Video: Ron Paul reacts to Bhutto’s death by playing the same tired blame-America tune
posted at 4:47 pm on December 27, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
In a very, very narrow sense, he has a point: I argued at the time of the emergency rule that we were pushing too hard and too soon on Musharraf, a man attempting to lead a country that is about as riven with difficulty as a country can get. I argued that the course of pushing democracy was too risky at this point, and that the Bush administration ought to take a long look at what democracy delivered on Israel’s borders before pushing for more of the same in Pakistan. Pakistan is peculiarly troubled: All of its heroes, including Bhutto, are deeply flawed; neither Musharraf, Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif trust each other; all of them would benefit in one way or another if one or both of the others weren’t around, yet they all claim to be the only thing that can save Pakistan; and any could also be weakened by the untimely demise of any of the others. Behind them there’s the rising Islamist threat that, sorry John Derbyshire, Patriot Paul does not understand to a depth greater than a nanometer. The problems in Pakistan are not, ultimately, the results of busted American foreign policy. Our short-term policy hasn’t helped, but the environment in which the problems thrive goes back a few decades, or a few centuries. As we ought to have learned in Afghanistan during the 1990s, rubble can make a very great deal of trouble indeed.
But in Ron Paul’s world, all problems are the result of the US taking action. Any action. Anywhere. Against anyone, doing anything. In the case of Pakistan, he says we should cut off aid to our “puppet” in Pakistan and make sure not to march in there with troops. There is, of course, at most a neglible possibility that we’ll send troops into Pakistan to do anything beyond taking on al Qaeda or securing the nukes. India might, but even that’s highly unlikely. And never mind that Pakistan’s history with democracy is sketchy, to say the least. Should we not have attempted to work with Musharraf against al Qaeda, Patriot Paul? Paul also tosses out the canard that we supported Osama bin Laden. Someone really needs to disabuse him of that notion one of these days. Someone should bone him up on the history of al Qaeda as well. It didn’t form because we support Musharraf, as Paul seems to think.
Paul doesn’t even offer a pro forma statement of condolences either for Bhutto or Pakistan. As a doctor, he must have had splendid bedside manner.
Update: My mistake, Patriot Paul did issue a pro forma statement that Bhutto’s assassination is a “horrible tragedy.” It’s in the last third of the clip, and was short enough that I missed it the first couple of times I listened to the clip to summarize it.
Update: Ron Paul is, indeed, a first-rate ignoramus and a high-voiced crank. Here’s a response to today’s events that’s a little closer to my thinking. And I’m sure that if it gets enough exposure it’ll cause Patriot Paul to have an aneurysm.
I just got an e-mail from a buddy who’s now a senior enlisted military man, who says:
Musharraf, or the Pakistani people or who ever is still in charge, needs to open the northwest sector of their country up to us and we can hunt the [Al Qaeda terrorists] down and kill them like rabbits running out of a fire.
Special Forces, air support, a few drones with Hellfires attached. Nothing fancy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 »
This is where RP truly shines for idiots.
amerpundit on December 27, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Ron Paul blaming America?
I am shocked. SHOCKED!!!!!!!
(Do I really need the sarcasm tag for that one?)
Hawkins1701 on December 27, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Me thinks the ISI is responsible for her assassination.
mram on December 27, 2007 at 4:55 PM
The problem with Ron Paul is that his history lives in a blowback vacuum.
The Islamics dont hate the US for the actions we have taken the Islamics hate the US because our way of life is the biggest threat to their ideology. Having free thoughts and free expressions is anathama to their Totalitarian way of life.
Just like the Nazis and Japanese in WWII the existance of a free and powerful US was the biggest threat to their existance. They went years avoiding a confrontation with the US not because we didnt take action against them but because they were afraid we would.
They only attacked when they thought we were weak not because we had taken action against them.
William Amos on December 27, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Gosh. I’m at a loss for words.
When will we finally be rid of this dolt?
BacaDog on December 27, 2007 at 4:56 PM
No wonder the Mad Mullahs in Iran love him.
steveegg on December 27, 2007 at 4:56 PM
I think it’s anyone’s guess at this point. Al Qaeda took the credit, but they could be doing that for reasons besides it being true. I don’t see Musharraf benefiting in the long term, though maybe in the short by knocking out the Jan 8 elections and an opponent. Sharif, who has always been friendly with Islamists and probably can find a few military loyalists from his heyday to work with, benefits by becoming the sole opposition figure while Musharraf soaks up the blame. Lots of motives, lots of suspects. It’s a geopolitical game of Clue with a nuke in the envelope.
Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 4:59 PM
reading Derbyshire at the Corner, I think someone needs to set him straight on so many levels. This stuff is far to important to be ignore. Paul is spreading anti-american war propaganda and misinformation that is doing nothing more than aide our enemies abroad and at home. He is the anti-Liberty candidate on a number of levels, the Left is salivating at the chance for him to get far enough so they can expose him and smear all “limited govt” proponents as racist crackpots.
jp on December 27, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Despite the fact that I may love his blimp, I have to ask … is Ron Paul really worth all the attention we’re giving him?
He’s a loon. Is he worth all the free press is getting? Is he that big of a deal?
I find it hard to believe there are more than a dozen people out there who take him seriously.
Professor Blather on December 27, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Ron Paul always has a “point” in his logic. His observations of foreign events are usually sharp. His reasoning regarding their causes and effect is not. Put him with a couple other advisers, and he could be helpful as an “other side” when a more competent leader is making decisions…but don’t let him have any more power than that.
MadisonConservative on December 27, 2007 at 5:00 PM
In Ron Paul’s eyes, America’s been doomed ever since we helped install the Shah in 1953.
DonutsOperation Ajax, is there anythingthey can’t doit didn’t causeBohicaTwentyTwo on December 27, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Some people unfortunately do take him seriously. Paul has two apologists on NRO, Derb and David Fredosso.
Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Ron Paul is a dhimmi OR has ulterior motives. The way Russert sliced him up though Sunday, shows he’s probably more of a crackpot.
jp on December 27, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Fixt.
MadisonConservative on December 27, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Foreign leaders (especially from countries like Iran and Venezuela - just to name a couple) would love nothing more than to have someone like Paul as POTUS. It would allow them to blame America for everything that’s wrong in their respective countries, with complete agreement from president Paul. There is nothing I would like to see more than my president standing before us (and the world), and blaming America for everything that’s wrong in the world - it will bring nothing but peace and prosperity to all…
Rick on December 27, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Upon reflection, AQ’s claim came out pretty quick. Correct me if I’m wrong, but they usually don’t do same-day claims, especially for big strikes such as this.
steveegg on December 27, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Scary. Considering he’s an OB/GYN
yo on December 27, 2007 at 5:10 PM
I think that’s right. The US gov’t hasn’t taken AQ’s claim at face value, fwiw. They’re trying to verify or discredit it.
Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 5:10 PM
someone in the conservative blogsphere, needs to make a definitive post debunking paul and exposing his anti-american propaganda for what it is.
Paul is a bigger crackpot than McGovern and Jimmy Carter combined on Foreign Policy. He’s spreading Michael Moore’s talking points and the basis of his theory that the “litmus test” is whether or not the United States has intervened or ‘occupied’ their holy lands is based on this nutjob:
Ron Paul: Suicide Terrorism
Read all of that, his main go-to intellectual is Robert Pape!
jp on December 27, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Al Qaeda has been saying since Bhutto got to Pakistan that she was a US stooge. Also I posted in her assassination thread the Indian Intel had word that Al Qaeda had facilitateed 5 suicide bombers to take her and other targets out.
They planned this carefully.
William Amos on December 27, 2007 at 5:12 PM
maybe we should start a fund to send one of Robert Spencer’s books and/or a history book to the Paultards and Ron Paul himself. Didn’t the left try some stunt like this once?
jp on December 27, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Derb’s almost as much of a crackpot as Paul is. As others before me have said, he’s basically is just a contrarian who takes positions opposite the rest of the conservative movement so that he can show himself as really super duper conservative.
I don’t know much about the other guy, although I think he’s young and idealistic, and thus hasn’t been mugged by reality yet.
thirteen28 on December 27, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Who is Robert Pape?
bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Lord, what a tool this guy is. Why is anyone continuing to take him seriously?
student on December 27, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I think I would trust a drunk college kid on an all night bender at a strip club with our foreign policy more then Ron Paul.
William Teach on December 27, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Talking about moonbatty-crazy, there’s a person I’m embarrassed to call my Senator, Russ Feingold. Brian Maloney at the Radio Equalizer has the audio of the man I like to call Russ el-Slimeroad (Moonbat-Al Qaeda) blaming President Bush and the Iraq war for Bhutto’s assassination.
steveegg on December 27, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Mine too, sad to say. And he NEVER stopped calling for Bush’s impeachment, since Day One. I think as soon as Bush took the oath in 2001, he called for him to be removed from office.
MadisonConservative on December 27, 2007 at 5:23 PM
a lesser known, but just as stupid, Juan Cole. He’s also a liberal/socialist, so figures Paul would be attracted to him.
jp on December 27, 2007 at 5:23 PM
And to think he was within $10 and a guarantee of no trips to Ft. Marcy Park of running for President….
steveegg on December 27, 2007 at 5:24 PM
That voice all by itself makes me want to cringe.
jdawg on December 27, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Would never happen. We’re arguing over a Mormon being prez. What’s the odds of a Jew making it?
MadisonConservative on December 27, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Paul is wrong. It does support our interests at times…that is the point. We specifically support the side that DOES support our interests. Unfortunately, the whole world isn’t perfect and international tendencies are unpredictable.
It’s easy to point out every single blunder in international politics over the years…Saddam, Osama, etc. In fact, that’s all Paul does in this interview - and every interview. He points out all of the mistakes. What alternative does he provide?
“I think we should talk to people and reason with them”
Very good - Commander In Chief indeed.
ApartforHaShem on December 27, 2007 at 5:28 PM
here is an AmCon story on Pape’s book:
The Logic of Suicide Terrorism
We need a Robert Spencer type, out front debunking these fools and showing them for what they are.
they literally beleive that if we do not “occupy” Persian Gulf States all will be well in the world and they will no longer attack us.
They are stupider than Neville Chamberline, and the lunatic far-right want to beleive it is the problem. That way you don’t have to focus on Foreign Affairs and spend any money on it. granted some have anti-semitic motives probably.
jp on December 27, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Say, isn’t that very policy the reason we’re stuck with the Mad Mullahs? Jimmy Carter thought he could reason with Khomenhi (sp).
steveegg on December 27, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Being a Jew, I’d say that we’d have a better shot (on that basis alone) than a Mormon. We can, at least, play the sympathy card on some level. The Mormon’s don’t have a long history of persecution.
Besides- think of all of the great Jewish analogies that could be used in campaign slogans, ads, etc. I wont offer any of my ideas for fear of reprisal, but there are some great ones.
ApartforHaShem on December 27, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Jimmy Carter is actually insane enough to think that the reason that we’ve failed in the mideast is because we didn’t reason enough. *sigh*
ApartforHaShem on December 27, 2007 at 5:32 PM
The only point Ron Paul has in foreign policy is on the top of his head, The dunce cap fits over it very nicely.
pdigaudio on December 27, 2007 at 5:32 PM
I do agree with you on that basis (reputation of the religion). However, it extends to a national security issue that would have a lot of different angles to being addressed. We’re at war with Islamic fundamentalists. They hate Christians, but they absolutely LOATHE Jews. I’m not saying they’re holding back, but they could probably unleash total hell if that happened. They’d see it as a holy opportunity. A lot of people want to avoid that situation.
MadisonConservative on December 27, 2007 at 5:34 PM
“I think we should talk to people and reason with them”
Holy fright, this is 3rd grade conflict resolution nonsense. I’d expect this out of The Hildabeast, or Osama Obama, or The Breck Girl, but to get this from Ron Paul and also from The Huckster is embarrassing.
None of this imbeciles should be allowed anywhere the Oval Office. That’s Adults Only territory.
pdigaudio on December 27, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Don’t forget that was Obama’s solution.
F15Mech on December 27, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Yes, but only ADULTS recognize the need for an adult in the whitehouse. The idiotic children we have masquerading as adults in this country don’t have the emotional or intellectual maturity to face the brutal realities of today’s global politics.
JustTruth101 on December 27, 2007 at 5:43 PM
I’ve got $20 that says if Ron Paul took a test for Alzheimer’s, he’d totally ace it.
thejackal on December 27, 2007 at 5:43 PM
I’ll kick in $20. Any takers on the other end?
steveegg on December 27, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Just as a side note, perhaps some reporter should ask Paul how to reason with people who think it’s reasonable to strap bombs to children to achieve their political goals.
JustTruth101 on December 27, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Well said Bryan. And I particularly enjoyed your last update.
Special Forces, air support, a few drones with Hellfires attached. Nothing fancy.
That’s exactly what should happen. It also happens to be the only action that will result in a positive outcome for all involved. It’s either that action now or nuclear war someday. Easy choice, eh? Ron? Ron!! Wake the he11 up you dimwit.
Griz on December 27, 2007 at 5:47 PM
It would be the ultimate karma if Musharraf used the murder as an excuse to turn our guys loose in the northwest sector for a jackrabbit hunt. Talk about yer basic unforeseen consequences.
a capella on December 27, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Deer. In. The. Headlights.
BAM.
rockbend on December 27, 2007 at 6:21 PM
The depth of this nation’s troubles are defined by presence of this idiot.
rplat on December 27, 2007 at 6:31 PM
A “high pitched crank” is exactly what he is.
Hilts on December 27, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Something on that order sounds right. Building intelligence assets in the area is important. With a Pakistan civil war a real possibility, the United States has a security interest in keeping the country from becoming a failed state or fundamentalist Islamic nation.
Paul’s criticism that the U.S. resources are often deployed with results that are unfavorable and costly to us has merit. Today’s events are evidence that we shouldn’t withdraw, as Paul recommends, but that we have to apply our resources with better intelligence to improve our long term security.
dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Please quit putting stuff up on this nut job
KBird on December 27, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Ron Paul is insane.
His supporters……. >insane.
Put that in your “stop the war on drugs” and smoke it ronulans.
Talon on December 27, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Clearly, Ron Paul is not a true conservative. That’s why, according to this AP/Yahoo Poll
I, too, fall into the 40% since I was formerly convinced Romney was our guy. But as we all wait and watch the candidates identify themselves as less than conservative the pool of choices gets smaller. I can see no better candidate now than Fred Thompson - and he can beat any Dem put up against him in the general. Let’s get him some support like we did to break Shamnesty.
rocksandbroncs on December 27, 2007 at 6:57 PM
I listened to the tape three times and I did not hear Paul refer to the assassination as a “horrible tragedy”. He said, in the context of what the United States should do now, that Pakistan needs to deal with it’s own “tragedies”. In the same breath he went on to say that our support of military dictatorships is “tragic”. So he is pretty much blaming the United States for the assassination.
As far as him having a “narrow point”? Everything Paul says is right if you think in the simple minded terms he does. The problem with Paul is that he can’t get beyond his own sense of right and wrong in the context of anything he doesn’t agree with or know about.
Paul’s interview with Russert was interesting because it showed how Paul thinks. He comes across as sincere, honest, and knowledgeable about the Constitution, but he is ignorant and very simple minded about almost everything else.
It’s like he can comprehend the Constitution because it’s all written down. Anything that isn’t that black and white is totally beyond his thinking. It’s not that he disagrees with another point of view, it’s that there is no other point of view.
Jaynie59 on December 27, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Actually, moving some funding from the war on drugs to the war on terror seems like a good idea. Someone flying a plane into a building is a threat several orders of magnitude higher than drug possession.
dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 7:02 PM
He’s probably closer to being a Taft conservative than the other candidates, who are more accepting of a large federal government, a large military, and US intervention than Taft was.
Taft was the principal opponent of the New Deal and opposed the Cold War military build up. Agree with Taft or not, most consider him a true conservative.
dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 7:13 PM
I do not support Ron Paul because I think he may have a little problem with jews, i.e. the whole Stormfront deal and the meetings at the Thai restaurant on Thursday nights etc. And yes his supporters are insane, I emailed one asking for clarification on the Stormfront kerflama and he emailed me back claiming that the whole Stormfront thing was merely a white equivalent of the NAACP. And that if we cared about the white race we should all join them. Some of his supporters are obviously clueless or nazis in waiting.
But in a very, very
narrowlogical sense, he has a point.Real Republicans concentrate on The Republic and her people, not the Persian equivalent of a banana republic and it’s population that will never get it and furthermore don’t want to. Puppetmastering abroad should not be a primary function of the USA. It is too costly - money, blood and treasure.
We have much better things to conquer here within our own borders like dismantling the Dept of Education and busting the Teacher’s Union, killing No Child Left Behind and an assortment of other bad policies. Or how about securing our borders and deporting all criminal illegals once and for all.
AprilOrit on December 27, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Ron Paul is a true Conservative, regardless of what any of these commenters believe, he’s the real deal.
AprilOrit on December 27, 2007 at 7:25 PM
True Conservative do not start wars, they end them.
Wars cost money, real true Conservatives try to prevevt them at all costs.
AprilOrit on December 27, 2007 at 7:32 PM
You’re a Ronulan. We get it.
Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Are you referring to Ukranian Paul Spam or Star Trek??
AprilOrit on December 27, 2007 at 7:55 PM
I like to think of myself as what I am - A NY Jewish Princess of Sephardi roots and lineage…
AprilOrit on December 27, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Heh, so has anyone explained to RP that Islamists are like the terminator, they cannot be reasoned with, they do not feel pity or remorse, they only want us dead! You’d think that even a rock-head like RP would understand that simple truth, but then again it’s RP, what was I thinking!
Personally I think he should just stick to inspecting vajay-jays as it suits his pussified stance so well.
Yep, Carter and the Slick Willy administration have allowed the Islamo-fascist cancer to grow and spread. The only thing I was ever disappointed in with the Reagan administration was that he didn’t send the military to kick the hell out of the Iranian Mullahs before they grew in power, after all when they attacked our Embassy and took American citizens hostage that in of itself was an act of war against our nation and deserved an azz kicking!
Liberty or Death on December 27, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Oh no, I get it Bryan - you think I am one of these?
You are joking of course, what an insult. I guess if you disagree at HotAir you get rotten fruit and veggies hurled at you….
AprilOrit on December 27, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Only if you ask for it. And posting “real, true conservative” stuff attached to Paul’s foolish pacifism qualifies as asking for it.
Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Hmmm…but - and I am not alone in this - he is a real and true Conservative if you compare him to Huckabee, Rudy and Mitt.
You are not implying that they are more Conservative than him, are you?
AprilOrit on December 27, 2007 at 8:16 PM
I mean Bryan, Ron Paul is so tight he squeaks so-to-speak, unlike the others.
When I refer to true Conservative I mean true old school Conservatism from my grandfather’s time - before Reagan. I mean Conservatism that drastically slashes government - including war spending and handouts to foreign aid, is against gun control, is opposed to butting in where we do not belong, i.e., in The Middle East, that favors State’s Rights.
War mongering and nanny-stating/babysitting and indulging banana republics was always something the Democrats fell for, not the GOP.
AprilOrit on December 27, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Paul did not say we supported Osama; he said we supported Saudi Arabia, and that pissed off Osama, which is true (but obviously not the only reason he’s pissed off).
You can disagree with what Paul says, but don’t misrepresent it.
We need a fundamental change in foreign policy that supports dictators just because it is in our self-interest (even though in the long run it isn’t).
B26354 on December 27, 2007 at 8:44 PM
My brother just emailed me a link to the correction in today’s Times about Paul and the Stormfront crap. Apparantly it isn’t true, so please disregard what I wrote.
I certainly do not want to be guilty of misrepresenting anyone.
AprilOrit on December 27, 2007 at 8:51 PM
No one should be holding their breath waiting for that.
They would not be running around like rabbits out of a fire. What branch is this guy in anyway?
MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 8:55 PM
HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!
The ronulans are here to interpret what the good doctor REALLY meant!!!! (We fascists are not able to discern his TRUE meaning)
So…ronulans….tell me how life would have been better had the colonists just kept their damn mouths shut and been good citizens. No Constitution then ronulans!! Where was the mandate to over throw a sovereignty?????
Taking the “good doctor” at his word………..explain World Wars I and II. Was America wrong???
Exit question: When was the last time you were abducted by the mother ship???
Talon on December 27, 2007 at 9:12 PM
I think I’ll just ignore the wingnut madness Mr. Talon News - Jeff Guckert.
AprilOrit on December 27, 2007 at 9:21 PM
I don’t believe Ron Paul gets to define conservatism, and saying that conservatism is simply all about itty-bitty government is to grossly oversimplify the history and goals of the entire Conservative movement.
Conservatism isn’t always and everywhere about small government. It’s about keeping (”conserving,” if you will) the things and systems that work. That’s where Conservatives and Libertarians typically part ways. I think of Libertarianism as Conservatism without the wisdom, and nothing I hear from Ron Paul has done anything to change my mind on that point.
JohnTant on December 27, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Don’t know what RP has said about WWI, but I’m not sure that conflict is a great argument for US involvement in foreign wars. What was the objective of the United States? Was it for Wilson’s 14 Points? If it was ultimately for the Treaty of Versailles, the U.S. Senate wouldn’t ratify it and its implementation by the Europeans led consequently to the appeal of the Nazi’s in Germany.
I’d guess Wilson’s administration is a point where RP would say things really went wrong (i.e., Fed Reserve, income tax, League of Nations, etc.).
I’d say there is merit in the issues that RP raises, though I’m not as pure as he is and think he is kidding his followers about the ability to put the genie back in the bottle.
dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Ok, I’ll bite. How is puppet mastering around the globe and nannystating conserving?
AprilOrit on December 27, 2007 at 9:55 PM
You really should read the whole sentence and quote it properly before you attempt to paraphrase it as a question.
You also steal two intellectual bases. First, I never said anything about “puppet mastering,” nor anything about “nannystating,” and it’s quite interesting how you (again) employ reductionist thinking to fit complex ideas into predetermined worldviews. Come to think of it, Paul does the same thing, which is likely why he sounds so simple minded.
Here, I’ll throw you a bone. I said “It’s about keeping (”conserving,” if you will) the things and systems that work.” Supporting our allies and the ideals of western society (classical liberalism) in the process is something that works. Retreating from the world into “fortress America” does not.
JohnTant on December 27, 2007 at 10:01 PM
HOOORAY!!!!!
The ronulans arrive and choose to “ignore” simple questions!!!!
YAY RONULANS!! KEEPERS OF THE TRUTH!!!! GUARDIANS OF THE WAY!!!
Now answer my questions.
I triple dog dare you.
Talon on December 27, 2007 at 10:13 PM
@ JohnTant on December 27, 2007 at 9:50 PM
You might want to inform every political textbook and teacher I have ever read or had in a class, because conservatism is known most glaringly for the policy of reducing the size of government. Conservatism, as a political philosophy has not changed, it is the current republicans, or rather those that refer to themselves as republicans that have changed. Suddenly it is alright to go to war without consulting congress, suddenly it is fine to increase the size of government by leaps and bounds, suddenly evangelicals are a cornerstone of the republican party and no candidate can win without pandering like an ass to them, suddenly the party that goes to war over “national security” leaves the border open and wants it to remain open, suddenly the party that once was for PRIVACY and personal liberties agrees to something like the “patriot act” which violates ALL of those principles. Conservatism hasn’t changed at all, its the current “republicans” that have changed and have abandoned all remaining ties to conservatism, moving WAY towards liberalism on most issues while using fear and rhetoric to make it seem that they are more “republican” than ever.
Or at least that is my take.
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 10:14 PM
But Ron Paul has a blimp. That gives him and his cult a pass.
JohnTant on December 27, 2007 at 10:15 PM
As if I’m going to argue against the absentee. But even your opening characterization points out the flaw. Conservatism may be known for a policy of reducing government, but it is not defined by it exclusively. Libertarianism is. Conservatives cotton to reducing government if it achieves a conservative goal…libertarianism reduces government as the goal.
As for the rest of your rant, well…you may want to lay off the throttle a little.
JohnTant on December 27, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Barry Goldwater has many claimants to his legacy, but most lack his rebellious spirit.
But by the early ’90s, there could be no doubt: Goldwater damned the Religious Right at every opportunity, spoke out for abortion rights, and not only supported letting gays serve openly in the military, but even lent his name to an effort to pass federal antidiscrimination laws for homosexuals—quite a turnabout for a man who as a senator had once stood on federalist grounds against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Goldwater’s death in May 1998 rendered all of that moot. Whatever his heterodoxies, his place in conservative history, and conservatives’ hearts, was settled. He was still, as Pat Buchanan wrote at the time, “the father of us all.”
*
No putatively conservative politician today—with the exception of Ron Paul —has the idealism of a Goldwater or brings together idealists like Bozell and Hess. Even the one area where latter-day professional conservatives seem most idealistic, in their support for grandiose schemes of democratization and empire-building abroad, there is a startling contrast. Bozell and Hess, each driven by a vision of a more just America—the one vision radically Catholic, the other radically libertarian—came to oppose the Vietnam War. Late in life, Goldwater described that intervention [Vietnam] as “a useless war,” and Tanenhaus speculates that Goldwater, like his friend Bill Buckley, would sooner or
later have opposed Bush’s war in Iraq: “Presumably Goldwater would have seen this, but you never know.” The idealism of the Goldwater movement did infect its foreign policy—a look at Conscience of a Conservative will confirm that. But ultimately, the ideals that Goldwater stood for were not nation-building and empire.
Today, nation-building and empire, together with K-Street politics, is about all that animates the Republicans who claim to be following in Goldwater’s footsteps. They’ve lost what the 1960 and 1964 Goldwater movements were really all about, and they won’t rediscover what they’ve lost by furrowing their brows wondering if Goldwaterism was really purely libertarian or fusionist. Goldwater himself was a man of the American West, and his legacy can be claimed by either libertarians or traditionalists—if they can put the principled spirit of the old movement before the emoluments of politics.
MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 10:21 PM
……the blimp………I forgot about the blimp……
Thanks JT!
Talon on December 27, 2007 at 10:21 PM
@ Talon on December 27, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Your question is about WWI and WWII. I will answer along the lines with what RP has stated publicly numerous times, so many which if you really wanted an answer you would have to be some sort of person who is so unfamiliar with the internets that they are not able to navigate the googles to find an answer.
We had no business getting into WWI. The reason we got into WWI was we saw it was coming to a close and we needed to be a part of the peace process. In joining the war, we became one step closer to a “superpower” in that we had participated in a multination peace accord and had a hand in dictating the treaty of Versailles.
WWII was a direct result of WWI, and thusly was a justifiable battle by the USA. Also, in WWII, we were directly attacked, which is certainly justification to go to war. However, IF we hadn’t got involved in WWI, it is entirely possible and probable that we would not have had to get involved in WWII.
See, this is the whole crazy thing with history. Actions are met with reactions, and reactions are met with further reactions. Nothing happens in a vaccuum as many want you to believe. Everyone jumps on RP for “hating america” by pointing out where we made mistakes, when in reality, the only way we can improve our security/economy/etc is to RECOGNIZE what we did wrong in the past, and try not to repeat it.
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Excellent!!
Now…..the $64,000 question………….
Who started WWI and WWII???
Was it A) Fascist America
B) George Bush
C) Dick Cheney
D) Fascist America with the help of George Bush and Dick Cheney?
Talon on December 27, 2007 at 10:30 PM
The current federal budget is close to $3 trillion. One doesn’t have to be a hardcore Libertarian or Objectivist to believe that that’s too much. A lot of people who came to the party through Goldwater or Reagan believe that individuals are best at making their own choices and that the government “is not here to help you”.
dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM
ronulans……..
Tell us WHO was behind the 9/11 attacks.
A) OBL and AQ
B) Martha Stewart
C) George Bush
D) Karl Rove
Talon on December 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM
If you’re trying to make Ron Paul into some kind of Goldwater conservative, you’re going to have to spin a whole lot harder.
For instance, let’s look at his acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican convention:
Goldwater wasn’t criticizing Vietnam for anything other than we weren’t fighting it hard enough. I’m not arrogant enough to presume to speak for Goldwater (as the author of the linked article apparently is), but from his words it’s plain to me that he believed that we get a lot more deterrence out of being tough than by hiding at home. His concern in 1964 was in fighting to win.
JohnTant on December 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM
@ Talon on December 27, 2007 at 10:30 PM
You being an idiot isnt going to get any questions answered. Read a history textbook if you want to know who started those wars. Obviously you have a warped sense of who RP supporters are. Oh, and please throw out who YOU support for president as well. I would love to know.
BTW
for your questions:
1) You are an idiot
2) You are an idiot
3) A
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 »