Paul Supporters to Rebel at Convention?
Andrew Malcom says that Ron Paul’s supporters are planning a rebellion against the mainstream Republican powers who are essentially lined up behind John McCain. While everyone has been watching the Obama-Clinton brawl,
quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in St. Paul at the beginning of September.
(via memeorandum )
Paul, who’s only won 19 delegates to-date and has few prospects of capturing more, is known for wanting to see the federal government effectively neutered - not necessarily a bad thought in itself - and for allowing the publication of neo-Nazi propaganda in his personal newsletters.
Truth be told, Paul is a bit of a crank. But that doesn’t mean that the crack in the party that his supporters represent should be papered over so that Republicans can present the facade of unity behind McCain.
In my opinion it was a minor disgrace that Mr. Paul’s supporters were shut down in Nevada before being given a chance to voice their support for him.
By muscling out Paul, Republican leaders are guilty of the same fearful weakness that is so prevalent in the left wing of the Democratic party.
Hillary Clinton should drop out, the progressives say, because Demcrats must unite behind Barack Obama in order to defeat the Republicans. They are afraid of the competition, as if Obama’s glass jaw might shatter under the next jab from Mrs. Clinton.
Too many Republicans feel the same way about John McCain. In fact, he does not represent the views of many, many Republicans on issues like abortion, immigration, and taxation.
But Republicans need to get over their fear. Disagreement, discussion, and eventual agreement would strengthen rather than weaken Republicans at a time when the party is in what can only be termed disarray. It’s time we had that discussion instead of fretting over John McCain’s poll numbers.
Paul’s planned rebellion could well humiliate John McCain if it comes off. Far better to diffuse the potentially volatile situation by acknowledging the validity of certain of Paul’s positions, such as fiscal responsibility. lower tax rates, and a bloated federal government that has exceeded its Constitutional bounds.
We can have TWO convention circuses? I better order more beer!
This could be fun. I agree, Marc. The competition of ideas on the floor should be healthy for both parties.
It’s just unbearable watching these idiots - Bob Barr and the Paulistas - try to derail our chances in what is in any events going to be a tough election to win. Newt Gingrich nails it: by getting into the race as an independent, "Bob Barr will make it marginally easier for Barack Obama to become president. That outcome threatens every libertarian value Barr professes to champion." The same goes for the Paulistas who want to blow a whole in the bottom of their own hull. Worse yet, as Cap’n Ed points out, these saboteurs are less mass movement than jejune gunpowder plotters: "Paul has won all of 26 delegates. Even if he wangled a few dozen more through manipulations in caucus states like Nevada, at best he’ll come up with 100 delegates in a 2,200-delegate convention. That’s not a revolution, it’s a lunatic fringe."
The primary process is a form of institutional settlement, and even those of us who aren’t thrilled that the process yielded McCain as the nominee should accept the result. I can never remember if it was Hancock or Franklin who warned that we must hang together or else will surely hang apart, but it’s an apt warning. Either we all pull in the right direction, or the result will be a President utterly antithetical to all elements of the GOP coalition who will take us (very possibly irrecoverably) in completely the wrong direction. No one wants to lose a leg, but Paulistas and Barrites must come to realize that losing a leg is preferable to the whole body being claimed by gangrenous liberalism. If Washington had thought it better to stand and fight when victory was unlikely than to cede some territory in service of obtaining stronger ground and improving the odds of ultimate victory, I fancy we would still be taking orders from London.
McCain is the nominee, for better or worse, and we should set aside the issues that we disagree on in order to defeat a common enemy. All elements of the party must come to realize this. If the price of preserving the entirety of the Constitution is a slight and temporary constriction of any one part of it, that is a price we shouldn’t hesitate to pay. Who can be thought sensible who would cede the keep in order to safeguard the ramparts?
Still, at least Paul’s book will put an end to the idea that he is "the real conservative" in the race, a peculiar notion advanced by some of his supporters. Paul may be a libertarian (I don’t think so), a total loon and a populist (as I think), but he now explicitly announces that he sees himself as seeking a revolution. Revolutionaries, ex vi termini, are not conservatives.
I like a lot of Paul’s positions, I really do. I am of the camp that they represent some of the true conservatism that mainstream party has moved away from in recent years.
But, come on. I’m sorry, but you lost. You made something of a name for yourself in this election, particularly among the netroots support you got, which will come in handy if you decide to run again.
Personally, I think he needs to take his loss, regroup, and try again in 4 years should the Republicans lose this year. Or, again in four years as an Independent or Libertarian or something.
hopefully GOP will be destroyed for a long long time.
I wish true conservatives (not many left, Bushtardism infected plenty) will organize in the new party…
admin: banned
Jared, the best that can be said about your reply is that it aptly demonstrates the level of discourse that experience has led us to expect from Paulistas: some broad-brush ad hominem and a surly aside insinuating that anyone who isn’t behind Paul must "not believe in freedom" or similar cant. Unimpressive and predictable.
Obviously no one wants people exploiting there positions of power and screwing the tax payers over out of the government or at least take that power away from them.
Why doesn’t the McCain contingent speak about it through their spokesman Morning Joe Liberman
That’s right. We aren’t going anywhere! This is just the beginning of the re-awakening of the American citizenry. Our nation is on the verge of a police state and we aren’t havening it!
This is no longer about left or right, Democrat or Republican. It’s about the very foundation of what this nation was meant to be. It’s about liberty, justice and sovereign citizenship.
Join us in defense of our Constitution and our very freedoms!
‘We Will Remember not the Words of our Enemies, but the Silence of our Friends’ - Martin Luther King Jr.
Simon wrote:
"It’s just unbearable watching these idiots - Bob Barr and the Paulistas - try to derail our chances in what is in any events going to be a tough election to win."
The reason these idiots are trying to derail "your" chances, is that it’s unbearable to these idiots to imagine another war being started in their name. They represent an entirely different part of the big tent, and they have been ridiculed and marginalized enough to make their desire to cause a commotion at the convention entirely understandable.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Maybe it’ll be enough to just take the big tent down, little by little, and rebuild it from scratch.
Simon, Simon, Simon…
It’s probably too late for the "unity for the sake of the party" argument to get many votes from Paul supporters. As for me, that Hitler comment by McLieberman in one of the debates really got to me. McLieberman is a sick man. He does not represent me.
Cheers
And it is a good thing to. These so called republicans are in reality communists. I don’t understand how that isn’t painfully obvious to anyone that is concerned with what is going on in this country. These primaries are rigged. John McCain is a Diebold candidate. He was broke at the beggining of these contests and couldn’t draw people to his rallys to save his life. He is pro a muderous invasion of another country that has killed 1.5 million people and is killing the economy for all that aren’t bankers invested in it , companies with no bid contracts or military industrialists. John Mccain is pro amnesty that will drive the final nail in American sovereignty and kill what is left of this economy (Watch immigration gumball on goole video or youtube video) John McCain is anti constitution and bill of rights. It isn’t just John McCain it is the communist/republican party. There is no difference in these republicans or democrats, they are one and the same. The 2006 elections taught us this in spades. We as the ciotizens of the Republic of the United States have to get our country back from these traitors. It is time to fire all those that have taken the oath of office and violated it. Ron Paul is a true republican, he cares about the people and the instructions found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He’s not bought off like McCain, Hillary and Obama. This might be the last hurrah. Fight for your rights and those of your children and grandchildren..TURN OFF THE TV NEWS IT IS LIES AND DECEIT. GO ONLINE AND GET A REAL PERSPECTIVE OF HOW CRIMINAL THESE PEOPLE REALLY ARE.
admin: unprovoked personal attacks seem to be the standard response from Paulistas, but will continue to result in bans
all right. enough of this baloney. im sick of hearing mccainites whine about how the paulistas are crazy because we refuse to unite with mccain. first, i believe that people who vote strictly on party lines are devoid of any integrity. second, the differences between obama, mccain, and clinton are slim to none. if the fact that we choose to vote for paul is a wasted vote to you, it matters not to us…see, the "other three" are THE SAME. I would rather be on the LOSING team than compromise my principles on someone (mccain) who CLEARLY DOES NOT REPRESENT ME. I can sleep at night.
LB, your comment - like the one I replied to above, see comment #6, supra - is a stock answer by Paulistas to any criticism of Paul: some broad-brush ad hominem and a surly aside insinuating that anyone who isn’t behind Paul must "not believe in freedom" or similar cant - in your case, implying that I do not "believe in constitutionally limited government in the United States of America," a comment that anyone who knows anything about me, which includes several readers, knows to be a ludicrous assertion. I not only have a backbone and principles, but unlike many of Paul’s supporters - those so cranially challenged as to be able to say without any apparent exaggeration that they think McCain is a communist - I supplement them with a functioning brain stem. You fret that "our Republic is doomed, as is western civilization as we know it" if we move away from said Constitutionally-limited government, but what you don’t seem to grasp is that Paul will not win this election, which leaves us with a choice between McCain, a candidate who will not move us that much further from the goal (indeed, may even move us closer in some areas), on the one hand, and on the other, Obama, who (as with all liberals) is fundamentally and viscerally hostile to the very idea of limited government, and who will point us in the opposite direction and nail the gas pedal to the floor. If you people let Obama in, and he passes universal healthcare and packs the Supreme Court with the kernel of a new Brennanite majority, that is a catastrophe from which we may not recover. For all the invective you hurl at those who don’t agree with you, you never once seem to grasp the consequences of the game you’re playing.
I understand that you think Paul’s a good guy, and I agree with much of what he has to say (not all - it’s one thing to think that the federal reserve ought to be abolished, but to think it’s unconstitutional, more than two centuries after the first Bank of the United States was chartered and nearly two centuries after M’Culloch is not just wrong but certifiable) — but what you need to realize is that by hindering McCain, his campaign is jeopardizing every ideal that he stands for, with the possible exception of ending the war, which for some reason seems to be a big deal for a lot of Paul supporters. (And honestly, the idea that Obama’s actually going to pull U.S. troops any faster than McCain is fanciful - Obama understands full well the bloodbath that will follow U.S. withdrawal, and lacks the stomach for such an outcome.) This isn’t a game: this is real politics, with real consequences, and you people need to wise up, fast. McCain isn’t my first choice, but he is the outcome of the primary process, and he is infinitely better than the alternative. The bleating to the contrary is painfully reminiscent of the bleating by Nader supporters prior to the 2000 election that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. The two notions are equally idiotic, and that it’s an idiotic view held in good faith doesn’t change how dangerous it is. After eight years of Bush, most sane Nader voters in New Hampshire and Florida would lose a foot to go back and change their vote, and I suspect that, seven years into Obama’s term, when "limited government" is a quaint memory and Justices Breyer, Clinton, Koh, Sullivan, and Feingold have abolished everything in the Constitution except the bill of rights, creating an omnicompetent federal government subservient to the United Nations, you will feel much the same as they do. Please - get a grip on reality, and quickly.
X2 unreal’s comment. Of course we RP supporters also have the choice of Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party). He put his hat in the ring after it was soundly decided Paul wouldn’t run 3rd party. He was a RP supporter and has pretty much adopted RP’s platform.
The Baldwin choice is an excellent suggestion. Paulistas who feel they cannot support the Republican nominee should go find another candidate that they can support instead of trying to hijack the Republican convention in a "revolution" of conspiracy theorists and other 4%-ers.
Simon,
You call Ron Paul and Bob Barr “idiots” and “saboteurs” and Ron Paul a total loon and then take LB to task for resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Talk about pot calling the kettle black.
And what’s with you assumption that Libertarians should back Republicans over Democrats? Granted, Ron Paul is a Republican (in name anyway) and would be expected to show some amount of loyalty to his party. But Bobb Barr left the Republican Party four years ago to join the Libertarian Party. What loyalty should he be expected to hold for a party that he feels no longer shares his views and has publicly disavowed?
The federal government grew at a faster rate during George Bush’s first term in office than any president since Lyndon Johnson, and Republicans in Congress have largely backed his half trillion dollar war in Iraq, his prescription drug bill, the PATRIOT Act, and his warrantless electronic surveillance program. Why ANYONE would assume that Libertarians and libertarian-leaning would back the Republican Party is beyond me.
Nic, it doesn’t take a particularly detailed analysis to see that John McCain is not George Bush, or that, no matter McCain’s failings, any sincere libertarian with a functioning brain stem should be able to determine that McCain is better than the alternative. It’s one thing to believe that McCain is insufficiently small government, and to prefer another candidate. I, for one, fall into that category. But we lost that fight, this election cycle, and to prefer an Obama administration - with a likely Democratic majority in Congress - over McCain really is idiotic, because it will move us significantly further from small government. Unless we assume that his platform is utterly fictitious, and that he’s a secret libertarian Manchurian candidate, no one who believes in smaller government - whether they call themselvs conservatives, republicans or libertarians, can sensibly undertake to improve the odds of his electon.
We are one vote on the Supreme Court from beginning to fix decades of mistakes illegitimately aggrandizing federal uniformity, and the Paulistas want to throw it away because they would rather cry about how McCain doesn’t agree with them on this, that, or the other. Wah. Narcissistic, want-it-all-their-own-way children who would rather lose everything than give an inch of ground. As I noted upthread, had such people been in command during the revolutionary war, we would have been obliterated by the British. What must make it deliciously ironic for those on the other side is that they are holding a gun to the temple of their own causes and threatening to shoot.
Simon,
You just don’t get it.
The Democratic and Republican Parties both have a record of expanding government. For Libertarians and people who genuinely want to shrink the size of government, voting Democrat or Republican (whether it’s Clinton, Obama, or McCain) just isn’t a feasible option.
As to your argument that “McCain isn’t Bush”, I’m not sure how that even matters. McCain has supported a whole host of policies that libertarians and proponents of smaller government would oppose:
This isn’t about libertarians being purists. It’s about holding their ground and disavowing a politician who has supprted some of the most unlibertarian policies of the last quarter century.
I find it amusing how you justify support for McCain not in terms of how good he is on policy but on how bad Clinton and Obama are. Using that line of logic, I should be willing to vote for ay candidate–no matter how horrible he might be–just because his opponent is worse.
You can vote for a big government Republican and pat yourself on the back that you voted against the big government Democrat, but in the end, you’re still voting for big government.
Nic, I understand your position but can you not see that what Simon is saying is that if it’s not politically possible for libertarians to acheive the policies that they want, that there ought to be some consideration for what the real differences will be in a McCain administration vs. an Obama one (particularly in regard to SCOTUS seats, some of which will come vacant during the next term which could very well tip the balance to a very liberal, activist court.) For instance- you mention McCain-Feingold, and I can certainly understand (and agree with) your argument against McCain on that basis. But consider for a moment- ironically, electing McCain is MORE likely to force some reversal of that legislation because he’s more likely to appoint justices who’d uphold the First Amendment principles if there’s a challenge to it.
On the political feasability and pragmatism aspect, my point is that if small government conservatives couldn’t get the candidate they wanted to win the Republican nomination, then what hope is there that someone could win the election on that kind of platform? This isn’t just about people not voting with their own convictions because they’re afraid of whether or not the candidate they want is electable- it’s about facing the reality of where the American people’s convictions really are. It’s easy I guess to look at the passion of the Ron Paul movement and think that people really get it in terms of fiscal constraint- but actually that sentiment is only there in a very small percentage of the American people. I’d say there’s quite a bit of work to be done in changing people’s hearts and minds instead of fighting for a candidate that can’t possibly win.
Paul stays in because he is loyal to the Republican Party. He wants it to stand for something. I will write his name in this time.
He will lose. It doesn’t matter whether McCain gets elected or not. If it is he or Obama or Clinton, the government of this country will continue to over-regulate, over-tax and over-spend.
Next election I will run for precinct delegate. If there are enough of us "Paulistas", we can hope for the return of republican principles to the Republican Party. I will support candidates like Mr. Sabrin of NJ, and Jack Hoogendyke of MI. Yes, I would have liked an early end to our long national nightmare, but if it takes two or three election cycles, I am going to see an end to bipartisen politics as usual.
If we don’t see this change, returning to individual freedom, small federal government, and economic freedom, then there are two ways it will end: Sliding into a 2nd tier nation, like the British empire, or a violent revolution, Americans against Americans. I’d like to work to prevent either.
admin: more Paulista ad homs = more bans
All of you McCain supporters forget that there is another side to the argument of electing McCain. One could argue as vociferously and coherently that electing him will sink the chances of ever electing a Republican again in the 21st century. Electing Obama means in four years the Reps can try again with a decent candidate and not be blamed for the implosion of the economy or the mid-east. However I think that argument is as flawed as the ‘vote for McCain cause Obama is worse.’ The attempt to vote for a candidate based on your ability to predict the future is really a fools game. Vote your conscience period. If the Republican establishment can do no better than to serve up a candidate like John McCain, they deserve to lose. That’s my opinion and it may be wrong on any number of counts but voting my conscience is the only stable thing in this mess that there is.
admin: arguing with the admins not welcome
No, Nic, I’m afraid that you don’t get it, on evidence presented. When I see someone advocating an action that will gravely injure their cause, I have to assume that we’re seeing either idiocy or revealed preference, and I assume that most Paulistas are not secret partisans for maximal government. Whether this is about libtertarian "purism" or otherwise, what remains beyond peradventure is that, when faced with the choice between two imperfect options, rational actors pick the option that will do the least damage to their cause. And there is no credible argument that McCain will be worse for the causes libertarians care about than will eight years of President Obama. He may not be much better - that, at least, can be argued with a straight face - but better is still better. My golf coach used to say that the goal is to advance the ball - if you don’t land it dead center in the fairway, that’s okay; if you land it in the rough, that’s not great, but it’s still okay; the goal is to advance the ball. McCain advances the ball - it may be a shot into the rough, but better that than turning around and smacking it straight into the water hazard to the left.
The argument that McCain supported the war, which has supposedly cost, you know, just oodles of money is emblematic of your short-sightedness. The Iraq war has cost in the region of $600 billion over five years; that sounds like a lot of money, but it is less than half the federal entitlement spending for this year alone. I keep beating this drum, and I get painted as a heartless conservative for doing so, but as a matter of sheer math, a conversation about cutting the size and expense of the federal government that doesn’t talk about how we’re going to ramp down and ultimately shut off federal entitlements is a sham; just because neither candidate will go that far, however, does not mean that there is no difference between them. McCain may or may not start to move towards eliminating entitlement spending, he will at least hold the line (he voted against Medicare Part D, for example, which ably distinguishes him from Bush), Obama will increase that spending, and in doing so, further cement the mindset that libertarians and federalists like me have to break in order to slim down the federal operation: the mindset that sees the federal government as a combination of mommy and your dealer.
Ditto BCRA, for reasons Christine pointed out (comment #21, supra) - and I echo her observation about the lack of support. Thatcher said that you win the argument, then you win the vote; we haven’t yet won the argument, and until we do, those of us who believe in smaller government should pragmatically do whatever we can to limit the size and growth of government. Eight years of an Obama Presidency with a supplicant majority in Congress, a Supreme Court that believes in the Bill of Rights (apart from the second amendment, of course), the habeas corpus clause, and nothing else in the Constitution, and a media that isn’t so much supine as, for want of a better term, fellatory, could well put an end to limited government, period. It is imperative that we prevent this from happening - beyond imperative, in fact: it must be done at all costs. Yet the people who claim to be most fervently opposed to that result are apparently willing to be tools in its accomplishment. Start acting like the cavalry rather than a Fifth Column.
And finally, yes, of course you should be willing to vote for any candidate who is better than their opponent. How is that anything other than a truism? That is virtually every election. Is this a grown-up conversation? I mean, have you been involved in politics at all - ever? It is a very rare election - and I mean truly rare, once in a generation or two - that a candidate worth voting for comes forward. (Indeed, I can think of only one in my lifetime.) That is in the nature of politics; we live in ordinary times in a society comprised of ordinary people. We should not be surprised that extraordinary is rare. And to insist on it, on pain of withdrawal, is ludicrous: the price of disengagement from the system is total irrelevance, and that doesn’t advance the cause - to say nothing of the fact that refusing to hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil has the practical result of helping the greater evil.
Ryan, they aren’t "traditional conservatives." They’re libertarian revolutionaries - as Paul’s own book proudly proclaims. Their hearts are in the right place, for the most part, and you might be able to fashion a definition of conservative that embraces what they want, but they are not traditional - still less traditionalist - conservatives.
And, I must say, it is more than one ought to have to bear to see the same tired formulaic responses that they give to any criticism of Paul: as noted twice upthread, the response always consists of some half-baked ad hominem and the allegation that anyone who disagrees with Paul must obviously be a Bush Republican crypto-liberal who is opposed to liberty and is an enemy of the Constitution. It doesn’t seem to enter their worldview that one can be a conservative or a libertarian or a federalist, who shares many of their views on what has gone wrong, without sharing their belief in Paul and his ill-conceived (not to mention deeply unconservative) sledgehammer approach.
Dan:
With the caveat that I’m not a "McCain supporter," my reply is that, as you point out, that argument is flawed - I would add, fatally so. It assumes away the damage that Obama can do in four years with a majority in Congress (quite possibly a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate), it assumes away the significant chance of Obama’s reelection, and it assums that a better candidate will get the nomination in 2012. It also assumes that in four years, we will be free of the Bush-Frist millstone. In Britain, for example, Tony Blair’s Labour Party defeated the Conservatives in 1997. They proceded to do some good, and an awful lot of bad. The following election, everything that was right with Britain was Labour’s credit; everything that was wrong, well, blame the preceding Tory government for making such a mess that we’ve not yet had time to fix it. President Obama’s reelection argument in 2012 will be, "look, I know we’re still in Iraq, the economy’s a disaster, and in four years I’ve abolished everything libertarians care about, but you have to remember, Evil W. McBushCo made such a mess that it’s just taking a long time to clean up. Change we can believe in doesn’t mean instant change, it takes time, so give me four more years." It would not surprise me in the slightest if it worked, and even if it doesn’t, the same people now saying they won’t vote for McCain because he’s not good enough will, having failed to get their preferred candidate nominated, will be arguing that they should be preparing for 2016. It is lunacy. It is a strategy for permanent minority, for sitting on the sidelines watching the liberals shred the Constitution and bury limited government so deeply that we will never disinter the corpse, let alone resuscitate it.
(format corrected)
Simon, you make several good points. Most especially:
In my estimation, Ron Paul is such a candidate. He’s certainly the most worthwhile candidate I’ve had the opportunity to vote for in the last 30 years. So I’ll continue to support him. The race for the Republican nominee is not over until the delegates vote in September. Until then, I’ll support my candidate – and vote for him in St. Paul should I get the chance. If he does not obtain the nomination, then I’ll likely support Senator McCain as a very distant second choice using similar logic to your own (the alternative being a socialist frenzy brought on by three branches of government untied to kill America with Robin Hood glee). You are, of course, free to abandon Senator McCain and lend your support to Congressman Paul. We’d be happy to accept that support but, of course, that’s as unlikely to happen as me supporting Senator McCain at this point. After the nominations for each party are truly established at the conventions, I’ll vote for the most conservative option. If that’s Senator McCain, then he’ll have my support (though with <i>far</i> less enthusiasm than Congressman Paul enjoys from me now).
(third time’s the charm??) Simon, you make several good points. Most especially:
In my estimation, Ron Paul is such a candidate. He’s certainly the most worthwhile candidate I’ve had the opportunity to vote for in the last 30 years. So I’ll continue to support him. The race for the Republican nominee is not over until the delegates vote in September. Until then, I’ll support my candidate – and vote for him in St. Paul should I get the chance. If he does not obtain the nomination, then I’ll likely support Senator McCain as a very distant second choice using similar logic to your own (the alternative being a socialist frenzy brought on by three branches of government untied to kill America with Robin Hood glee). You are, of course, free to abandon Senator McCain and lend your support to Congressman Paul. We’d be happy to accept that support but, of course, that’s as unlikely to happen as me supporting Senator McCain at this point. After the nominations for each party are truly established at the conventions, I’ll vote for the most conservative option. If that’s Senator McCain, then he’ll have my support (though with far less enthusiasm than Congressman Paul enjoys from me now).
admin: more ad homs from Paulistas => more bans of Paulistas
<blockquote>No, Nic, I’m afraid that you don’t get it, on evidence presented. When I see someone advocating an action that will gravely injure their cause, I have to assume that we’re seeing either idiocy or revealed preference</blockquote>
Simon, your whole argument seems to be that from a libertarian or smaller government standpoint, the Republican Party–whatever is faults–is the lesser of two evils. That may very well be true on a number of economic policies, but it I think more than a few libertarians would disagree that the Republican Party is the lesser of two evils when it comes to civil liberties and foreign policy.
Obama may very well be a left-wing economic populist, thus making McCain the lesser of two evils (from a libertarian or smaller government standpoint). But on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, Obama would be the lesser of two evils (again, from a libertarian or smaller government standpoint.
Given your defense of the Republican Party in general and the Iraq War in particular, I have to wonder what your definition of "smaller government" is. Is it simply a matter of who wants lower taxes and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court? Or is it about cutting spending and reducing government power across the board–including fiscal policy, social policy, and foreign policy?
Akston, I have no objetion to Paul’s supporters sticking with him until the convention - indeed, I have nothing against them playing a constructive dissenting role at the convention. Frankly, if McCain could be brought closer to Paul’s position on a number of points, that would please me greatly (just because I have serious reservations about Paul doesn’t mean that I wholly disagree with his views - I do, on some issues, but as a small-government federalist, I agree with him on much). Your position strikes me as eminently reasonable, but I would respectfully submit that whether either of us like it or not, McCain will be the nominee, and absent something truly stunning taking place, will be the more conservative option in the fall, if for no other reasons than those given above.
Paul, when you complain about "30 years of pulling the line for the party" not getting you everything od your wildest dreams and a pony, you remind me of a recent exchange between Rim Russert and Justice Scalia. Scalia’s dissents can be strong medicine, notes Russert. Sure, admits Scalia; but, look: you "don‘t know what‘s on the cutting room floor, Tim. … You don‘t know what majority opinions have never seen the light of day … [b]ecause [of], you know, a fairly harsh dissent that pointed out the absurdity. It sometimes works. It doesn‘t always." Similarly, in totting up what good you have gotten and finding it wanting, what you are failing to account for is what evil (and merely bad policy) has been prevented from coming into being because the people who would have perpetrated it couldn’t muster the votes. You have to take into account that as bad as Bush has been - and I think that in many ways he has been just awful - the alternative is to appalling to contemplate. Medicare Part D is a horrendous mistaken, to be sure - but better that than federalized universal healthcare!
Just to throw in my two cents on this matter. Jumping to McCain simply for some lesser of two evils arugment would be a betrayl of personal principle. Mr. Paul most closely reflects my political views as an older Republican. Also he has shown more integrity during the debates than any other canidate so far, with the exception of Gravel.
My vote goes where the real chance for change lays, for my son, for all our children. And I won’t compromise that on some middle of the road canidate, particulary one supporting neo Republican agendas. Things have gone to far for that now.
If your so concerned the democrats will win because Paul enjoys enough support to tip the scales, perhaps the GOP should have nominated Paul in the first place eh? I know this, McCain’s nomination makes no sense at all considering his performance early during the primary process. Going from dead in the water to golden child in a record upset, despite being the closest to Bush’s policys out of all runners.
That leaves two possibilites, one that the GOP has changed drastically during the life of my grandfather and now I were members. No longer like the party that Regan represent. So much that they actually believe in this unconstituional nonsense. Willing to trade away dwindling freedoms for protection for the boogeyman, and watch our country fold in on itself. The other, well something must be rotten at the core, evidence is there, but not enough to say for certain. Afterall, polictics were always rotten, nautre of the beast.
Don’t get me wrong, I respect McCain, his record, his chivaraly at most times. Despite a few moments that would have embaressed a schoolyard bullie, let alone the man that hopes to lead our country. However his views about critical matters are diamatrically opposed to my own. And his knowledge of economics, well so far he seems to have no understanding about that field at all. Not a good thing, considering the current dollar crisis.
The war itself, I have no interest in chasing Obama to the gates of hell. Even if I did, he obviously isn’t in Iraq. Nor do I want our growing generation to face the risk of a draft to keep chasing some obscure political goal, disguised in politcal rheteoric. Even one packaged as being some important salvation to our people. Which it is not, this war was unjustified. It wastes lives, it wastes resources, it damages our potical position in the globe. Distracting from real threats, antagonizing them while we screw around over a bunch of sand.
Let us also not forget that this war, the full overarching war against terrorism has been used as a smoke screen. Pushing ahead agendas that during the founders time would have been considered to border upon treason. Violations of both the constitution, and the Geneva convention, forcing us into an isolationist stance amongst the world community.
The fact that McCain, a Vietnam vet would so aggresivly support continuing this course baffles me. Almost as much as his miracalous turnaround in the delegate process. So no, I won’t change my vote over. And if McCain looses, don’t come blaming me. The GOP shouldn’t have picked such a man to represent them if they wanted my party vote. Even then pretty sure there was more than two people on the stage at the Regan library when this thing kicked off.
Almost everyone of them had some redeming quality, excpet Guiliani. And well then there was Fred, he never seemed seriously running. Don’t even think the man took it serious himself, just parroted Paul and tried to look dapper. Point is McCain’s loss (which is likely) isn’t because Paul supporters are sticking to our guns. It’s because the party backed someone that the people didn’t. Keep it up and in another twenty years the Republican party may find itself swapping places with the Libertarians.
Travis –~
"If you’re so concerned the democrats will win because Paul enjoys enough support to tip the scales"
Good point Travis. To say it another way, if Paul has such a tiny group of "lunatic fringe" supporters, why should it matter? By the way, it takes a lot of "lunatics" to put a book on the NY times best seller list. Either there are a lot more luntics in America, or a lot of regular honest hard working folks. I tend to not give credence to theory that most of Paul’s supporters are lunatics, so I think that the simplest answer is probably the correct one, that mostly honest hard-working people actually are lending credence to some of Paul’s ideas, or at least taking him a little more seriously.
sorry, I meant to say ? it takes a lot of "lunatics" to send a book to # 1 on the NY times best seller list
sorry, I meant to say it takes a lot of "lunatics" to send a book to # 1 on the NY times best seller list
Jay, you’re assuming that everyone who buys Paul’s book should be counted as a supporter. I bought Chuck Schumer’s book; I bought Barack Obama’s book; I’m certainly no supporter of either of them, and I will not become a Ron Paul supporter if I buy his book, either.
BUY their books? I use this thing called a LIBRARY.