The American Spectator

Jonathan Ingram| 9.9.11 @ 12:02PM

I think the distinction that Dr. Paul's ad makes is between the rhetoric of Reagan and the results of Reagan. Reagan talked of cutting taxes, and he did cut income tax rates alot. However, he also gave one of the largest tax increases by increasing payroll tax. Paul was a stalward advocate of cutting taxes, the Reagan promise. I think that when he said that the policies of Reagan failed he means that Reagan didn't stick to his principle.

Jack in Wi.| 9.9.11 @ 12:31PM

Sadly the results of what ever good Reagan did was destroyed by the Bush family and a combination of old Rockfeller Republicans and crazed neoconservatives. That is why this country has gone in the toilet. The day President Reagan caved and took George Bush as his running mate was the day the Reagan Revolution set itself up for failure. I also think that when Mr. Reagan made his first Surpreme Court pick Sandra Day O'Connor and not Robert Bork was a sad day for the Republic.

Joe M| 9.9.11 @ 12:03PM

As Ron Paul has officially stated, he supported Reagan before he became president. However, the results of his election were less than impressive. Paul has consistently supported the same principles, the same small government principles that Reagan espoused in 1976 and 1980, whereas Perry has been much more of an opportunist. The Paul quote you have actually is addressing that the Reagan Revolution did not live up to its promise of smaller government. The budget, the deficit, and the debt all increased hugely during Reagan's two terms, although those increases seem miniscule compared to the mess we're in now.

C Bowen| 9.9.11 @ 12:04PM

As you were a Canadian Red Diaper baby, I can appreciate this topic might be over your head.

Like many Rightwingers, Republicans and conservatives in the 1980s, the Reagan Revolution, which arrived with much promise, did not deliver on basic issues like eliminating the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. The budget and the deficit increased; taxes were raised. By the standards of the Reagan Revolution, it did not deliver.

That is a fair and reasonable assessment; if many want to blame a Democratic Congress or what have you, that is fine, but it essentially acknowledges the same point.

USS Constitution.| 9.9.11 @ 12:07PM

Trash and you know it.

For starters, it's fine and dandy that Perry switched Parties. If people couldn't change their mind, we'd still be living under kings.

The problem is Perry may have switched tags, but he didn't switch principles. And he even directly said that. He only switched to a republican because he thought it was the only way he could get elected.

And his record shows that.

He's just another puppet politician who will mold into whatever is needed to get elected, period. And once elected will be another politician who will do whatever they want. More of the same.

Of course, Ron Paul supported Reagan when nobody else did. He is a man of principles, and when the Reagan administration failed to keep those principles, he spoke up. And that is why he is worth voting for.

All this article really shows is that the author doesn't care about principles. Well if you have no principles, you have no morals either.

Margie| 9.9.11 @ 1:21PM

"For starters, it's fine and dandy that Perry switched Parties. If people couldn't change their mind, we'd still be living under kings."

Veeerrry goood!

As to the rest of yor post, mm not so much. :^).

JRGUNN| 9.9.11 @ 12:11PM

Reagan admitted in his book that he regreted that he expanding the federal government. ron Paul stayed true to the Reagan message ,Reagan did not. How do these hacks get jobs writing this nonsense.what a joke. way to think.

Sean| 9.9.11 @ 12:16PM

As many have already pointed out Ron Paul ran because he thought Reagan didn't do enough to decrease government. While Perry at the time wanted even bigger government. Perry also after switching parties praised Hillary Care, which all conservatives at the time knew was bad. This would be like someone praising Obama Care once Obama got elected.

Mike Ridgway| 9.9.11 @ 12:29PM

Ron Paul was absolutely correct in 1988 to say that the Reagan Revolution was dead. It was dead because it was clear that George H. W. Bush was going to be the nominee of the Republican Party that year. And Bush was not a believer in Reagan's better principles, as his policies aptly demonstrated for the next four years.

Yes, true it is that Ron Paul has worn two party labels in his time. But his principles have never wavered. He was a conservative Libertarian when he was a Libertarian, and he is and has been a libertarian Republican for all of the time that he was a Republican.

It's not Perry's or Paul's former party labels that count. It's their set of beliefs.

No one can claim that Ron Paul has ever shared the values of an Al Gore. The same is clearly not true of Rick Perry.

Jason| 9.9.11 @ 4:35PM

Right on! actions, votes and principles speak louder than party affiliations. Perry has been far from principled, and certainly not consistent.

Robert Taft| 9.9.11 @ 12:37PM

It would be interesting to discover whether the author's defense of the Al Gore cheering, little girl murdering, Hilary-care boosting, in-state tuition for illegals promoting, sanctuary city protecting, innocent man executing, conservative christian pretending, bohemian grove man-love fest attending, bilderburglar Perry would be as strong if the guv were a true America-firster.

It's irresistable to suspect that the author's misleading criticisms of Dr Paul are precisely because the good doctor IS an unapologectic America-firster. Why is it that those who hate Dr Paul for his Washingtonian foreign policy never bother themselves to conduct a frontal assault? Is it because they know the public will see right through them?

Yes. Dr Paul's detractors are as clever as they are un-American.

Tom Jeff| 9.9.11 @ 12:45PM

The problem here is Republicans believe Reagan was the Messiah. It is looked upon as blasphemy if you attack Reagan, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. Again, Ron Paul is right when he asserts that Reagan ran up the deficit and the debt. He is only stating facts. Republicans need to give up this party loyalty and vote for a candidate based on his positions, not whether he supported Reagan. But I guess that would presuppose Republican voters actually have brains. If today's "conservatives" were actually conservative, they would vote for Ron Paul. He is the most conservative member of Congress since the 1930's.

Rob A.| 9.9.11 @ 12:52PM

Paul's Jesse Benton said it best. It is not about Perry being a Democrat, the complaint real conservatives should have is that he continues to act like one. I encourage everyone to look at Perry's record.

Quote: "
Governor Perry, let me be clear: It is not that you supported Al Gore that worries us.

It is that you supported Hillary Clinton's health care plan.

You pushed for federal bailout and stimulus funds. You supported TARP.

You support welfare for illegal immigrants.

You tried to forcibly vaccinate12-year-old girls against sexually transmitted diseases by executive order.

You raised taxes twice.

And, state debt has more than doubled in your tenure as governor, pushing Texas to the brink of our constitutional debt limit.

It's that you supported ALL of these bad ideas that are inconsistent with how most Republicans understand conservatism, yet you now try to swagger your way into the Tea Party."

Robert Taft| 9.9.11 @ 1:16PM

Let's put this into proper perspective:

Dr Paul criticized Perry for being to the left of GHWB. In response, Perry criticized Dr Paul for being to the Right of Reagan. Right?

Somehow, this is interpreted as evidence that Perry is to the RIGHT of Paul? I blame the new math. Can somebody get a dry-erase board?

You neocons are kidding, right? Neocons ... always clowning around.

Justabill| 9.9.11 @ 1:34PM

TO ALL WHO COMMENTED: Excellent job rejecting Aaron Goldstein's attempt to make Ron Paul look like a flip-flopper. Thank you.

sirbourbon| 9.9.11 @ 2:10PM

All Congressmen take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They don't make them to political parties nor to political personalities. They make promises to their constituents that they will honor their oath to that wonderful and miraculous document we call the United States Constitution. It is almost sacred and is placed right next to the Bible as man's guide to a better world if they observe them and honor them.

Political parties are not sacred since they write platforms and then allow presidents to renege on them.

Examples of dual culpability by major parties denying Americans their God-given rights to life,liberty and the Pursuit of happiness (Declaration of Independence):

#1 GOP Nixon nominated Harry Blackmun to the supreme Court. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion on Roe v Wade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Blackmun

#2 GOP and Democrats raise the debt ceiling and vote to create departments, agencies and bureaus and raise taxes which are violations of the sacred Constitution! The EPA was created by R.Nixon
http://www.theatlantic.com/tec.....epa/67351/

It does not surprise me to see GOP'ers support politicians ,albeit icons, who despite their reneging on their promise to defend and uphold the Constitution put them above that rare stateman, who despite the pressure to vote for tax increases and more regulations and bigger government says : I will stand by the Constitution and the promise I made to my constituents to honor the founders document even when my canndicay receives an endrosement from an icon of the GOP.

Is it so wrong for Ron Paul to leave a party to run on the ticket of another to tell Americans the Constitution is above political parties and GOP icons?

Quartermaster| 9.9.11 @ 2:18PM

sirbourbon, it's wrong for the smear bund. That's why they hate Paul and can't bring themselves to actually deal with the what he says.

I don't agree with Paul on foreign policy (nor do I hold with the idotic neocons either), but I will say the man is consistent and holds foreign policy views similar to the founders. I just wonder if he would be willing to defend the country. Given some things he has said, it is a serious concern for me.

Clint| 9.9.11 @ 2:30PM

Ron Paul is a proud Air Force veteran. He served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then in the U.S. Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968. During his military service Ron Paul spent time on the ground in Iran, Pakistan, South Korea, Turkey, Ethiopia and other countries.

Gen. Smedley Butler| 9.9.11 @ 8:26PM

Ron Paul has stated his intention of bringing all our troops home, and stationing them on the border. Considering all of the (under-reported) border violations and loss of American lives we've been suffering down there, can you think of better place for them? What's been happening on our southern border makes. Pancho Villa look like Spanky, from the old 'Our Gang' serials. Yet, this president does nothing. The last President? Nothing. Paul would do something.

But, unless you believe that the best long-term defense of this nation is served by "pre-emptively" making widows, orphans, and corpses of those whose natural resources we covet, I can't imagine how you could support any other candidate.

Paul supported the invasion of Afghanistan, as an effort to get OBL, not as a gateway to stake a claim to Iran's OIL, to rebuild nations in our increasingly unworthy image, or to build permanent military bases.

Dr Paul knows what our founders knew, that our only long-term strength is in the freedom of our people, and that attempts to make everyone safe at all times (even when those attempts are driven by genuine concerns ... which is rare) will only lead to another dark age, an age of fear, ignorance, militarism, and slavery.

The only long-term security for our country is through the freedom of our people, the freedom to arm themselves, to raise their own children, and to provide for their families a manner of their own choosing, without interference from those who (with good intentions or ill) would use the force of government to mold society to suit their own ideals.

Paul doesn't have to have a "clear vision" of what he wants society to be, because he knows it's neither within his power nor his right to mold society after his own vision.

Even God's Commandments are "thou shalt," not "thou shall." How arrogant is man, that he will command his brothers is ways that God will not? "Why not?" says man. "Isn't my tax higher than God's?"

Americans have lost sight of what it truly means to be free, to make their own way, to decide for themselves. Americans have become domesticated, and accustomed to others making choices for them, or providing them with a limited set of options. Americans have become timid and submissive.

Many fear Paul because he wants to unlock their cages, and they are clueless what to do, once that happens. "Whatever you want, as long as it doesn't involve hurting someone else," has become just an absolutely terrifying answer, for a people taught what to think -- but not HOW -- since birth.

"What about those poor people over there? Who will help them if we don't?" Dr Paul would allow you, and all of your neighbors, and the whole state of Texas, if they wanted, to go around the world and help anyone you want, in any manner you see fit. You want to sell them arms? Sell them arm. You want to give them arms? Give them arms. Your neighbor wants to supply the other side? That's his business. You want to provide humanitarian aid? That sounds great. But, why should your neighbor's children kill or die for YOUR cause?

If YOU are not willing to personally bleed or sacrifice for YOUR cause, then it isn't really yours, is it? It's a cheap commitment that demands only sacrifice from others. America is over-committed. We're promised that WE will benefit, and that SOMEONE ELSE will bleed, that all we need to do is to stuff a little piece of paper into a ballot box, then walk away. Well, the lie has worn thin, and the chickens have come home to roost.

If we each decided, today, what it is that we are personally willing to bleed for, I bet we'd have a damn-sight fewer commitments. Well, it's time to decide, America.

Clint| 9.9.11 @ 2:27PM

Ronald Reagan
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

JP| 9.9.11 @ 4:02PM

Perry slept in the same bed as NOW, the ACLU, Le Raza, The Rainbow Push coalition, just to name a few. He first got into politics the same year as Nixon's resignation and didn't get out until 16 years later. Cost is wrong. If he's right, then Southern Pols are nothing but cynics. Perry knew what he was doing when he crossed over. It had nothing to do with principals and everything to do with his political career. He was perfectly comfortable with the Progressive Left. It was Texas voters who shifted to the Right. Perry knows how to smell the coffee, and went GOP. It's really that simple. The man is not to be trusted.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.9.11 @ 4:10PM

(Sigh), beCAUSE, Aaron, Mr. Reagan had a different set of priorities.
As he stepped into the presidency, the Soviet Union was on the march...world wide.
(As it turned out...their high water mark)

The REAL Reagan revolution was defense of freedom... We win...They lose.
Yes, part of that was a strong economy to build a gazillion tools to defeat the Soviets...Accomplished!

Even then, Paul was totally myopic regarding the world around us, the dumb cluck.

Dick Chinese| 9.9.11 @ 6:31PM

Good point, Tex. In fact, it is no coincidence that the Soviet Union's most agressive military expansionism immediately preceded it's collapse.

Also, not coincidentally, Afghanistan, (the Carter administration's invention of) Al Qaeda, and (the CIA armed, trained, and funded) Osama bin Laden played a major role in the ultimate demise of the Soviet empire.

Something to chew on, ain't it, Tex?

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.9.11 @ 4:20PM

...heh... and these Paul-bots are too stupid to understand "priorities".
When Paul wanders off into the wilderness of myopia and senility, Governor Perry will still be waging the good fight in the American mainstream.
Paul won't even be elected dogcatcher outside his "wharf-rat" district.

Bernard Lindstrom| 9.9.11 @ 4:32PM

Note: Aaron Goldstein is angry that Ron Paul objected to a massive expansion of the size and scope of the federal government, and to the sort of fiscally irresponsible spending that added TWO TRILLION DOLLARS to the national debt - because it was a Party Hero doing the expanding and spending.

This is a PERFECT distillation of the mindset of the conservative-when-convenient Republican Party die-hard loyalist: fiscal irresponsibility and Big Government are "bad" when Democrats are responsible, but are not to be mentioned when Republicans are.

This is because they do not care about policy, and only about The Party. If you speak ill of The Party, you are no longer a comrade. Adam Goldstein doesn't give a damn if the debt is run up sky-high and Big Government expanded beyond recognition - so long as it's George W. Bush pulling an LBJ, and not LBJ himself.

What a joke.

Red Phillips| 9.9.11 @ 4:45PM

Perry was a full grown adult when he worked for Gore, not a kid. While people can change, when a politician changes with the changing tide of his state, we are right to view the change with skepticism. What may be more telling is that Perry endorsed Giuliani in 2008.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.9.11 @ 5:33PM

Red,
I sorta' like the Mayor too.... He GOVERNS conservatively.

Robert Taft| 9.9.11 @ 6:15PM

Tex,

Why should it surprise anyone that a supporter of the liberal Perry is also a supporter of the liberal Julie-Annie? Do you support Al Gore and Hillary, too, just like your buddy, Perry?

BTW, could you remind us of some of the mayor's conservative credentials? Would you call him a social conservative, a fiscal conservative, or a constitutionalist? And why?

Oh, and before you start, remember that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all good "law and order conservatives," by the neocon definition. So, let's use a better definition, shall we. Thanks.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.9.11 @ 7:14PM

Robert,
You are going to sorta' hafta' earn your spurs around this site before you start name-calling.

The way you might earn your spurs is some thoughtful comments on the articles.
I've been commenting with my best thoughts for several years here now.
Behave and grow some.

Robert Taft| 9.9.11 @ 8:09PM

Name-calling? "Tex"? My apologies.

Ken,

That's not much of a defense of Rudy -- if you don't mind my saying so.

Margie| 9.10.11 @ 3:27AM

"Oh, and before you start, remember that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all good "law and order conservatives," by the neocon definition."

Typical punk Paul-bot talk.

Robert Taft| 9.10.11 @ 1:16PM

Typical neocon reflection.

Are you a Perry-diot (per-EEE-diot) or a Romnoid, Maggie?

Margie| 9.10.11 @ 2:00PM

The neo-cons are coming to take us away, they're coming to take us away!
Hee-he Ha-ha Ho-ho!
They're coming to take us away!
LOL.

Adam Weishaupt| 9.10.11 @ 3:22PM

Maggie,

Who did your lobotomy? Nice work! My complements to your surgen.

9th ID| 9.9.11 @ 5:29PM

Never forget that Ron Paul left the GOP to run as a true Liber-tarian candidate along side the Liber-al cop killer Russell Means. Libertines always come back to their roots. Let's just be glad that Paul's GOP candidacy is finished along with his seat in the House...

C Bowen| 9.9.11 @ 6:30PM

Do they not test for drugs anymore?

Paul ran against Means for the nomination. Paul was backed with rightwing money, including those who had backed Pat Robertson's attempt after he dropped out. Means is neither a cop killer, nor the VP candidate that year.

9th ID| 9.10.11 @ 10:47AM

You seem to forget that you Liber-tarians are the party of legalizing all drug use. So, by your (il)logic is unconstitutional to test for drug use, right?

Beyond that, Means was indicted as a principle criminal in the AIM movement, the Wounded Knee Incident, and the shooting of an FBI agent.
Ron Paul should have stayed with Means and the other loons in the Libertarian Party.

Thank God, Ron Paul is finished. Now, we conservatives can focus on electing a true conservative in the legacy of Reagan...

Robert Taft| 9.10.11 @ 1:19PM

There you neo-cons go, again, 9th GRADE -- always dropping your oxymoronic prefix.

C Bowen| 9.10.11 @ 9:09PM

Was this English, 9th ID? Man, standards really must have collapsed...If you take a government paycheck, you really don't have any protections--that seems reasonable.

Were you scared of Saddam?

Robert Taft| 9.10.11 @ 1:25PM

Neocons are such hopeless morons. I don't know why we paleocons (real conservatives) even still bother trying to overcome your invincible ignorance. Now, I know how Livingstone must have felt.

Margie| 9.10.11 @ 2:02PM

Your haughtiness exceeds that only of the pope.

Adam Weishaupt| 9.10.11 @ 3:30PM

You know the pope?

yisong| 10.27.11 @ 2:20AM

Bearing contact fatigue spalling happened in the work surface, often accompanied by fatigue crack, starting with the contact surface the emulating maximum alternating shear stress generated by, and then amplified to the surface spalling alter shapes being, such as point-like pitting or pitting as spalling organize, peel into small pieces is cried shallow spalling. http://www.1stbearing.com