Ron Paul: Why aren’t these neocon warmongers reaching out to my supporters?
posted at 12:35 pm on March 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I wish McCain would reach out to him, just to watch the left pivot instantly from heralding Paul as America’s only principled conservative to denouncing him as a neo-confederate white supremacist, the better to build their case that McCain is secretly a Klansman or whatever. Dial him up, Maverick. Tell him you’ve got a hot lead on thermite that his “followers” might be interested in.
Ron Paul says the legions of newcomers his presidential campaign brought to the Republican Party are getting the cold shoulder from John McCain and from the party…
“I don’t think they want them,” Mr. Paul told The Washington Times, adding that indifference doesn’t surprise him because the party’s establishment has deserted traditional conservative principles for big government and foreign intervention.
“We don’t agree with them,” he says. “We agree with the Old Right, and they’re the New Right, which is ‘The Wrong,’ [because] the New Right has morphed into neoconservative.”..
Mr. McCain hasn’t approached Mr. Paul’s voters because Mr. Paul has not called to say he is ending his run, says McCain campaign senior adviser Charles Black…
[Paul] won’t support Mr. McCain “unless he changes — bring the troops home, believe in the gold standard, reject all the votes he ever had for all his entitlement spending. He needs to come back to the roots of the Republican Party.”
Sounds like fertile ground for a compromise. Question: What could McCain possibly have to say to the Paulnuts? There’s a future for libertarianism (hopefully) within the party with respect to domestic issues but absent some dramatic shifts you’re not going to see mainstream Republicans defecting en masse to an early 1930s form of foreign policy isolationism. In fact, my sense is that Paul’s supporters are even more avidly anti-intervention than he is: He did, after all, vote for war in Afghanistan, a detail not often mentioned amid his many indictments of “empire” and force-projection. If we’re hit again by Al Qaeda, will he support some sort of operation in the Pakistani tribal areas? Doubtful, but maybe. Will the Paulnuts? Almost certainly not. What’s left to talk about, except maybe to tell them that if they’re thinking of organizing any terrorist-themed fundraisers for him, thanks but no thanks?
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:
Get in line, Paul…
Darksean on March 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Maybe McCain doesn’t want a blimp.
James on March 19, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Why won’t these damn neocon, war mongering idiots reach out to me and my supporters? After all, we’re so damn receptive to them.
/Paul
amerpundit on March 19, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I wish McCain would reach out to him, with a left pivot instantly for maximum torque with his right hand as he walloped Paul.
Sorry. I couldn’t resist.
HitNRun on March 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Maybe Paul should withdraw first.
Vizzini on March 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Maybe McCain can promise to “look into” the 9-11 conspiracy.
BuzzCrutcher on March 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM
had paul got any real traction in the polls, what is happening to Obama/Wright right now would have happened to him except alot worse with the Lib Media over the newsletters and alex jones appearances, etc.
jp on March 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Other then the fact, they are just kinda looney?
What can you say to a paulnut? Even if you have the evidence in front of them, they don’t believe it!
upinak on March 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Mark Steyn has recently been making the case that the isolationist of today are far worse morally and intellectually than the so called “old right” of the 30’s and the appeasement of Neville Chamberline….simply because they didn’t have an historical example of the folly of their policy right smack in front of them and want to bury their heads in the sand and repeat it.
and the truth is it wasn’t just the “right” of the 1930’s that were isolationist, it was the consenus view of the time which the nation snapped out of after Pearl Harbor and luckily were anything but during the Cold War.
of course Paul lies about history and tries to not only claim this was the view of the “old right” but that of the founding fathers and the constitution.
jp on March 19, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Tucker Carlson was right about Ron Paul. He’s mostly supported by liberals who have no idea what he actually stands for. I wonder how he nonetheless manages to win election after election in his home district.
freevillage on March 19, 2008 at 12:48 PM
The revolution is still on, baby.
Mine the comments for some comic material.
JammieWearingFool on March 19, 2008 at 12:49 PM
I don’t want John McCain and I don’t want Ron Paul supporters.
It sucks to be a Republican now.
EJDolbow on March 19, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Ron who……?
JohnTant on March 19, 2008 at 12:51 PM
What a laugh. What “domestic issues” do you presume the Republican Party happens to side squarely on the side of liberty? The economy? No. Turning back Roe v. Wade (rhetorically maybe, but certainly not substantially). Immigration — that is, the protection of private property rights? Hardly. Education? No. Drugs? No. Federalism? Too complicated for the average Republican to consider.
Moreover, is it even possible to separate domestic from foreign policy? No. Thus, if public opinion reflects an anti-empire, libertarian, sentiment, they can pretty much shove it so far as official Republicans are concerned.
Drum on March 19, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Who really cares what Pat Paulsen says or thinks? Yes, Ron Paul is the Pat Paulsen of 2008.
Travis1 on March 19, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Tinfoil on too tight?
How about opposing the Fairness Doctrine? Supporting school choice? Many Republicans actually support overturning Roe V. Wade — in order to leave the decisions to the states.
amerpundit on March 19, 2008 at 12:56 PM
I’ll give you the fairness doctrine. But school choice? How about the choice to not have my property taxes go to funding statist/atheist propaganda as if found in public schools. Anti-abortion has gotten nowhere in 30 years. Roe is as solid as it’s ever been. Moreover, leave it to Republicans to fight for family values in a statist manner via constitutional amendments.
Drum on March 19, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Second Amendment?
amerpundit on March 19, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Why not, McCain fell for “man-made” climate change and wants to tax us for it. As for the Paulbots – please just stay on youtube making idiots out of yourself….
Branch Rickey on March 19, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Yeah it’s only the social conservatives and evangelicals the McCain camp has told to f**k off as unwelcome within the new God-free offshoot of the Democrat party.
highhopes on March 19, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Wait, don’t tell me – I’m keen to guess!
Is it: Because you are a loon, and your followers are even loonier than you are?
What do I win?
mojo on March 19, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Make the Tax Cuts permanent
Kini on March 19, 2008 at 1:05 PM
ummm, YES. They are different, its a category error to equate the two. Things like Property Rights and Contracts do not work in the international arena the way they do here, in middle america.
and to claim America is “Empire building” is outright slanderous and pressuposes a lie.
jp on March 19, 2008 at 1:07 PM
My only question here is what exactly has Paul believing he is even relevant anymore?
pilamaye on March 19, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Since when is a few dozen “legions”?
MarkTheGreat on March 19, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Whatever jp, then call me a slanderer.
What funds American foreign policy? American taxpayers via tax dollars. Where do these tax dollars come from? Hard working Americans. Or is there a product that the American government creates that is funding all of this?
Drum on March 19, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Damn, at this point if Ron Paul drove a pick-up to the border filled with barbed wire and some fence posts, I’d vote for the loon. At least he would be doing something…….
Seven Percent Solution on March 19, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Well, I should hope so.
Drum on March 19, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Oh waaaah!
Maybe his acolytes should make contact with Planet Earth first.
Mommynator on March 19, 2008 at 1:23 PM
You mean they found rust and aluminum shavings in a BUILDING? Time to invest in a pair* of titanium reinforced butt plugs if I want to be able to sleep soundly.
*I had an operation in Germany
Darth Executor on March 19, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Favorite Debate line from the Debates:
“Senator, what question exactly are you responding to”, followed by Luap Nor double-taking several times!
Ah, Luap Nor, I can’t say I miss ya, but I sure do chuckle over the spectacle that was provided by you and your loony-bin followers, every now and again. ‘Specially here in Texas! Comedy Gold! Maybe they should sell DVDs of their best(worst) moments, to help pay the Blimp off…
dmh0667 on March 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Ron who…?
Viva le revolution!
Liberty or Death on March 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Fixed it for you “Drum”
Branch Rickey on March 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Ronulan Math: 1 Ronulan + 1 Macintosh = Legion.
Now if we can figure out how to shut down those seven iMacs…
opusrex on March 19, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Not quite. Foreign aid is part of foreign policy and much of that aid does little to ensure domestic tranquility. Cato has studies on the questionable results of foreign aid.
Drum on March 19, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Moreover, there’s nothing wrong with funding our military if the goal is defense of America and not empire. You’re so adverse to admitting empire. Read Niall Ferguson’s book Colossus for starters. He’s all for American empire and is disappointed that we won’t acknoweldge its reality. But more importantly, he proves that to deny its reality is useless. His fear is that we will lose it (by not acknowledging it and supporting it) and thus the world will be worse off as a result. I disagree. But the truth of it is what it is.
Drum on March 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Sometimes bugs are meant to stay in the darkness. When this one appeared in the light, people could finally see him for what he is. Sunlight is the best insecticide.
I don’t have a collie to offer useful wisdom, but I have a transcript of the final conversation between Ron Paul and his cocker spaniel.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 19, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Wow. Maybe the Ron Paul movement actually has a real libertarian in it, and his name is Ron Paul. Sadly I see scant few others. Most of his supporters are already making the Hope and Change = rEVOLution correlation.
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Why talk about Ron Paul? Shouldn’t you guys devote another thread about Obama’s speach. Who wants to hear RP talk about smaller government, constitution, immigration and economy? Mccain will talk about them issues, well maybe not, but they’ll probaly be discussed in 2012. Maybe RP is wrong about pulling out of Iraq, but is it not worth a look at bringing troops home from other non conflict areas.
menoname on March 19, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Forget the talk, lets sing! “Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t!”
dmann on March 19, 2008 at 2:22 PM
That would be the battle cry if McAmnesty did join up with Ron Paul.
brtex on March 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM
It’s posts like this that will drive the Paul supporters away. Remember this whin Obama or Clinton is taking the oath of office on January 20.
vortex on March 19, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I swear, I heard that question asked in that whiny high-pitched voice of his. Thanks.
ReubenJCogburn on March 19, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Gee….. maybe because so many of your followers are Truther moonbats, and who needs them?
ToddonCapeCod on March 19, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Libertarians are in the same boat as conservatives. Conservatives have a very hard pill to swallow in McCain, so there is plenty of common ground yet between the small government conservative right and the libertarian individual liberty right. I enjoy most of the conversation with the Paul supporters on this site. Pretty much only this site, though.
I do think, additionally, that much of Paul’s support is less conservative and more anti-war. But that isn’t particularly relevant because McCain isn’t going to get those anyway.
Spirit of 1776 on March 19, 2008 at 2:33 PM
vortex on March 19, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Right, the policies of either Obama or Clinton align so much better with the Paulians.
dmann on March 19, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Am I missing something here, where exactly has America expanded its empire (name some nations that the US has annexed) that justifies your assertion.
I’ll paraphrase Colin Powell here; in all past wars the only land America has asked for was enough to bury its dead soldiers. You know the soldiers that made the ultimate sacrifice on the altar of freedom.
So again I ask you, name a nation we have annexed and claimed as part of our “empire” that justifies your assertion that the US is expanding its “empire.”
Liberty or Death on March 19, 2008 at 3:06 PM
I said nothing about “annexed,” though it certainly applies to Hawaii.
But you also use “expand” which is very much the case when we demand that nations cooperate: Mexico, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Dominican Republic (hell, most of Latin America — I mean, we helped overthrow Chavez for a couple days, and the point was clear — don’t cross us too far), Iran, Iraq, Panama, Nicaragua, Chile, not to mention the (at least) 700 military bases outside the United States, many of which are resented by the host populations. Add to this the UN which is a creation of the United States and which is bound by the United States (though we never admit so much). Read Smedley Butler.
Granted, we don’t hold colonies in the traditional sense, but we control much of the world economically, usually backed with military bases and force.
Drum on March 19, 2008 at 3:42 PM
As usual, though, Ron has at least a partial point. The Republican Party really could be doing more to attract the paranoid schizophrenic vote.
Blacklake on March 19, 2008 at 3:52 PM
“Why won’t these damn neocon, war mongering idiots reach out to me and my supporters? After all, we’re so damn receptive to them.”
Yes, rarely do we see a statement so beautifully rhetorical in it’s ironic sarcasm.
Huh?
Christine on March 19, 2008 at 4:12 PM
aengus on March 19, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Whoops. Still readable though.
aengus on March 19, 2008 at 4:17 PM
There’s no evidence to back that up. No one in Washington particularly minded that he was overthrown but they didn’t engineer the coup. You’re as paranoid as Hugo.
aengus on March 19, 2008 at 4:19 PM
As one I can tell you that the ship sailed on this before Paul even announced his candidacy. I refuse to vote for socialists and saying that your candidate is less socialist than the other socialist won’t work either. Supporting lesser socialists, eventhough Bush was actually a bigger socialist than Clinton and worse on illegal aliens to boot, but it is the rationalizing that enables the lesser socialists. All they will keep doing is hang judges over your head and then even if they win they will slip in Souters to keep it roughly at 5-4, that keeps people on both sides on a hook and is beneficial to the parties. In ‘94 they made promises and the same people who completely destroyed the ‘94 revolution are now promising to be the “new blood” to fix it. Well I am not buying that but for those who do, I have a wonderful bridge I’d like to sell you guys.
Besides the Republican Party and many people on this site think that libertarian leaning Republicans have no place in the party. I find Allah’s line rather amusing:
“There’s a future for libertarianism (hopefully) within the party with respect to domestic issues”
Yeah, just like Obama, that’s some hope you can BELIEVE in, just like believing in the tooth fairy.
You will vote for amnesty and like it.
LevStrauss on March 19, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Come on aengus. You know the U.S. engineered the coup to overthrow Chavez and you know why. Cuz he knows where we keep the thermite.
oakpack on March 19, 2008 at 4:56 PM
I don’t remember the slogan of the GOP being “Cranks Are Us.”
William Teach on March 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM
BTW, it just might be an inside job that McCain is not reaching out the the Paultards, probably because of the evil Jews!!!!! ;)
William Teach on March 19, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Away… from McCain? Please. There isn’t anything in the world that could convince me to vote for that bellicose fascist. This is just Ron Paul taking a chance to point out that McCain isn’t Conservative, and the Republican party has become the party of big government, diminishing freedoms, wars of aggression, and currency devaluation. He doesn’t honestly expect McCain to reach out to traditional Republicans.
Mark Jaquith on March 19, 2008 at 5:02 PM
And don’t forget:
Herr Gut Doktor has delivered over 4000 babies!
Et tu Brute on March 19, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Say, Mark, what freedom have you lost?
I suppose we should have sat down with the Islamic extremists after 9/11 and had a good cup of tea.
William Teach on March 19, 2008 at 5:15 PM
I didn’t say we engineered it. In the least gave it a nod and a wink.
Drum on March 19, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Nah, the thermite’s buried in Israel, dude. That’s why we keep supporting the eeeeevil Jooooooooos.
(Hopefully that one will be flying around Prison Planet by this evening. I’d love for one of my made-up conspiracy theories to catch on with the nutjobs.)
ReubenJCogburn on March 19, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Why didn’t you address the military aspect of foreign policy and zero in on ‘foreign aid’ a minor cog in foreign policy? Wow, you can quote CATO and offer book club selections. Now back to ‘empire building?” Really, interesting. How about offering stability? Not in serious national interest? “Ensure Domestic Tranquility” – yeah I liked School House Rock too.
You gotta be a Paulbot. Back to YT with ‘Drum’!?!
Branch Rickey on March 19, 2008 at 5:55 PM
“The primary ambition of Anglo-Saxon power is not dominance in a particular theater; it is to dominate the structure that shapes the conditions within which the actors in each of the world’s theaters live.”
Walter Russell Mead, God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World
when you talk of “Empire” one thinks of Rome, British/European Imperialism, Nazi’s, Japan, Soviets…those types of comparisons are outright slanderous.
if anything we are the leader of an empire of Liberal Hegemony or as Thomas Jefferson envisioned an “empire of Liberty”..
jp on March 19, 2008 at 6:02 PM
If you’d notice, I “zeroed” in on foreign aid only after you corrected my original post presuming that I only had military expenses in mind when I wrote “foreign policy.”
Face it, American policy messes with a whole hell of a lot things and you and others call it “national interest.” Maybe your national interest, but certainly not mine. Don’t lay your moral and strategic aberrations at the foot of most Americans.
Enjoy losing in November.
Drum on March 19, 2008 at 6:57 PM
I’ve read Mead’s book. He caters to deluded old men who couldn’t give a sh*t for you or me. If you dig this sort of thing, go for it. I don’t.
Drum on March 19, 2008 at 6:58 PM
The funny thing is that I bought Mead’s book while waiting in line to meet Laura Ingraham and have her sign her book. I’ve since learned my lesson and understand her to be an apologist for war and empire as well. Sad realizations — I enjoyed being a Laura 365 member for quite some time, but have found better use of my 7 bucks every month.
Drum on March 19, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Losing what? I have no dog in this race. Except for the fact that McVain understand the jihadists (sp?) all 3 (HRC, BHO, JMc) are big spenders and, for lack of a better phrase, complete fools; so I don’t understand what that big “burn” was supposed to be.
Do you even know what that sentence means?
Back to YT Paulbots
Branch Rickey on March 19, 2008 at 7:09 PM
“Feet.”
Whatever, freak.
Drum on March 19, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Great answer. Look forward to more fabulous insights…./s off
Branch Rickey on March 19, 2008 at 7:18 PM
You said the US helped depose Chavez. When I pointed out that they did nothing to help depose him except privately approve of it you de-escalated to a “a nod and a wink”. Unless a nod and a wink has some sinister aspect to it you’ve basically conceded my point.
aengus on March 19, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Are you kidding? First, there is ample evidence that the US had its hand in the coup, but you might have to travel somewhere beyond Pajamas Media to get the info and I won’t bother giving you leads — you can do it on your own; don’t worry, it’s scary, but you can handle it.
Second, the US has made no secret of its deep hatred of Chavez and its desire to see him gone. Why? Because he won’t tow the empire’s line; that is, he puts Venezuela’s interests (however noxious those may be) before Washington’s. Imagine that. It got Mossadeq knocked out and it surely will Chavez as well.
Drum on March 19, 2008 at 8:38 PM
I love how your apparently (in your mind at least) eloquent posts are finished with some “Paulbot” remark, yet I’m to take you seriously. But when I refer to you (accurately) after two or three of these posts of yours as a “freak,” I’m apparently not willing to engage you on the level.
Nice.
Drum on March 19, 2008 at 9:19 PM
No “Drum” your Big Insight was to call me a “freak” instead of any real response. Now back to YT with your infantile Paulbot isolationist ideas.
Branch Rickey on March 19, 2008 at 9:36 PM
McCain may not need Paul. Have you all seen the very latest polls released this evening? McCain is clobbering Obama in statewides, and leading comfortably in national polls, including liberal leaning Gallup.
Get this! In Kentucky, McCain is leading Obama 56% to 28%!!! And in Missouri, 52% to 32%.
McCain DOES! need to reach out to libertarians. But to Goldwaterite/Dennis Miller/Rohrabacher/PJ O’Rourke Right-wing libertarians, like those in the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Leftwing Libertarians like Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, and the Ron Paul legions won’t support him, even if he jumped through hoops.
That’s okay, cause we Pro-Defense libertarians are increasingly warming up to the GOP Nominee.
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003
ericdondero on March 19, 2008 at 10:21 PM
BTW, for the record, Ron Paul didn’t actually “support” the War in Afghanistan. I was serving as his Senior Aide at the time. I had to yell, scream, throw a tantrum, and threaten to resign to get him to vote “yes” on the War in Afghanistan. He only did it at the very last minute, after another key staffer threatened the same. Even Paul’s wife and family at the time were telling him to vote for the War.
Joe Becker, our Legislative Director, was the lone hold-out trying to convince Ron to vote “nay”. And he almost did it.
After the vote, his entire staff, save Joe, and his family, all his supporters in Lake Jackson, and all his friends, were greatly relieved.
But he didn’t let us live it down. He complained about “having to vote for War” for months afterwards.
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003
ericdondero on March 19, 2008 at 10:26 PM
“Sociopath” would have been more fitting.
Drum on March 20, 2008 at 1:23 AM
Say, thanks for asking! Here’s the list:
Habeas Corpus (the government now reserves the right to hold American citizens indefinitely without charge).
Fourth Amendment (the government conducted a surveillance program that was ruled illegal by a FISA court).
Financial freedoms (the federal government is notified when I open a bank account).
Privacy of my library records (the federal government can get a list of every book/dvd I’ve rented from the library, without a warrant).
Privacy of my phone records (telecom companies gave call records to the government without a warrant).
Privacy of my State identification documents (thanks to the REAL ID, we’ll have a de-facto national ID system).
Mark Jaquith on March 20, 2008 at 2:10 AM
I believed that there was a future for libertarianism in the GOP back in 2000. I’m never making that mistake again.
LT Nixon on March 20, 2008 at 7:14 AM
I think the liberals have a pretty clear idea what Ron Paul stands for: legalize pot, disband the military and get rid of the world’s only REAL “evil empire.”
It makes perfect sense that the moonbats support Ron Paul. What bothers me is that he keeps trying to get the Republican Party to join his “make drugs, not war” bandwagon.
Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to just go to the Democrats and ask them to give up on ONE issue: that silly little Socialism nonsense? Once they worked out that tiny little bugaboo, you’d have a match made in Heaven.
logis on March 20, 2008 at 8:03 AM
allahpundit said;
Yeah allah…the “New” Republican party with its warmongering imperialistic platform really did well in November of 2006 by losing the House and Senate didn’t they?
Wake up Allah. No one wants war except the leaders you bow down to.
McCain doesn’t stand a chance of winning in November of 2008 and the Republican party has nothing to do but go back to its libertarian roots (non-interventionism, less goverment and personal liberty) or disappear from the face of the earth.
What makes you, Michael Goldfarb, Malkin or anyone else who supports this “New” Republican party think that it stands a chance in November with “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran” McCain as your elected candidate when your platform hasn’t changed? Is the economy better? Is oil and gasoline cheaper? You’re killing me here! hahaha
Now go ahead and say something intelligent that has to do with the threat of Islamofacism, blah, blah, blah.
Bottom line is, that’s all you got!
Fed Up
Fed Up on June 3, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Comment pages: