason.com/archives/197.....ald-reagan

Nick | 7.28.10 @ 11:22PM

I can say catagoricaly that Ron Paul is the most decent man I ever met on the Hill. Libertarian in GOP clothing? What the ---- is a Republican these days anyway? Libertarianism is the essence of conservatism.

victor| 7.29.10 @ 12:24AM

"Nick":
" Libertarianism is the essence of conservatism."
Then why don't you guys run as Libertarians, eh?
That's because there's not enough of you to fill a men's room at Yankee Stadium. Ok, maybe enough to fill one at Fenway, but not Yankee Stadium.

S.L. Toddard| 7.29.10 @ 9:11AM

Victor, if this is the Nick I think it is then he agrees with you more than you think he does.

Alec| 7.29.10 @ 9:01AM

Margie, that's what Gerald Ford et. al. used to say about Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 11:51AM

And it is what Michelle Malkin said about Adam Kokesh~ the anti-war lunatic and pal of Rand and Ron Paul, who also has the backing of the Republican "Liberty" Caucus, and the good 'ole 9/12 Project. Ya know, the "Truther" club. Of which I suspect you agree with.

And you Lefty Libertarians love quoting Ronald Reagan. That's funny. Then I suppose you love and adore him so much that you agree with the Star Wars program, and his STRONG Military defense beliefs as well?

You people are a joke.

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 2:49PM

Correction~ that would be the 9/11 Truthers, not the 9/12-ers, which are NOT those comprised of believeing that 9/11 was an inside job. The 9/12 -ers are members of Tea partiers, which I support. The 9/11 "Truthers" are insane.

Warrior | 7.29.10 @ 3:13PM

Margie, still laughing at what you can't understand? You are still as myopic as ever. If you learned anything from Reagan it was all about bulding a strong defense. SDI and military build up were all defensive in nature. Reagan did not seek to nation build and used the military wisely and with clear purpose. Do a little research and you will find that Reagan had to fend off many neocons who wanted to use the military for invasions and larger operations.

By the way, Adam Kokesh is a distinguished veteran who left the Marine Corps with an honorable discharge. He was busted for illegally bringing a pistol back from Iraq. While I don't necessarily agree with his politics, he is not a lunatic. But then again, anyone who doesn't agree with you gets that classification.

It is uneducated voters such as yourself that cancel out those votes of people who choose to be informed.

Sam| 7.29.10 @ 3:45PM

" Anyone who doesn't agree with you (Margie) gets that qualification."

I agree with you, Warrior. You must be a bible-thumping neocon to satisfy Margie. Otherwise, you are a liberal lunatic.

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 3:48PM

Ya know, "Warrior".. if you weren't such a liar, you'd serve a good purpose.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010.....-clothing/

Warrior | 7.29.10 @ 4:54PM

You call me a liar without stating one thing that I "lied" about. You are right wing tool and nothing more. Michelle Malkin is entitled to her opinion which is exactly what her writings are. If Kokesh wants to protest the war, that is his right. I already stated I don't agree with his politics, but of course, useful idiots like you can only attempt to read and understand those with a like mind. Your kind of thinking and political approach is exactly why the country faces insurrmountable debt, unending and unfunded wars and ideological polarization.

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 5:18PM

Your posts to and about me are filled with lies and deceit. Either you are blind or delusional. I suspect the latter.

John| 7.30.10 @ 11:22AM

Margie, you are evidently a moron. Why don't you either educate yourself or shut up.

Margie| 7.30.10 @ 1:53PM

I take it you are a Ron Paul supporter. Everyone who isn't a lunatic like him are morons. You can stick your type of "education" where the Sun just don't shine.

Anti-war freakazoids like Kokesh, Paul & pals don't deal in reality. Don't deal with the facts~ just like the despicable Left with whom you guys share many traits~ lie about, and try and smear those who speak the truth about you.

Good luck with that.

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 4:33PM

Oh, and anyone else who may be interested in the truth about Adam Kokesh:

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....3172/posts

William R| 7.29.10 @ 3:49PM

Malkin is a NeoCon hack just like your Margie

Here she is being destroyed by none other than Dave Weigel

Fox News Conspiracy Theories

http://reason.com/blog/2007/05.....y-theories

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 3:53PM

Michelle Malkin can no more be "destroyed" by anyone than I can. You see, the Truth is indestructible. Liars on the otherhand....

William R| 7.29.10 @ 4:04PM

Weigel made a fool out of her.

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 4:21PM

And in the same asinine post that you refer to, Ron Paul is quoted once again blaming America for terrorism!

Seamus| 7.29.10 @ 12:58PM

So advocating views that sound like they were taken straight out of Robert A. Taft's "A Foreign Policy for Americans" puts you on the Left with regard to foreign policy? Got it.

Mzk1| 7.30.10 @ 2:59AM

I have the greatest respect for Senator Taft, who was one of the few people (unlike Roosevelt and Truman) who cared about what was happening to the Jews in Europe.

But isolationism has been the policy of the Left at least since Southern Isolationist George McGovern.

By the way, how can one be a "bible-thumping" neo-con? I thought we were all Jewish? (Actually, I'm both, but the term is not suually applied that way.)

Seamus| 7.30.10 @ 7:27PM

So because George McGovern was an isolationist, conservatives have to jettison Taft's foreign policy principles? I'm missing something here. Like maybe a coherent argument.

Javier| 7.29.10 @ 3:10PM

It makes him a person of principle not popularity.

JCfromDC| 7.30.10 @ 4:41AM

Remember William F. Buckley also had some pretty radical views on drug policy. THAT war we've long since lost

Red Phillips | 7.28.10 @ 6:16PM

"he votes farther to the Right than Jim DeMint on most areas of Domestic Policy, and farther to the Left than Kucinich on foreign policy and drug policy. I don't know what that makes him."

Sure you do OT. He's a libertarian, specifically a paleolibertarian.

victor| 7.29.10 @ 12:27AM

Better Fred than Red:
"paleolibertarian"

???? paleoliberwhat??
Another flavor from Baskin-Robbins?
Does this one contain more fruits or more nuts?

Red Phillips | 7.29.10 @ 7:55AM

Victor, it's not my fault that you are not aware of these distinctions. It's somewhat complicated, but it means he is not a left libertarian who dislikes all sources of traditional authority such as Christianity, the family, traditional standards and norms, etc.

S.L. Toddard| 7.29.10 @ 9:10AM

My, how revealing. Victor is not even remotely familiar with any political philosophies that are not promoted by the mainstream media.

Tim*| 7.28.10 @ 6:27PM

Beyond his grasp of fiscal and monetary issues Ron Paul seems to be an important counter-balance to neoconservative agendists ,who repeatedly attempt to use Our U. S. Military personnel , to force feed their foreign agenda around the world .

victor| 7.28.10 @ 7:01PM

"to force feed their foreign agenda around the world"
Oh, you mean like Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, Timmy* boy?
And all men are created equal, yearning to breathe free? I can understand why these concepts are considered "foreign" to you.

Tim*| 7.28.10 @ 7:12PM

Our Constitutional doesn't demand that Our U. S. Troopers be recklessly and repeatedly used as Cannon Fodder to carry out The Foreign Policy Agenda of You Neoconservative Party Faction World Police .

Got It Vicky !

Warrior | 7.28.10 @ 9:47PM

Our Constitution also calls for a declaration of war being necessary. Something the neocons want to forget.

victor| 7.29.10 @ 12:28AM

Exactly how does the Constitution spell out that Declaration of War, eh?

doug| 7.29.10 @ 3:35AM

You really are insufferable. Have you ever read the document?
Art. I Sec VIII - The Congress shall have the power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

mzk1| 7.30.10 @ 3:04AM

And that means it is necessary? Do you know any American history? Undeclared military action goes WAY back. By the way, as far as I can tell from reading it, the Constitution does not really believe in a standing army (as opposed to a Navy) at all, or at least much of one. I presume the War of 1812 taught us otherwise. (And yes, I agree that we should not be modifying the contitution without amending it properly.)

aware| 7.28.10 @ 7:23PM

Big armies mean BIG government and BIG funding, victor boy. Where's the money for your world domination scheme coming from? More borrowing? From Chinese commies? Empires that have to borrow from their main competition don't last long, pal.
We so busy bringing "freedom" to the rest of the world that we are losing it here in our own back yard. Or haven't you noticed?

Robert Pinkerton| 7.29.10 @ 5:02PM

After reading the whole discussion to date, I am of the opinion that Victor and Margie both would approve losses of liberty in this country if these losses of liberty prohibited beliefs, acts, and items contrary to their religious beliefs.

Too, while I may be willing to accept that Afghanistan might have started as a good-faith error (And I still say that we did it wrong, and that it reflects badly on our military and spy-services establishment.) Iraq was fraudulently-based ab initio. Yes, I acknowledge that Saddam Hussein was a monster, because it is irrelevant: He was not in any way the threat, in kind or in degree, that the Soviet Union was to us. Who elected us sheriff of the world?

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 5:09PM

Of course you would say that, Mr. P. You're a Libertarian.

Now, as usual it seems that Libertarians love to lie about conservatives who aren't Libertarian. You prove that fact quite well. My husband and I are not of the mind that you falsely accuse. Our posts have been clear here for a year or so now.

You Libertarians are anti-war and we conservatives are pro peace through strength.

Get over it!

mzk| 7.30.10 @ 3:08AM

1. We have been at way with him since the first Gulf War.

2. He was shooting at our planes. If that is not an act of war, the term is meaningless.

He trained terrorists. He even has a plane to practice on; you could wee it from the air.

And, BTW, I have nothing against principled libertarians. I find them quite admirable, even though I disagree. (It was a libertarian paper that convinced me I was a Conservative.)

mzk1| 7.30.10 @ 3:09AM

Sorry, "at war"

John| 7.30.10 @ 12:40PM

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad". - James Madison

S.L. Toddard| 7.28.10 @ 6:37PM

David Frum has a constitutional inability to be honest. His idiotic premise is that if liberal New Hampshire Republican primary voters like Ron Paul, that makes him a liberal. How does he have a job?

victor| 7.29.10 @ 12:32AM

Exactly why would striped pants country club republicans like Ron Paul, eh?
Must be something might appealing to them.
After all, Ron and Bahney Fwank are on the same page when it comes to defunding the military, don't you think?
Or do you?

doug| 7.29.10 @ 3:38AM

Yeah, those stripy pants elitists! You tell 'em Victor. What great insults you have! And such compelling arguments too.

aware| 7.29.10 @ 6:13AM

He and his wife are nationalists pretending to be patriots. They both seem to have some kind of phobia where Paul is concerned. Murderous neo cons hate liberty as much as collectivists.
Questioning the Garrison State really pisses them off.

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 11:34AM

Why, that's a new one sweet aware! Not only are we "Neo-cons" but we are murderous as well!
The lunacy of the fake phony fraudulent Paul-bots marches ever so militantly ahead.

But in the meantime, you Leftist Libertarians will continue to hide in the shadows or register as Republicans because your mental derangement cannot prosper in any other way.

America will NEVER become a non-interventionist country with your ilk running it. Not as long as I have breath in me. And if you consider us murderous~ I can only imagine what you you must be capable of doing to carry out that belief.

So while the perverted Ron Paul continues to "work with" Barney Frank to DEFUND our Military by what was it that Jed Babbin recently wrote in his article here the other day~ ten TRILLION dollars over the next several years? My husband and I and those like us will continue to EXPOSE him for the FRAUD and LEFTIST that he and you and your ilk truly are!

So march on all you militant Leftoids in sheep's clothing!

aware| 7.29.10 @ 12:37PM

See what I mean? Like I told the other half....How you gonna pay for your big armies? Keep borrowing from the Chinese commies? Or the Arab oil sheiks? Great foreign policy that'll turn out to be. I'm sure we can count on them when we need them, huh.

Get a clue, we are BROKE. And by the way I was fighting leftist collectivists before you were even born sweetie. You neos are the leftists and love your massive government as long as it bombs the "right" targets.

Before very much longer you and I will get to experience the logical conclusion of the Welfare/Warfare State that the Progressive/neo con cabal has given us. Hope you are ready.

CSC| 7.29.10 @ 1:22PM

Actually, defense spending is a relatively small part of the GDP and budget compared to other areas. Yet Ron Paul joins Barney Frank in a campaign to slash it further.

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 2:01PM

Don't confuse the Lefty Libertarians with the facts, they care not.

aware| 7.29.10 @ 3:15PM

Yeah, just a measly 900 billion, same as Social Security, so I guess we can just forget both of those huh.
Here's an idea, you and Margie just wave your flags on the poop deck of the Titanic. And keep thinking its "unsinkable".

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 3:50PM

So.. aware~ you never answered my question~ are you a Truther? Do you believe that 9/11 was an "inside job?"

William R| 7.29.10 @ 3:53PM

Defense is the biggest item on the discretionary side of the budget. We can't even begin to talk about balancing the budget without significant cuts in the defense budget. We could cut defense in half and still be spending more than China and Russia combined.

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 2:05PM

"Your big armies?" ~Are you not an American?

Just who do you consider conservative besides Ron and Rand Paul? You Lefty Libertarians will only vote for those of your non-interventionist (anti-war) ilk.

Are you also a 9/11 "Truther?" Seeing as how you consider me a murderous Neo-con I can only assume you are just as warped.

aware| 7.29.10 @ 4:03PM

You're the lefty dear. Its you that is defending big government. I just want maximum liberty for me and you. How is that a threat to you?

Just so you don't continue to mislabel me and show your shallowness, I am anti State because it is nothing but a vast criminal gang of plunderers and offers nothing but corruption. It is impossible to be anti State and a leftist. You should read more. And since elections are nothing more than advance sells of a spoils system is it even moral to support it?

We've been sending care packages to soldiers(friends and strangers) in war zones for 2 years, what about you? But I do not have to support the corrupt government that sends them. If you know any soldiers ask them what they think about it. I know commanders and lower grades and they are not happy with the situation. And they are not happy with our government either.

You must be happy with the figure-head in chief since he agrees to keep the wars going. Are you a Bam Bam supporter?

"Seeing as how you consider me a murderous Neo-con I can only assume you are just as warped. ".....No I am not as warped as you, but I used to be a long time ago. Then I wised up.

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 4:06PM

Aware,
You're the one doing the mis labeling. In fact you're a liar.
Now why haven't answered the question~ do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?

aware| 7.29.10 @ 7:37PM

You serious? If I give the right answer, do we move on to alien abduction? Please provide an example of my lying.

You are only proving that you don't know beans about libertarians or liberty. And I said neo cons are murderous, you're just manipulated into believing they are patriots. Deceived. They do this through your love of your country, which is good and completely admirable. But they have their own agenda, the same one as the progressives, power. They do not love this country, they love power. They want to tell you what to do for the same reason as collectivists, cause they know better than you do what's good for you. Who your friends and enemies are and whole lot more.

Let me try this once more, I don't belong to any group, political or otherwise. I am a buccaneer, a freebooter, a pirate, a fierce individualist who hates the Herd and the Hive. The Jolly Roger flies over my castle, sweetie. Just a single curmudgeon sneering at the spectacle and the hypocrisy.

Your problem is you don't mind being ruled by a corrupt oligarchy, as long as its YOUR oligarchy! Its a farce fixed game with the winners always winning. And the honest and law abiding get fleeced. And, like you, fooled into thinking the Fleecers are the only thing standing between you and certain disaster or unspeakable evil.

The State is not your friend and regards you as nothing but a commodity to be regulated, mined for wealth, and if needed fitted to its battalions. It is a vast criminal cartel that organizes theft and murder on a grand scale while pretending to be the upholders of "law and order". It is constantly making trouble that requires its citizens blood and treasure to "fix".

My job ain't to tell you to support one crook over another. I'm just telling you the whole thing is a corrupt stinky pile of septic tank scrapings and has already passed the point of no return and you better get ready for the severest trial you ever imagined.

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 9:12PM

I guess we could move to aliens, why not? I mean you are calling me all sorts of false things and consider me a murderous Neo-Con, et al.. and the thing is I ain't none of the above! Why is it that you Libertarians must label those of us who dare to take you to task with such filthy lies? It is because you can't stand the fact that that I go to where you are really at and slam it to death. So you have to paint me as the bad guy. The thing about that is it ain't gonna work. Why? Because it's a lie.

That's another trait you share with the Left~ you try and paint the opposition in a bad light and smear them viciously! Libertarianism is indeed Leftist! If you were a conservative you wouldn't treat your fellow conservative like that. But you are not conservative, though you say you are you are nothing but an angry hater. You look at America as the aggressor and a strong Military defense as Sin. This is a view that I will never share with you~ and all your labeling of me (lying) as a murderous Neo-con and the rest of your baloney is just that~ baloney!
You're angry because I won't fall in line with your hatred of this country, with the Blame America Firster crowd. You say you "wised up"~ but it sounds to me like you joined the wrong bandwagon. And a bandwagon you are surely on though you deny it.

Once again your post is filled with lies. You sound crazy, actually, in your anger. What is this nonsense about the State? And an Oligarchy? I worship not what you accuse me of. You need to stop the lying.

And I know about the Great Tribulation, if you are talking Biblical. Mt. 24~ and I do hope I am ready, I trust God is preparing all of us~ including you.

aware| 7.30.10 @ 7:32AM

I still am waiting for just one example of my lies. If I give my opinion how could I be lying unless to myself? I can be wrong in my beliefs but I do not try to deceive by lying.

You are right about one thing....I am angry, very angry seeing a great nation driven into the mud of tyranny and bankruptcy by greedy, power mad professional politicians and ignorant citizens clamoring for wine and circuses at someone else's expense.
I'm willing to let our respective posts stand for themselves as to who is who. In case you don't know what an oligarchy is it is rule by a small group of elites. That's what we got.

And I admit I'm a little confused by someone who claims Christ and supports offensive or "pre-emptive" war without question. What happened to "Blessed are the peacemakers"? Also did Daniel and his posse bow down to the golden image at the trumpet just because the "government" decreed it? Did they eat the food that the king decided they should eat? They knew to bow to earthly powers would cost them their souls and had the courage to defy the State.
Look back through Kings and Chronicles, it was the kings(State) that led the people in their defiance of God and set up the Asherah poles and temples to Baal with tax revenue. Or Ezekiel where God said to mark all those who weep and sigh at the sins they see around them as His. Government was not offered as the solution to this. In fact it was PART of the corruption. A big part too. Like now.
Remember that punishing the "proud rulers" and breaking the nations(State) with a rod of iron will be part of the End of Days too, sister.

Margie| 7.30.10 @ 1:45PM

Indeed our posts stand for God to see.

You continue to lie and falsely accuse in every post. That's what Lefty Libertarians are made of.

You are no gentleman, and no scholar.

aware| 7.31.10 @ 10:30AM

Still waiting and waiting. Even you ought to be able to see you are out classed. Study up and try again. Put the night shift in and we'll see if he can do any better.

Margie| 7.31.10 @ 11:19AM

Outclassed by a liar and slanderer? No sir! Continue to revel in your deceit. You are a hopeless useful idiot.

mzk1| 7.30.10 @ 3:12AM

"Just so you don't continue to mislabel me and show your shallowness, I am anti State because it is nothing but a vast criminal gang of plunderers and offers nothing but corruption. "

So you are an Anarchist?

aware| 7.30.10 @ 6:05AM

Quite the opposite, mzk1. I believe in law and order and not the perversion of it.

Are you willing to claim that the State which slaps Rangel on the wrist, that steals money from working people and gives it to bankers, that makes a claim to 60% of what you earn with your own sweat, that is willing to enforce its decrees through to threat of violence, that destroys the credit market and then puts Dodd and Frank in charge of "fixing it", that nationalizes a quarter of the economy through "health care reform", that rewards the lazy at the expense of the hard working, nationalizes student loans(with no bankruptcy protection), just to name a few, all over the objections of its citizens to be the upholder of law and order?
Soon you will have a diet approved by your masters, your kids will be indoctrinated in government schools which only turns out amoral whores and whore mongers, a health care system that will ration and deem who is and is not worthy of "care". Again just to name a few.
Hope you learn to enjoy this kind of law and order.

mzk1| 7.30.10 @ 10:32AM

Well, first of all, you were basically talking about liberal stuff in the above. My co-religionists and I gave up on the gov't school system when I was a kid. Unfortunately, parochial school is getting harder and harder to afford, and some kids are being forced into it.

When you said State, I thought you were referring to the institution of government in general, and that you were an honest anarchist. While you are quoting Ezekial, he said to pray for the welfare of the city they lived in, in spite of the fact that their country (Babylon) resembled Nazi Germany, not the U.S. From the last post, you sounded more like a follower of Alice Rosenbloom - but I am not going to try to categorize you.

By the way, our Founders lived at a time with plenty of socially restrictive laws, even blasphemy laws, corporal punishment for wife-beaters, established churches in the states. It would seem that the Constitution they established was not intended to prohibit such laws, nor did most of them object to them. I'm with them.

aware| 7.30.10 @ 12:09PM

A very good post and I commend your honest difference with my opinion. I do not seek to make you agree with me in any way. I'm more a reluctant anarchist than an honest one. I define government as consent and the State as coercion. You can decide for yourself which one we have now.

What you say about Ezekiel is true but that didn't stop Babylon from going into the dust bin of history(remember the part about even if Moses, Noah, and Daniel were here their righteousness would only save them and not the rest) , and to be honest the section I was paraphrasing referred to Judah not Babylon. I used it because it agrees with the other references I cited that show a corrupt ruling class means a corrupt nation(or the other way around?). And they were warned by God through Samuel as to what would ensue and it did. We don't listen any better than they did.

Though I agree about "liberal stuff" you cannot deny it is the way it is and whether you agree or not you are forced to live with the consequences just the same. It is this way because the State enforces it and for no other reason. Some of us have been fighting this for decades only to see it get worse and worse like a free fall.
As far as the Constitution goes, I do not side with the Federalists and instead agree with the anti-Federalists, especially the Farmer. The "Constitution" only means what the powerful say it means which is self evident. And though what you say about various laws at the time is true, it was far from universally true. And those like me had recourse to pack their bags and go where these laws did not exist. Plenty did. Better to face Indian attack and wild animals than the tender mercies of tyranny of the many.

I think you mean Alice Rosenbaum aka Ayn Rand? No I am not an Objectivist and reject her atheism and deification of human rationality. But she was brilliant though flawed like the rest of us.

I guess I more agree with Murray Rothbard and Albert Nock with a dose of Herbert Spenser thrown in if I must be pigeonholed. An anachro-capitalist if you wish.
Again it is a pleasure to respond to one who has honest convictions and is well read instead of being misunderstood and called names by the manifestly ignorant. My hat is off to you , sir. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

cosmogenes| 7.28.10 @ 7:39PM

"Lunatic"? "Paleolibertarian"? Ron Paul's is the only sane voice in the entire Congress whose members are supported by and backing the elite New Class running and ruining the country. See Codevilla's article: AMERICA'S RULING CLASS in the July-August issue.

Red Phillips | 7.29.10 @ 12:03PM

cosmogenes, paleolibertarian was not intended as a swipe. It was an attempt to clarify. As a paleoconservatives, I have some differences with paleolibertarians, but I can support a paleolibertarian, esp. one like Paul who for all practical political purposes is a doctrinaire Constitutionalist. I would have a very hard time enthusiastically supporting a left libertarian railing against oppressive religion, advocating open borders, etc.

C Bowen| 7.28.10 @ 7:48PM

David Frum, like the rest of the mainstream media, exist because their dichotomy/echo chamber consists of Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (David Frum wrote a book, actually wrote a book, called The End of Evil, which was more blasphemous then John Lennon's Bigger Than Jesus quote) equals " conservative", and anything else is to the Left--Frum is a vanilla liberal to outright Leftwing on all social issues.

This suits all parties making a buck off the Establishment.

What Frum is up to here, is transparent.

Mr. Antle--don't give him any credit. He is squarely against the Country Party. If only we could get liberal Republicans to support our efforts...

shmalkandic| 7.28.10 @ 11:18PM

Ron Paul is the fixed true North in the political firmament. It is not just that he was Right, but he is right. Endorsed and admired by Goldwater himself, he alone retains the tradition of republicanism. When his son enters the Senate, we shall have two such Grachii working to save the Republic. May they not meet the same fate.

victor| 7.29.10 @ 12:34AM

Schmaldic:
"Endorsed and admired by Goldwater himself,"
Yeah, when Barry was in his dotage,
after all Barry was pro abortion, pro homo sexual "marriage" and Pro legalization of Drugs.
All very conservative positions.
BTW what was Barry's views on Pornography and Euthanasia?

doug| 7.29.10 @ 3:40AM

“The inferior man’s reasons for hating knowledge are not hard to discern. He hates it because it is complex – because it puts an unbearable burden upon his meager capacity for taking in ideas. Thus his search is always for short cuts.”
-H.L. Mencken

mzk1| 7.30.10 @ 3:13AM

H.L.Mencken was very long on style and very short on content.

aware| 7.30.10 @ 6:14AM

I like this one...."What is worth knowing, the common man does not know. What's more, he does not wish to know and what he does know is a myth"

You seem to be very long on conformity and very short on independent thinking.

Maybe Voltaire is more to your taste..."A nation that is morally bankrupt is soon financially bankrupt".

mzk1| 7.30.10 @ 10:37AM

I like that quote, but I define moral bankrupcy rather differently from you.

Red Phillips | 7.29.10 @ 12:10PM

Ron Paul is against FEDERAL drug laws because the Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to regulate drugs? Do you disagree? If so, please point out to me the Article and Section that authorizes it. Under Paul style federalism the states would be free to have whatever drug policy they wanted.

Seamus| 7.29.10 @ 1:01PM

Remember when Congress wanted to ban alcoholic beverages, and they thought they needed to pass a constitutional amendment to do that? Now, if they wanted to do that, they'd just invoke "interstate commerce."

victor| 7.29.10 @ 12:45AM

Schmaltzdic:
"When his son enters the Senate, we shall have two such Grachii working to save the Republic."

Grachii??
Are you referring to those nudniks from the Roman Empire that were land-redistributionists?
You mean the ones who wanted to take from land-owners and give it to the land-wanters?
Isn't this the same principle that "gives" homes to those who "want" them, but not work or earn them?
So you propose to take our house from us and give to renters? Because why? Because It would ease your conscience somehow?
Those Grachii were the precursors of Socialism and you admire them why?

Sean| 7.29.10 @ 9:13AM

I guess if liberal Republicans like Ron Paul he can then count on Frum's support.

Mike| 7.29.10 @ 9:37AM

WOW so many comments here that Paul is a kook. Well if defending the Constitution is considered crazy I guess the Framers were also Kooky. Our elected officals don't uphold the Constitution only Paul does

Restore the Republic
2012

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 11:55AM

Ron Paul defends the Constitution like the so called Leftist Christians defend the Bible.

Red Phillips | 7.29.10 @ 12:07PM

Margie, please point out to me an instance where you think Paul is wrong in his interpretation of the Constitution?

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 1:59PM

Red,

Please point out to me where Ron Paul is right in working side by side with Barney Frank to reduce our Military to non-existant? Please point out to me where Ron Paul is sane by saying that the terrorists are terrorists because of the United States of America? Please point out to me why you are sane for backing this man.

William R| 7.29.10 @ 3:57PM

Ron Paul and Barney Frank have proposed cutting the defense budget by a trillion dollars over the next ten years. 100 Billion a year. Get out of the Middle East, Korea. Japan and Germany and that does the trick.

Even a hack like you might be able to understand that's not reducing our military to non-existant.

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 4:03PM

Ron Paul & Barney Frank~ "Perfect Together."

I suggest a tee vee commercial for Paul's next election.

CSC| 7.29.10 @ 1:35PM

Ron Paul is not just a libertarian, but a utopian, and utopianism is decidedly not conservative. Conservatism has firm ideals, but it engages the world of reality, not fantasy.

For example, Paul's utopian fantasy that we can pull our military influence back virtually to our borders and hunker down, and we will be safe from the world's rapacious despots. This is a utopian fantasy.

Another example: Paul's plan to get rid of the Federal Reserve. This is highly debatable even among conservatives who lean libertarian in their fiscal and monetary policy, but the reality is that the Fed is too entrenched to spend energy trying to abolish. It's a utopian fantasy.

Another example: Paul believes the government has no interest in defining marriage as a civil institution. He thinks the federal definition of marriage will have no impact on the economy, society or culture, despite evidence to the contrary. His radical libertarian lens doesn't let him see the well-documented evidence. He is living in a utopian fantasy.

Another example: Paul was one of five GOP House members to vote for open homosexuals in the military, despite warnings from the overwhelming number of commanders who see the day-to-day benefits of keeping homosexuality a non-issue in the barracks. Paul disregards reality in pursuit of his ideology. It's a utopian fantasy.

And on and on it goes. His brand of libertarianism is to conservatism what scientology is to mainstream religion. Ron Paul is not a constructive voice in the national debate.

aware| 7.29.10 @ 7:57PM

Utter nonsense. No honest truth loving person of any political persuasion who knows the facts could ever support a central bank. It is the key to unlimited government and unlimited war. The endless money machine to the slave masters. And owner of the debt slaves.
And your excuse for continuing to accept this money=debt cartel is its "too entrenched"? So once corruption achieves a certain "entrenchment" it becomes not
worth the energy to live without?Kinda like a statute of un-limitations?
We are so freaking doomed!
(P.S. the scientology/mainstream analogy doesn't really work cause both will be useless at Judgment)

William R| 7.29.10 @ 5:06PM

Utopian Jim Rogers----Audit the Fed and then abolish it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nau_nLcqGlA

Ron Paul voted for the Defense of Marriage Act

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

Being in Germany and Japan 65 years after World War 2 ended is just plain stupid. Both are wealthy nations capable of defending themselves. Same with Korea. As for the Middle East it was Ronald Reagan who pulled our troops out and later wrote in his memoirs that the United States should be neutral in the region.

We are broke and NeoCons still live in a fantasy world that we can continue to be the worlds policeman.

Not only does Ron Paul add to the national debate he has the hideous NeoCons on the run.

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 5:38PM

According to Libertarians, a "Neo-Con" is anyone who isn't anti-war. It is also someone who will vote for the best Republican candidate in order to defeat the Leftist party (Democrats). It is also someone who does not wish to do away with the laws of the Land. Oft times it is someone who is a conservative Christian or a conservative Jew, or a conservative of another Religion.

In my eyes these are good things to be and do. So if this is a despicable manner of living and being and thinking to a Libertarian, then we are and always will be~ enemies.

jomo2009| 7.29.10 @ 6:27PM

I've never been a Ron Paul fan. But as I've commented on this site before I think it's time to wind down our military committments in some parts of the world. Take Europe, for example. The combined population and GDP of the EU are greater than the US. If we withdraw from NATO -while maintaining only those bases and air fields necessary to projest American power in that part of the world- the cumlative savings are estimated to be 200-300 billion dollars over ten years. That would be a good start. The Pacific Rim is a little trickier. Given China's stepped up trouble making and a disintegrating regime in North Korea we may not be able to disengage from that part of the globe as quickly as we could in Europe. Provided we can replace the current joke in the White House and win control of congress, the next president must order a complete analysis and evaluation of our force structures to determine what is needed; not only to protect ourselves but also to act as a responsible actor on the world stage.

Merrill| 7.29.10 @ 7:16PM

Neocons are statist, basically New Deal, tax and spend Republicans. Admirably, they accept the greatness of America, but accept the most damaging policies and programs of past administrations, Wilson, FDR, Johnson, etc. as staus quo. They are Keynsians in conservative clothing, except they are more actively interventionist in foreign policy. In this respect they differ little from old-time conservative Democrats. They are foolish enough to believe the compromising "go along to get along" approach to Democrats will result in legislative successes. Of course the Dems regard them as dupes and continue to mop the floor with them, laughing all the way. In their desire to be liked and respected, they cower to criticism. I say, let the dogs bark! I am moving on. Trouble is, while neocons give lip service to liberty and principles of freedom, they are not committed to them enough to put them into practice and stick by those principles. Their practices reveal they believe more in the State (tyranny) than individuals (liberty). In truth, they lack a full understanding of liberty and the implications of living in a fully free society, as a result they are closet tyrannists, just as the Left are closet totalitarians. Liberty is messy. It requires that we must tolerate people and things we do not like. I may not like socially immoral people but that gives me no right to try to control or limit their behavior, provided they do not immediate harm to me. When you truly understand liberty and it is in your heart, you gain stength that can withstand assault. I this state, the principles do not simply live within you. They are part of your makeup. Liberty is strong enough to withstand assault. It is where we draw our own strength.

Too many believe we must have a strong centralized federal government to fight wars when they arise. This is not so. All we need is to restore the understanding and belief in liberty so it beats within the heart of all citizens. I would rather fight with 10 who believe in liberty than 100 who fight from a sense of duty. That is why the American Revolution succeeded against one of the world's greatest powers of its day.

People believe liberty cannot exist if immorality is allowed to exist. That implies weakness, but liberty is stonger than that. Both moral and immorality (not criminal) can co-exist, provided all parties respect the rights and property of each other. Where they do not, they are to be considered outlaws and enjoy neither the rights nor protections of a civil society. It is my responsibility to be wise and strong enough to know who and what the immorral are, and to take appropriate measures so to ensure they do no harm to me and my family. (This applies on a national level as well. It baffles me why critics of libertarians think we are weak on national defense, when it is one of the few things government does that it is actually authorized to do.) In this respect, I believe too many are either lazy or take too much for granted. They rest on laurels when they should be protecting their freedoms from their fellow citizens who work so hard and persistently to take them away.

Reagan was well versed in Austrian economic principles and the freedom philosophy upon which our (imperfect) Constitution* was created. He introduced a few of those principles during his administration. Those principles is why he is so well remembered.

* It has too many weaknesses to allow for government to grow and devour the protections of liberty in the rest of the Constitution.

Did we cause the terrorist strikes on the U.S.? Yes and no. Westerners have short memories and think in episodes. To the Muslims we are simply in the latest chapter of a 1,000 year war with western Christians dating back to the Crusades. We have been targeted because we took a swipe at a hornet's nest. Poked our nose into a mess. You may not agree. This guy makes that argument better than I can. www.chaostan.com His war stocks are very successful.

In particular read "The Two Laws", "What is Chaostan" and his October 2001 Early Warning Report. He predicted something like the 9-11 attacks long before they happened. In that October issue, pay particular attention to to "Clinton's Sex Wars" and the part about "Monica Missles." I highly recommend his book "Whatever Happened to Justice".

I know some dogs will bark at what I say. They will identify themselves. So what?

Margie| 7.29.10 @ 7:27PM

Actually you've done the perfect job of defining the lying Libertarian! Woof.

mzk1| 7.30.10 @ 10:41AM

Actually we WAY outnumbered the British. The British could not draft for foreign wars (I mean for the army, not the navy). Plus they were extremely risk-averse. A lot like us today, really.

Merrill| 7.29.10 @ 7:25PM

Where I said, "To the Muslims we are simply in the latest chapter of a 1,000 year war with western Christians dating back to the Crusades."
I meant to say "...they are simply in the latest chapter of a 1,000 year war with western Christians dating back to the Crusades."

Please forgive the mispellings in my previous post.

More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/28/ron-paul-and-liberal-republica

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|108 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|121 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|60 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|105 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|66 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.