Ron Paul: No, I won’t be endorsing Romney any time soon; Update: Convention disruption “against my plan”

posted at 1:36 pm on May 9, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Larry Kudlow asks the most pertinent question about Ron Paul’s continuing efforts on the campaign trail after Mitt Romney has all but wrapped up the GOP nomination, which is what Paul hopes to accomplish by continuing to contest it.  Paul says he’s not ready to follow Rick Santorum’s lead by endorsing Romney in the near future … and why should he?  He’s raising money with a low burn rate, grabbing enough delegates to have the party establishment worried, and putting himself in position to force some policy changes in the party platform.  Ron Paul is having the time of his life:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq6fqEzQLJI

With virtually zero chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination, Rep. Ron Paul said Tuesday that he has no immediate plans to endorse Mitt Romney.

“Not soon,” he said on CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report.”

“I’m not thinking about that as much as what kind of presence we’ll have, how many people we’re going to have there, and what kind of an influence we can have on the platform in Tampa,” he added, noting that there were still plenty of delegates still up for grabs. “It may turn out that we may end up winning Iowa, and we’ve won a couple of these other states.”

Just how close to zero chance is it for Paul, anyway?  Let’s assume that Paul can capture all of the delegates in caucus states, thanks to his organizational strength and ability to play the long game.  Right now, Romney has 722 untouchable bound delegates from primary states, up through last night’s elections.  He’ll get at least half of Indiana’s 46 delegates even if Paul can claw some from the caucus portion of the allocation, so bring that to 745 delegates.  Romney should win all of the rest of the primaries by majorities, so California puts Romney over the top by June 5th no matter what happens.  It’s over, and it’s been over since at least Santorum’s withdrawal.

But the endgame, as Kudlow puts it, hasn’t been the nomination anyway, at least not for Paul. He wants to influence policy in exactly the way he states in the interview, but more importantly, he wants his supporters holding the levers of power in local and state party organizations.  That will make it much easier to move the GOP in his direction — and eventually give his son Rand a clear path to a presidential nomination.  When he’s finished setting up his organization and generating as much in contributions as he can, he’ll give Romney his blessing in this election, because by then Romney’s win this year won’t matter to Paul.

Update: CNN asked Paul about rumors that his campaign planned to use its muscle on the delegate floor in Tampa to stage demonstrations against the Republican nominee, or at least the party establishment.  Paul disavowed that intent:

COSTELLO: Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Huntsman, Perry, Cain, they’ve all dropped out. Why haven’t you?

PAUL: Well, it certainly isn’t for the reason of disrupting a convention as you were alluding to. That is not in my plan. That is against my plan. I don’t like that being a suggestion.

I’m in it for very precise reasons to maximize our efforts to get as many delegates as we can. I’m still a candidate and to promote something that is very, very important. That is a change in the direction for the Republican Party to be a fiscal conservative Republican Party.

To not be a party that supports endless wars and a party that would look into the monetary system so that we can understand the business cycle.

So we have very precise goals and we are being quite successful in accumulating more and more votes and delegates. Quite frankly, I think the reports early on that we weren’t winning anything, it turns out we did win some of these states like in Maine and Minnesota and these other places. We’re doing quite well.

COSTELLO: I want to ask you about that, Congressman. Your supporters do seem to be taking a page from Evangelical Christian activists in the ’90s.

They’re taking control of state conventions to win you enough delegates to get your name placed formally in nomination. I mean, is the goal to get you a prime time speaking role at the Republican convention, is that why they’re working so hard?

PAUL: Well, being nominated is one thing and you get to give a speech, but that is different than just the leadership conceding sometime and giving you a speech. One is monitored and one is not.

So just to give a speech for the sake of giving a speech and have it edited doesn’t have much awe peel to me, but I think moving in an agenda is very important. The best way I can do that is to maximize is number of delegates that we have.

Say what you will, but my experience in Minnesota has been that Paul supporters have organized well enough that they don’t need to disrupt the proceedings.  They’re making themselves the new establishment.  They look disciplined and focused, so a pointless disruption on the floor of the convention in Tampa would be not just be out of character, it would mainly be self-defeating.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 4

You say we should have intervened sooner…When, exactly? Besides the fact that neither the Congress nor the people would support such a preemptive intervention, certainly not on the basis of protecting other people overseas, when would you say that it would have been appropriate for the US to attack Germany? Should we have launched a full-scale invasion? Were we even prepared to do that? Of course, I am indulging your fantasy scenario but I would like to hear some specifics on how a preemptive attack on Germany should have occurred assuming that it were politically possible at whatever time prior to December 7, 1941 that you believe we should have preemptively attacked.

I’d say after the re-militarization of the Rhineland, in 1935….The German Army had prepared plans to retreat as fast as it advanced. It only advanced into the Rhineland with a FEW BATTALIONS. But no, we all decided it wasn’t our place to intervene (you know NON-INTERVENTION) so instead we got a war four years later that engulfed the world and killed about 30 Million Europeans.

Your point that such a course was not possible then, is well taken. My point today is, that CONSERVATIVES have learned this lesson, but Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell even when seeing that it failed once, continue to advocate it.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

The National GOP has already said that the RonPaul delegates won’t be seated, so now Maine will likely NOT be represented, or grossly under-represented thanks to these morons and their lunatic cult leader.

TKindred on May 9, 2012 at 1:54 PM

In other words, they won’t adhere to the process they put in place because they don’t like the results? Sounds more like a third world dictator’s ploy.

I will grant that the caucus process is pretty much garbage, but it is the process. If the delegates adhered to the process, then they should be seated. It’s not their fault the process is garbage.

I’d be more inclined to ask why Romney didn’t ensure he left an organization behind in these caucus states to make sure that his delegates were seated in accordance with the process and the voter’s wishes.

Lest we forget, the caucus process was put in place, and is intentionally complicated, in order for the establishment to make sure if a Ron Paul type of candidate won the popular vote that the establishment could use the process to subvert that vote. I doubt they ever considered that a Ron Paul type would be more organized than the establishment candidate. I will shed no tears over a fringe candidate sticking it to the establishment using the process they put in place to avoid those candidates winning.

Time to revisit the stupid caucus system? Definitely.

gravityman on May 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Not conservative at all. Try Wilsonian Progressive

Realist Conservative.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Yeah, exploding nukes over cities in the middle east won’t bother us much right? It’s not like all the economy’s around the world are tied together. So let the entire middle east go up in a mushroom cloud. At least we won’t have crony capitalism.

Man, some people are just dense.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 9, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Do you think our constant threats to Iran will make them more or less likely to try to develop nuclear weapons? It seems that we don’t pick on or threaten to invade countries once they have nuclear weapons, regardless of their rhetoric towards us or their willingness to work against our interests. You don’t hear us talking about invading North Korea or Pakistan who pose far more of a present threat to this country than Iran.

If I am Iran, and I don’t want my sovereignty threatened, I would think that it was in my own interests to obtain nuclear weapons.

iwasbornwithit on May 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

3 – Taft wanted to drop nukes on China. Invade China. That freaking huge country. Yet, you thought he was a good example of how the Republican Party used to share Paul’s viewpoints. Doesn’t this make you question how solid are you grounds on this matter?

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Really. Let’s see some citation. The man opposed the atomic bombings of Japan.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Two days later, Senator Taft attacked what he called Truman’s “appeasement of the Chinese.” This appeasement, he said, “makes a larger war more likely in the future.” Taft spoke in favor of bombing China and helping Chiang Kai-shek’s forces invade the mainland.

Truman’s dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur in April led Taft to change his mind yet again. Now he joined MacArthur in advocating the use of Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalist Chinese troops in Korea and employing “every possible means to drive the Chinese Communists from Korea.” Withdrawing U.S. troops, he wrote to a friend in June, would result in Korea becoming “100 per cent Communist,” and might lead to a communist takeover of Japan. This latest shift flabbergasted his critics. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., charged that Taft and his allies were using MacArthur as “protective coloration” to give themselves “an air of deep concern with the outside world.” Richard Rovere agreed; it was, he claimed, “astonishing…to find Taft, who voted against the North Atlantic Treaty and the dispatch of troops to Western Europe, eager to form an alliance with the Kuomintang junta.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/dialogue/moser.html

Taft said he had favored Gen. MacArthur’s plan for extending the Korean hostilities to include the bombing of Manchuria

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2229&dat=19520302&id=QuEyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cwAGAAAAIBAJ&pg=2262,865278

Books like America’s Response to China: A History of Sino-American Relations, Kirk’s biography or Richard Rovere’s “What’s happened to Taft?”

How ignorant do you need to be of history to not even know that Taft invited MacArthur, a crazy interventionist, to be on his prospective ticket as Vice-President?

Well, ignorant enough to buy the Rothbardian fables Paul sells you.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Your point that such a course was not possible then, is well taken. My point today is, that CONSERVATIVES have learned this lesson, but Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell even when seeing that it failed once, continue to advocate it.

And not only continue to advocate it for Bosnia/Iraq/Afghanistan…but for Europe circa 1941, too. It’s not like your guys are saying Bosnia does not equal Europe 1941 (A position I accept, BTW), but you have to double down on stupid and say, “No, even knowing what we know now, we STILL would not advocate sending troops/draftees to Europe, in 1941.” That’s just being stuck on stupid.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:44 PM

The Cold War is over, the boomers are retiring, we are a declining society because boomers aborted and prevented a lot of their babies, and so therefor there are far fewer of us to take care of the boomers. Also, the boomers divorced, many of them several times, and live in separate homes, and more debt and the cost of living is higher, the burden has ballooned thanks to crony-government and crony-economics. Plus, with all of the bailouts, including the ongoing ones behind closed doors like the QE’s and other actions of the fed, and all the spending and debt and increasing inflation, the burden is even greater still.

It is untenable. They call them “moral-hazards” for a reason, because it’s immoral, and people are going to have to pay a price for all the corruption in America today.

Republicans are not going to finally vanquish the Democrats in 2012 and eliminate SS and other entitlements, that is a fiction. Yet we must cut anyway, so we have to cut elsewhere where it is slightly more politically viable to cut.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

And get off my LAWN!

Ward Cleaver on May 9, 2012 at 3:31 PM

It’s the fault of those meddling kids, I tells ya!

kim roy on May 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Yet, in the midst of the Cold War, American right-wing analysts like Ohio Senator Robert Taft managed to persuade the American people that the State Department had “been guided by a left-wing group who obviously have wanted to get rid of Chiang and were willing at least to turn China over to the Communists for that purpose.”

I mean, Senator Taft’s campaign against Truman was criticizing him for being too dovish.

Yet, Ron Paul has managed to convince his fanatic followers that he’s just like Robert Taft and that the Republican Party used to be non-interventionist.

It’s a fantasy, folks. Like the ones he sells you about money creation.

A conservative foreign policy isn’t ideological non-interventionism and that was never the GOP platform.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Would Paul be in favor of military intervention if the federal budget was balanced?

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Paul is in favor of military intervention only if Congress signs off on a declaration of war. Otherwise, that’s what we have a Dept of State for.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM

we are a declining society because boomers aborted and prevented a lot of their babies

I guess our salad days are over…please.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Paul is in favor of military intervention only if Congress signs off on a declaration of war

Good thing we had one for Afghanistan and Iraq, then…how come he doesn’t support the wars, then?

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Who knew Paul was still in the race. I didn’t even know there was still a race going on. Ron needs to go ahead and graciously bow out and get behind the nominee. It is wrong for him to continue to accept campaign donations that could be used by the actual candidate.

Ellis on May 9, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Paul is in favor of military intervention only if Congress signs off on a declaration of war. Otherwise, that’s what we have a Dept of State for.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Stop trying to punt the question. Would he, as a congressman, vote for the military intervention or, as the CoC, request it from the Congress?

Deep down, you know the answers. And you know that all that talk about Paul being a realist is a bunch of crap. He’s a fanatic, rigid and dogmatic ideologue. Run away from that. There’s nothing conservative about it.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 4:16 PM

It only advanced into the Rhineland with a FEW BATTALIONS. But no, we all decided it wasn’t our place to intervene (you know NON-INTERVENTION) so instead we got a war four years later that engulfed the world and killed about 30 Million Europeans.

Your point that such a course was not possible then, is well taken. My point today is, that CONSERVATIVES have learned this lesson, but Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell even when seeing that it failed once, continue to advocate it.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Damn right it wasn’t our place to intervene in the Rhineland. France had to take care of France’s shiite. If they can’t do so, find a government that can.

Now, if you want to make an argument that we should have been involved after Poland… that’s at least debatable. When you have one country knocking off sovereign countries, especially in Europe, serious balance of power questions are raised, and under any realistic assessment of foreign policy, that could be enough of a trigger for war.

But Iran is not Germany, and DinnerJacket is not Hitler. They’ve invaded nobody. And if we are honest about it, they aren’t likely to invade anybody. So it would appear that your rather dog-eared WWII analogy is accompanied by a rather sizable amount of FAIL.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 4:20 PM

The problem with Rothbardian “libertarians” (aka Paul and his group) is that they’re like a cult. They believe everything Rothbard told them – including flat out fantasies like the one about Senator Robert Taft – and they only read each other stuff.

Everything else they see as “slandering”, people aren’t educated or people trying to fool them – hence all the conspiracy theories.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Who knew Paul was still in the race. I didn’t even know there was still a race going on. Ron needs to go ahead and graciously bow out and get behind the nominee. It is wrong for him to continue to accept campaign donations that could be used by the actual candidate.

Ellis on May 9, 2012 at 4:15 PM

It is wrong for you to believe that any Paul supporter would donate to a Big Government Liberal like Mitt Romney.

realitycheck on May 9, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Stop trying to punt the question. Would he, as a congressman, vote for the military intervention or, as the CoC, request it from the Congress?

Deep down, you know the answers.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Either you are closer to the Paul campaign inner circle than I, or you need to tighten that tin foil a bit. AFAIK, Ron Paul has always said that, as POTUS, he would wage the war if declared by Congress, but wouldn’t go to them looking for it.

As well he shouldn’t. Development of nuclear weapons has never.. let me repeat…NEVER, been a legitimate cassus belli.

China developed nuclear weapons, and we didn’t go to war over it.

Pakistan developed nuclear weapons, and we didn’t go to war over it.

Israel stole a bunch…. well, there’s no proof of that, now is there.

North Korea developed nuclear weapons, and we didn’t go to war over it.

So just what makes Iran so goddamned special?

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Damn right it wasn’t our place to intervene in the Rhineland. France had to take care of France’s shiite. If they can’t do so, find a government that can.

Did we, though? No. Non-Intervention doesn’t have a good track record, and it’s cause is NOT helped by its major proponent, Ron Paul, saying in 2012 that he wouldn’t have sent troops to Europe in 1941. The copious fail is on YOUR side not mine….

But Iran is not Germany, and DinnerJacket is not Hitler. They’ve invaded nobody.

And if they spread Shi’i Terrorism or use nuclear weapons, how will we be hurt?

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Shenanigans….I doubt ANY Senator would have opposed the Atomic Bombing of Japan in 1945….and Taft didn’t know of the Manhattan Project, any way…being a Senator AND a Republican. Sorry calling you a liar on this one.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Still clinging to your ignorance. I said the man opposed the atomic bombings of Japan.

“At first, Robert A. Taft hoped that his nation could stay out of World War I. When, however, Germany declared unrestricted submarine warfare, Taft approved the severing of diplomatic relations. He was appalled by the diplomatic intrigue he witnessed at the Versailles Conference, which he attended as a key member of Herbert Hoover’s Supreme Economic Council. Later he blamed the Great Depression almost exclusively upon foreigners being unable to pay their war loans. During the intervention controversy that began in 1939, Taft stressed defense of the United States and the Caribbean and asserted that air power could deter any attack. Once peace was restored, so he claimed, that the United States could trade again with both Germany and Japan. And if the war cost America European markets, it could get them elsewhere. Besides, he added, with foreign trade only producing five per cent of the nation’s income, it could well survive without it. Even during World War II, Taft claimed that military alliances led to world empire. He commented in 1943, “Our fingers will be in every pie…. Potential power over other nations, however benevolent its purpose, leads inevitably to imperialism.” Within a year after the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan, Taft critized that action.

link

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 4:28 PM

So you’re saying Taft opposed an action that saved countless US and JAPANESE lives? And you quote him approvingly? Says more about you than me, I’d say…

“Do you want fries with that calls, so ‘night all.”

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Did we, though? No. Non-Intervention doesn’t have a good track record, and it’s cause is NOT helped by its major proponent, Ron Paul, saying in 2012 that he wouldn’t have sent troops to Europe in 1941. The copious fail is on YOUR side not mine….

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Oh, I forgot the stellar track record interventionism has, mostly of turning our foreign policy into a punchline after Iraq.

And Ron Paul said he wouldn’t send troops to stop the Holocaust. Largely because we didn’t, we wouldn’t, nor should we. No Congress was going to vote to invade Germany on behalf of the Jews and Slavs, just like no Congress was going to vote to invade China to stop the Cultural Revolution, and no Congress was going to vote to invade Cambodia to stop the Khmer Rouge.

But please… go ahead and get your Congresscritter to put forth a resolution of war against Iran, under the banner of stopping the next Hitler.

I could use a good laugh…

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Time to revisit the stupid caucus system? Definitely.

gravityman on May 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Anybody can participate in the caucus system, you don’t have to be an insider, though you sort of become one if you participate. That’s how it should be. That’s how it’s meant to be, it’s a way for the grass-roots to compete against an usurper, and that is essentially what Romney is. He is a snake-oil salesman who can buy a lot of time on corporate news channels, but he can’t legally use the money to buy grass-roots support at the caucuses which is where people who are paying the most attention and/or have the most at stake can get involved.

America is not a pure democracy, it is a republic. The Republican Party in particular is supposed to represent republican ideals, and the caucus system serves that purpose purpose.

Another advantage of the caucus system is that it is more transparent than an election that is counted by the establishment behind closed doors. Ron Paul supporters have already caught a number of Romney supporters engaging in shenanigans at the caucuses. Chances are some establishment people might have done the same thing during the primary votes and might have gotten away with it.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM

It’s a lot harder to cheat and get away with it at a caucus where everybody is a witness than it is in an primary election where the process isn’t nearly as transparent.

If anything I think the caucus system should be expanded to make it easier for a candidate like Ron Paul to compete with political cronies. It will help safeguard our republic against mob rule and the tyranny of the majority.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 4:42 PM

And Ron Paul said he wouldn’t send troops to stop the Holocaust. Largely because we didn’t, we wouldn’t, nor should we.

i think that was less to do with his Isolationist foreign policy and more to do with his anti-semitism and rank Jew-hatred to be fair to DR Paul, it does attract quite the following eh ;)

golembythehudson on May 9, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Israel stole a bunch…. well, there’s no proof of that, now is there.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 4:25 PM

In the same vein, when did you stop beating your wife?

MadisonConservative on May 9, 2012 at 4:43 PM

i think that was less to do with his Isolationist foreign policy and more to do with his anti-semitism and rank Jew-hatred to be fair to DR Paul, it does attract quite the following eh ;)

golembythehudson on May 9, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Yeah. That’s why he’s about the only guy in DC with the stones to stand up and say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel… including the Jewish members of Congress!!

Just make sure you check for any Hitler clones hiding under your bed tonight…

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 2:34 PM

There’s no effing way that Herr Doktor wins TX. None.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM

In the same vein, when did you stop beating your wife?

MadisonConservative on May 9, 2012 at 4:43 PM

A fair question, if in fact my wife has been beaten.

Israel has nuclear weapons. They deny it. So, how exactly did they get them?

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 4:48 PM

How ignorant do you need to be of history to not even know that Taft invited MacArthur, a crazy interventionist, to be on his prospective ticket as Vice-President?

Well, ignorant enough to buy the Rothbardian fables Paul sells you.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Nice straw man.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Really like Ron Paul. It’s a shame to seem him going out like this. The whole ‘I’m still in this!’ thing is so delusional, so…Newt Gingrich. Paul should have more dignity than this.

TheDriver on May 9, 2012 at 4:50 PM

A fair question, if in fact my wife has been beaten.

Israel has nuclear weapons. They deny it. So, how exactly did they get them?

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Why, exactly, are they not given the benefit of the doubt that they developed them, in the same way pretty much every other country got their nukes? They were working on nuclear technology with countries like France as far back as the 1950s.

Ah…of course…those “thieving” Jews, right?

MadisonConservative on May 9, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Really like Ron Paul. It’s a shame to seem him going out like this. The whole ‘I’m still in this!’ thing is so delusional, so…Newt Gingrich. Paul should have more dignity than this.

TheDriver on May 9, 2012 at 4:50 PM

There’s the whole $2 million in the black vs $4.5 million in the red thing working there.

One would think conservatives could tell the difference between a going concern, and a loss generating enterprise.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 4:52 PM

i think that was less to do with his Isolationist foreign policy and more to do with his anti-semitism and rank Jew-hatred to be fair to DR Paul, it does attract quite the following eh ;)

golembythehudson on May 9, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Always with the lies.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 4:54 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM

well i didn’t mention anything about Israel so i’m curious why you did, but if you want to get into this this topic briefly in the past few years he’s:

called the Israelis nazis who are running concentration camps

said that the Israelis defending themselves against a U.S state dept terrorist group affiliated with Hamas trying to run a legal naval blockade was an “atrocious act” which should be used as a reason to cut of all military aid.

went on Iranian state television and defended suicide bombings and rocket attacks as a legitimate response to Israel

claimed that Israel stole land illegally from the “palestinians”.

that’s a brief overview

golembythehudson on May 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Why, exactly, are they not given the benefit of the doubt that they developed them, in the same way pretty much every other country got their nukes? They were working on nuclear technology with countries like France as far back as the 1950s.

Ah…of course…those “thieving” Jews, right?

MadisonConservative on May 9, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Well, denial of possession of something that all evidence other than your claims to the contrary points to, is usually considered evidence of a guilty mind. But once again, Ill let the realist in me take over, and say the Israelis have to do what the Israelis think they have to do.

Perhaps I should have written “stolen” in quotes.

I don’t think Israeli agents pilfered HEU or Plutonium from the United States or France… not, at least, without the tacit knowledge of somebody in the USG, and probably a number of somebodies spread out across the West.

And however they acquired them, it’s not like I’m asking that they give ‘em back.

But it does raise an interesting question, MadCon… if we are now to accept that development of nuclear weapons is now a legitimate cassus belli, would… say Syria or Turkey be justified in invading Israel for their development/procurement of nuclear weapons?

Sauce for the goose, even the Israeli goose, is sauce for the gander.

Even the Persian gander.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM

There’s no effing way that Herr Doktor wins TX. None.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Aren’t TX’s delegates allocated proportionally?

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Instead of indulging in historical fantasies, how about we stick to the present day? Has our current strategy of interventionism in Iraq and Afghanistan been worth it? I don’t think that there is any evidence that it has been.

A second question that none of the interventionists care to answer is how the hell will we pay for an invasion of Iran, if that is what you support? Do you honestly believe that we have the money? Do you honestly believe that Romney, or any other Republicans would actually support that strategy? Hell no. Believe it or not, from a political perspective, it is you interventionists that are far out on a limb on this issue. The majority of Americans (and Republicans!) want us to get out of Afghanistan. Do you actually believe that there is enough public support for an attack/invasion of Iran? Yet you are acting like we are the out of the mainstream kooks for our wanting to stay out of foreign entanglements.

It is really beyond the philosophical at this point. You are the ones that are engaging in fantasy if you think that it is politically viable for Romney or even a GOP controlled Congress to preemptively attack Iran. YOU are the ideologues here. Non-interventionism is firmly rooted in the current political reality.

iwasbornwithit on May 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM

FloatingRock, I think we are generally on the same side actually. You may have misconstrued that last line of my post.

I am saying it is time to revisit it, not nessecarily get rid of it.

I think Paul’s delegates were well within their rights to operate within the system. My biggest question would be how the establishment candidates… the ones who should supposedly have the biggest organizations and the most money to fund same… failed so comprehensively in using the very same process to ensure that their delegates got elected in proportion to the popular vote?

It’s not like Paul’s strategy of leaving strong organizations behind in caucus states was any secret. I had heard of the concept before the primaries even began.

gravityman on May 9, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Perhaps I should have written “stolen” in quotes.

You should have, but you didn’t. You, and others like you, are all too happy to sling whatever mud you can at Israel, rarely speak of it in any positive manner, and then recoil in horror at the implication that paleocons might just be a tad anti-Israel.

But it does raise an interesting question, MadCon… if we are now to accept that development of nuclear weapons is now a legitimate cassus belli, would… say Syria or Turkey be justified in invading Israel for their development/procurement of nuclear weapons?

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM

If Israel’s leaders had a history of loudly calling for the destruction and takeover of Turkish and Syrian states, and their allies had declared the acquisition of nuclear weapons as a key to winning a holy war against others, sure. Have they?

MadisonConservative on May 9, 2012 at 5:07 PM

If Israel’s leaders had a history of loudly calling for the destruction and takeover of Turkish and Syrian states, and their allies had declared the acquisition of nuclear weapons as a key to winning a holy war against others, sure. Have they?

MadisonConservative on May 9, 2012 at 5:07 PM

You mean like North Korea does on a regular basis with South Korea.

And yet we let them develop nuclear weapons without invading them to prevent it. That must really burn you up inside. And yet, we never see the outrage that is so obviously reserved for Ron Paul and Israel.

Funny that.

How about if Japan decides they want to develop nuclear weapons? Give China the right to leap the East China Sea, does it?

Can’t imagine what’s going to happen when Egypt decides they want nukes… Johnny, get your gun, because the US has a lot of commitments, courtesy of MadCon and the neocon Right.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Ron Paul’s foreign policy views were shaped by our founding fathers.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:52 PM

No. Ron Paul wouldn’t have started a war with the Ottoman Empire. He would have blamed the Americans for the pirate attacks on their ships.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 5:15 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM

There you have me. I honestly don’t know. I will find out.

Looks like there was something in the works to go WTA. Right now it looks proportional.
Go Mitt!
*And Cruz*

annoyinglittletwerp on May 9, 2012 at 5:16 PM

My explanation: Our young’uns are afraid of having to fight and die in Eye-Ran and really want a Prez who’ll play foreign policy ostrich for them.

How soon our progeny forgets our parents’ lessons from WWII.
Freedom is NOT free. Isolationism no longer protects us, nor do the two oceans on either side of us.

Yiwen on May 9, 2012 at 2:29 PM
My experience with young Ron Paul supporters, a surprising number of whom were veterans, was they aren’t afraid to go and fight and die for America.

They’re afraid of having to go and fight and die for nothing. And after the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, who the hell can blame them?

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 2:43 PM

JohnGalt23,

I would hardly call keeping Iran from getting nukes and threatening both Israel, the US, and the entirety of the Western World “fighting and dying for nothing”.

Yiwen on May 9, 2012 at 5:18 PM

You mean like North Korea does on a regular basis with South Korea.

And yet we let them develop nuclear weapons without invading them to prevent it.

Funny that.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Yeah, almost like we didn’t go to war with them sixty years ago, as if we don’t have troops on the border ready for s**t to hit the fan, and almost as though the rest of the region wants to incinerate South Korea.

Great comparison, there. Spot on. Now that Romney’s kicked his foreign policy advisor to the curb for liking domestic genitalia, I sure hope he hires JohnGalt23.

MadisonConservative on May 9, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Yeah, almost like we didn’t go to war with them sixty years ago, as if we don’t have troops on the border ready for s**t to hit the fan, and almost as though the rest of the region wants to incinerate South Korea.

Great comparison, there. Spot on. Now that Romney’s kicked his foreign policy advisor to the curb for liking domestic genitalia, I sure hope he hires JohnGalt23.

MadisonConservative on May 9, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Is that?… sounds like violins, playing just for Israel.

When have we ever gone to war to stop a nation from developing a nuclear weapon? When has that ever been our policy?

Oh yeah… the answer that you are so desperately trying to avoid giving is “never”. It has never been US policy that development of nuclear weapons is a cassus belli, and we would have freaked out over any nation adopting such a policy. We wouldn’t have stood still for it if India had taken that stance with Pakistan, nor is SKorea took it with the Norks.

And you know it.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Yeah, almost like we didn’t go to war with them sixty years ago, as if we don’t have troops on the border ready for s**t to hit the fan, and almost as though the rest of the region wants to incinerate South Korea.

Great comparison, there. Spot on. Now that Romney’s kicked his foreign policy advisor to the curb for liking domestic genitalia, I sure hope he hires JohnGalt23.

MadisonConservative on May 9, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Good point. We had troops stationed on their border for the defense of South Korea, we knew that they were developing nuclear weapons and we STILL did not attack or invade them. Why is that? What does having troops on the border have to do with their development of nuclear weapons? I mean, troops on the border won’t mean squat if the Norks decide to use their nukes, wouldn’t you agree? Do you think that the Norks have a substantially sunnier disposition towards the US than the Iranians?

iwasbornwithit on May 9, 2012 at 5:29 PM

JohnGalt23,

I would hardly call keeping Iran from getting nukes and threatening both Israel, the US, and the entirety of the Western World “fighting and dying for nothing”.

Yiwen on May 9, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Sounds awfully like the arguments made to this nation prior to the invasion of Iraq.

I’ll forgive young people their skepticism on this point. It’s shared at this point by most of the world, including most of our allies.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Do you think our constant threats to Iran will make them more or less likely to try to develop nuclear weapons? It seems that we don’t pick on or threaten to invade countries once they have nuclear weapons, regardless of their rhetoric towards us or their willingness to work against our interests. You don’t hear us talking about invading North Korea or Pakistan who pose far more of a present threat to this country than Iran.

If I am Iran, and I don’t want my sovereignty threatened, I would think that it was in my own interests to obtain nuclear weapons.

iwasbornwithit on May 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Here we go again.

Iran doesn’t develop nukes because they want to dominate the Middle East, but because they feel threatened by those evil Americans.

Ron Paul in a nutshell.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 5:31 PM

well i didn’t mention anything about Israel so i’m curious why you did, but if you want to get into this this topic briefly in the past few years he’s:

called the Israelis nazis who are running concentration camps

said that the Israelis defending themselves against a U.S state dept terrorist group affiliated with Hamas trying to run a legal naval blockade was an “atrocious act” which should be used as a reason to cut of all military aid.

went on Iranian state television and defended suicide bombings and rocket attacks as a legitimate response to Israel

claimed that Israel stole land illegally from the “palestinians”.

that’s a brief overview

golembythehudson on May 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM

More lies. He didn’t call the Israelis Nazis; he said he looks at Gaza like a concentration camp. Israel does not control Gaza.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Nice straw man.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 4:50 PM

What’s the straw man?

Me proving you have no clue whatsoever about Robert Taft because you believed the myth Rothbard and his minions fabricated?

Let’s be very clear: you presented Robert Taft as the evidence that Paul’s foreign policy is also that of the Republican Party before liberal hawks left the Democratic Party and infected the Republican Party.

Robert Taft. The MacArthur’s associated who wanted to expand the Korean war and bomb Manchuria.

Does this make sense to you?

Again: Paul’s supporters need to question what they think they know. There’s plenty of falsehoods in Rothbardian’s philosophy and historiography. There’s nothing remotely conservative or libertarian about Rothbard and Paul’s stances, say, on money creation. Read the Austrian economist themselves instead of believing Lew Rockwell’s and Ron Paul’s abridged versions.

Or you can keep running away from this by typing “strawman”, “orwellian”, etc.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 5:31 PM

And your utter inability to even attempt to answer any of these questions represents the preemptive mind (or lack thereof) in a nutshell.

iwasbornwithit on May 9, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Ron Paul spiritual leader was and is Murray Rothbard. You’ll be hard pressed to find a single point of disagreement between the two of them. A man who applauded who some of the biggest totalitarian and sanguinary mass murderers and oppressors of the XX century simply because the US was on the other side. A man who blamed Poland for the Nazis invasion.

Rothbardianism or Ron Paul’s libertarianism is, in its essence, and from a philosophical standpoint, a Marxist philosophy. It’s incredibly ideological and schematic – it’s a true political ideology, which provides a comforting answer to the mysteries of the past, present, and future.

The only difference is that the American federal government occupies the place of class antagonism as the engine of History.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM

What do you think a major cause of our state of relationship with Iran today is? Do you think there has been no interventionism prior to today?

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Iran’s attempt to dominate the Middle East, it’s funding of radical jihadists, its alliance with China, Russia and North Korea and its constant threats to Israel are the reasons for the relationship between the US and Iran.

“The Americans made us do it” is the excuse.

Paul supporters always fall for the excuse.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM

More lies. He didn’t call the Israelis Nazis; he said he looks at Gaza like a concentration camp. Israel does not control Gaza.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 5:33 PM

lol

golembythehudson on May 9, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Iran’s attempt to dominate the Middle East,

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM

So, uh… how many Middle East countries has Iran invaded?

None?

Why, that would put them one down on the United States, now wouldn’t it?

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 5:50 PM

The only difference is that the American federal government occupies the place of class antagonism as the engine of History.

And this is why Paul’s supporters actually believe that the Iranian regime wants to acquire nuclear weapons because they’re preoccupied with the US threat. Just like Marxists see everything, the entire History, as class antagonism, they see everything as a reaction to the USA actions. For Rothbard, every single event could be blamed on America and her allies. The other agents – Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or whoever – didn’t really existed as such. They were merely dialectical counterparts reacting rationally to the American stupidity.

For Rothbard, the secret to Immanentize the Eschaton was to get rid of America’s pernicious influence. Without that, we’d have the paradise on Earth.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM

it’s funding of radical jihadists,

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM

So, we’ll be invading Saudi Arabia then. Because that’s AQ’s major source of funding. Not Iran.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Israel has nuclear weapons. They deny it. So, how exactly did they get them?

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 4:48 PM

They don’t deny it, on the contrary. The are making people guess. It’s called “nuclear ambiguity”. You never know what will happen if you attack Israel. That was America’s policy for a long time, as well.

Israel started to develop nuclear weapons shortly after 1948, with the help of France, but of course they had and have some of the best scientists in the world.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 5:58 PM

How many of you believe that delegates can be bound? The truth is that they can only be bound to their principles. Not an new rule, it’s old and was put there in case there was a terrible ‘mistake’ in the making. Yet the Mittbots claimed Sarah to be stupid for suggesting that if the people don’t like the presumptive nominee, they have a last resort at the convention.

This is why the establishment doesn’t plan to invite her to speak. But you know what? Between Ron Paul, Sarah, Newt, Santorum, you can bet they have delegates that will attend the convention, and if they don’t get a warm fuzzy about Mittness between now and then, he’s toast.

As it should be within the GOP’s own rules. That’s why Mittness has also seeded delegates for other candidates with his own people in hopes of keeping the upper edge. But it seems like RP has out maneuvered Romney, purely on the strengths of his grassroots. As the adage goes, you can’t buy the grassroots, nor bully them into standing down their ground. That’s why even for Cali & Texas, it ain’t over until the votes have been made. If it was even remotely true that it’s over, why did a significant % still vote for Newt, Rick & Ron yesterday? because those folks refuse to heed our ‘wise’ elders and tow the establishment line.

The OWS might think they’re cute with their moniker, but I believe the silent conservative majority will be the ones occupying the convention!

Read it and tremble, Mittbots here and here (RNC 2008 Rules 38/39, pg 97/98).
Just a month or so ago, plenty were cocksure that Rule #39 (majority from 6 States forcing a roll call) couldn’t happen. Still feeling that way now?

AH_C on May 9, 2012 at 6:00 PM

And your utter inability to even attempt to answer any of these questions represents the preemptive mind (or lack thereof) in a nutshell.

iwasbornwithit on May 9, 2012 at 5:37 PM

I answered the questions. Iran develops nuclear weapons because they want to dominate the Middle East. Once they have nukes they can do whatever they want. Nobody can touch them any more.

You think that there are developing nuclear weapons because they want to defend themselves against those evil Americans. That’s not realistic.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 6:08 PM

You Conservatives keep saying that non-interventionism is not consisistent with conservative values.

I’ve got news for all you conservatives out there.

NON-INTERVENTIONISM IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH LIBERTARIAN VALUES, AS WELL.

The Ron Paulists, and leftist infiltrators in our libertarian movement has sold you all a bill of goods. The original libertarians in the late 1960s and early 1970s – people who founded the Libertarian Party like Dr. Jack Hunter, Darlene Brinks, Dr. John Hospers, and even, believe it or not Dana Rohrabacher, were are hardcore Ayn Randian/Anti-Communists.

The Libertarian Party was infiltrated and ultimately taken over in 1974/75 by leftwing radicals like Justin Raimondo and Murray Rothbard.

We originalist libertaians reject Ron Paulism, and non-interventionism and everything it represents.

Eric, Libertarian Defense Caucus mbr. 25 years

ericdondero on May 9, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I’d be more inclined to ask why Romney didn’t ensure he left an organization behind in these caucus states to make sure that his delegates were seated in accordance with the process and the voter’s wishes.

Lest we forget, the caucus process was put in place, and is intentionally complicated, in order for the establishment to make sure if a Ron Paul type of candidate won the popular vote that the establishment could use the process to subvert that vote. I doubt they ever considered that a Ron Paul type would be more organized than the establishment candidate. I will shed no tears over a fringe candidate sticking it to the establishment using the process they put in place to avoid those candidates winning.

Time to revisit the stupid caucus system? Definitely.

gravityman on May 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

1) Both the primaries and the caucuses do NOT represent the people’s wishes. They only represent the people that came to vote. Those choices can, and do routinely, get overturned at the general election.

2)Why revisit the caucus system? This is a federation of States, not a democracy, hence each State can do whatever they well please. If they wanted to; they could limit their system to a vote only of landowners, or exclusively to the State’s executive & legislative branches. Any way they want it and no other State has any grounds to contest their way. This is what State’s Rights looks like. Don’t like it, move to another State.

AH_C on May 9, 2012 at 6:10 PM

So, uh… how many Middle East countries has Iran invaded?

None?

Why, that would put them one down on the United States, now wouldn’t it?

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Dominating a region doesn’t mean that a country has to invade the neighboring countries. Just make them offers they can’t refuse. With the help of nuclear weapons, for example. And by funding their internal enemies.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 6:14 PM

By your defective logic, Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy was far more liberal than the Bush’s because he didn’t start a bunch of preemptive wars and spend trillions of dollars nation-building our enemies.

But in fact you have it backwards: Reagan’s foreign policy was more conservative than the Bush’s, and Ron Paul’s foreign policy is even more conservative than Reagan’s.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Umm, Dude, I really could care less whether it’s conservative or not. I’m a libertarian. Conservatives are buddies with us libertarians. But ultimately we are different, and two distinct philosophies.

We libertarians reject Islamism. We don’t want our wives/girlfriends forced to wear ugly black burkas from head to toe, our gay friend hung from lampposts, marijuana buddies jailed for life, alcohol and gambling outlawed, and “loose women” stoned in the town squared.

Conservatives halfway agree with Muslims on some of these social issues, so they’re less concerned about the threat of Islamism than us libertarians.

ericdondero on May 9, 2012 at 6:16 PM

it’s funding of radical jihadists,

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM

So, we’ll be invading Saudi Arabia then. Because that’s AQ’s major source of funding. Not Iran.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM

We are talking about the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Hamas and other radical Islamist groups in Palestine and Egypt.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 6:20 PM

ericdondero on May 9, 2012 at 2:23 PM
It’s the people who believe in the liberal use of military interventionism and the liberal application of nation-building objectives that hold “liberal” foreign policy views.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM

If it’s “liberal” now to oppose Islamism, why is it that leftists are so enamored with the Islamists? Why do the liberals attack good libertarians like Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders?

Opposing Islamism is LIBERTARIAN.

We libertarians don’t want our pretty wives/girlfriends to be forced to wear ugly black burkas from head to toe. We support sexual liberties. We don’t want Muslims repressing our sexual lifestyles. And we damned sure don’t want them taking away our Bud Lites, Sam Adams, or Coronas. The Islamists can stick their prohibition and prudishness up their arses.

Eric @ Libertarian Republican

ericdondero on May 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 6:20 PM

I agree with what you’ve been writing but I have a small correction: There is no place called ‘Palestine’. ‘Palestinians’ are actually Jordanians. Jordan doesn’t want them-so they continue to sit on land that is actually property of Israel.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 9, 2012 at 6:28 PM

He wants to influence policy in exactly the way he states in the interview, but more importantly, he wants his supporters holding the levers of power in local and state party organizations. That will make it much easier to move the GOP in his direction

That’s a GOOD thing. The Republican party still has far too many big government proponents that are just as bad as the left when it comes to spending other people’s money, they just want to spend it on different stuff.

It’s also a good thing to work toward getting rid of agencies like the EPA, DEA, FDA which are taking away our freedoms without bothering to debate in Congress as it’s supposed to be.

In addition, we need serious talk about foreign policy, our military, and what we do with them. If we go into a war, we should go in with everything we have to win decisively and quickly, no more rules of engagement that just get our guys killed.

Lastly, the militarization of police forces is a road to tyranny. How many botched no-knock raids, innocent dead people (and dead dogs) will it take to stop the so-called War on Drugs? Does no one remember Prohibition and the crime that developed because of it?

Common Sense on May 9, 2012 at 6:34 PM

A total loser. Obviously demented and under the illusion that he can make a difference. Poster child for career politicians and a good example of somebody that needs to be cleaned out of Washington. What a loser!

ultracon on May 9, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Sounds awfully like the arguments made to this nation prior to the invasion of Iraq.

I’ll forgive young people their skepticism on this point. It’s shared at this point by most of the world, including most of our allies.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Hey, at least they wouldn’t be guarding poppy fields anymore. :)

Open borders, fast n’ furious deals with drug lords, guarding opium fields in Afghanistan and then busting granny at home because she bought too much sudafed in a two week period.

oryguncon on May 9, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Lastly, the militarization of police forces is a road to tyranny. How many botched no-knock raids, innocent dead people (and dead dogs) will it take to stop the so-called War on Drugs? Does no one remember Prohibition and the crime that developed because of it?

Common Sense on May 9, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I’m more willing to risk a non-interventionist POTUS, notwithstanding Iran, NoKo et al, than a pro-domestic interventionist (big govt, more rules & less liberty) POTUS.

If push comes to shove, even Ron Paul will be forced to act internationally, against his wishes. But in the interim, we can be assured that he will relentlessly push against big govt, big debt and big spending.

On the flip side for big govt types is that it marches on relentlessly, in spite of the peoples wishes. Look at Lugar and all his buddies, and that’s where Mittness is hiding.

AH_C on May 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM

You Conservatives keep saying that non-interventionism is not consisistent with conservative values.

I’ve got news for all you conservatives out there.

NON-INTERVENTIONISM IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH LIBERTARIAN VALUES, AS WELL.

The Ron Paulists, and leftist infiltrators in our libertarian movement has sold you all a bill of goods. The original libertarians in the late 1960s and early 1970s – people who founded the Libertarian Party like Dr. Jack Hunter, Darlene Brinks, Dr. John Hospers, and even, believe it or not Dana Rohrabacher, were are hardcore Ayn Randian/Anti-Communists.

The Libertarian Party was infiltrated and ultimately taken over in 1974/75 by leftwing radicals like Justin Raimondo and Murray Rothbard.

We originalist libertaians reject Ron Paulism, and non-interventionism and everything it represents.

Eric, Libertarian Defense Caucus mbr. 25 years

ericdondero on May 9, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Dondero, you don’t know the first thing about libertarianism.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Iran’s attempt to dominate the Middle East, it’s funding of radical jihadists, its alliance with China, Russia and North Korea and its constant threats to Israel are the reasons for the relationship between the US and Iran.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Try again. You’ll need to go farther back in history. Not that much farther, though.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Here’s a question? Say, Ron Paul’s not leftist Republican.

Than why is it his foreign policy views are utterly indistinguishable from those of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, and CAIR?

ericdondero on May 9, 2012 at 7:28 PM

I agree with what you’ve been writing but I have a small correction: There is no place called ‘Palestine’. ‘Palestinians’ are actually Jordanians. Jordan doesn’t want them-so they continue to sit on land that is actually property of Israel.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 9, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Yes, you are right. I used the word in a strictly geographical sense, which means the region that was once part of the Ottoman Empire, but Palestinians as a people don’t exist.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Iran’s attempt to dominate the Middle East, it’s funding of radical jihadists, its alliance with China, Russia and North Korea and its constant threats to Israel are the reasons for the relationship between the US and Iran.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Try again. You’ll need to go farther back in history. Not that much farther, though.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 7:23 PM

No, no, let’s go back. Islam has invaded other countries and completely destroyed their cultures a thousand years before the Unites States even existed.

This ideology hasn’t changed, the expansionism never stopped, only the means are different, since other countries have bigger swords now. It was war and invasion, now it’s terrorism.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 7:54 PM

What’s the straw man?

joana on May 9, 2012 at 5:35 PM

I quoted it.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 7:56 PM

No, no, let’s go back. Islam has invaded other countries and completely destroyed their cultures a thousand years before the Unites States even existed.

This ideology hasn’t changed, the expansionism never stopped, only the means are different, since other countries have bigger swords now. It was war and invasion, now it’s terrorism.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Ah, ah. I asked “What do you think a major cause of our state of relationship with Iran today is? Do you think there has been no interventionism prior to today?”

Whatever happened before the United States existed is irrelevant since I directly asked about the United States’ current relationship with Iran. Our countries used to be allies. So don’t dodge the question; try answering it.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Here’s a question? Say, Ron Paul’s not leftist Republican.

Than why is it his foreign policy views are utterly indistinguishable from those of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, and CAIR?

ericdondero on May 9, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Why is your foreign policy indistinguishable from Barack Obama’s and Hilary Clinton’s?

You pretend to be a libertarian, but libertarianism is predicated on recognizing the rights of others and opposing the initiation of force.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Why is your foreign policy indistinguishable from Barack Obama’s and Hilary Clinton’s?

You pretend to be a libertarian, but libertarianism is predicated on recognizing the rights of others and opposing the initiation of force.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 8:04 PM

That depends. The non-aggression principle has generally been limited to civilized context and individual rights; and certainly does not preclude the use of violence in defense of others – including, for example, allies. Well, except by Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul.

Then again, someone stupid enough to believe Ron Paul fantasies about Senator Taft and the GOP story in foreign policy is probably stupid enough to believe in that crap too.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Throughout the 1930s…

…Great Britain had, for the most part, a “it’s none of our business” foreign policy, until Sept, 1939.

…France had, for the most part, a “it’s none of our business” foreign policy, until Sept, 1939.

…The United States had, for the most part, a “it’s none of our business” foreign policy, until about the time France fell in June 1940.

The list of major world events in the 1930s leading to WWII where all three countries essentially said “it’s none of our business” is long.

Ron Paul’s favorite foreign policy slogan… “it’s none of our business”.

farsighted on May 9, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 8:04 PM

i consider myself a libertarian in the Ayn Rand objectivist mold, i don’t consider Ron Paul or his ideological role model Rothbard and Lew Rockwell libertarians, they have been making a concerted effort for decades to hijack that mantle, much like they are trying to hijack the conservative republican movement. They are paleo-cons, their type of politics is familiar as it’s the politics of the old right from the 30′ and 40′s, people like Father Coughlin, Henry Ford, the German Bund were parroting the exact same rhetoric as paul does now, the whole “America first” movement is an exact replica of Paul’s shtick

Libertarians don’t write for holocaust denying magazines or make ideological/ financial alliances with neo-nazis like Willis Carto, or Don Black.

They don’t pen hateful delusional screeds about minorities for decades in newsletters.

They don’t blame every international crisis on the US govt or it’s military.

They don’t rant and rave about Jews, Zionists or the mossad, i know the paulbots here keep it to a minimum (barely) due to this sites heavy moderation, but every other website on the internet is flooded with the aforementioned rambling in any Ron Paul article

Can you not see why so many people on this site find this objectionable?

golembythehudson on May 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM

When it comes to foreign policy, what’s the difference between Ron Paul, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, George W. Bush, Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Barack Obama, etc?

None.

They all have minds deformed by ideology.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM

farsighted on May 9, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Ron Paul would have allowed the soviet totalitarians to place their missiles in La Habana. “None of our business”.

He also would have allowed the nazi totalitarians to conquer the entire continental Europe, including Russia, if he was Churchill. “None of our business”, he’d say.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 8:49 PM

I call BULLSHIITE on Ron Paul’s fiscal rhetoric vs. reality.

His earmarks are the only thing that has kept him in office, that and one of their main recipients, Dow Chemical. He hides them behind titles which include “For Free Trade” and local geographical references.

How do I know? I handled Dow’s surplus assets (not real estate) for several years, in LA, MI & CA plus was involved in major surplus assets in TX City, Freeport, TX & Seadrift, TX. You should have seen some of the almost new things they no longer needed because our tax dollars got them bigger and better.

Kermit on May 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I call BULLSHIITE on Ron Paul’s fiscal rhetoric vs. reality.

His earmarks are the only thing that has kept him in office, that and one of their main recipients, Dow Chemical. He hides them behind titles which include “For Free Trade” and local geographical references.

How do I know? I handled Dow’s surplus assets (not real estate) for several years, in LA, MI & CA plus was involved in major surplus assets in TX City, Freeport, TX & Seadrift, TX. You should have seen some of the almost new things they no longer needed because our tax dollars got them bigger and better.

Kermit on May 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM

So you don’t understand what an earmark is, what its purpose is, and what the responsibility of Congress is.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:05 PM

…The United States had, for the most part, a “it’s none of our business” foreign policy, until about the time France fell in June 1940.

farsighted on May 9, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Teddy Roosevelt ended the “none of our business” foreign policy, not the fall of France.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Ron Paul ”08

GW_SS-Delta on May 9, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Then again, someone stupid enough to believe Ron Paul fantasies about Senator Taft and the GOP story in foreign policy is probably stupid enough to believe in that crap too.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 8:29 PM

And now we’ve moved on to personal attacks.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:13 PM

They don’t pen hateful delusional screeds about minorities for decades in newsletters.

golembythehudson on May 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM

You’ve tried to peddle this lie before and wound up defeating your own argument.

Are you an American citizen?

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM

And now we’ve moved on to personal attacks.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:13 PM

That’s all they have left. They don’t care about the Constitution or the Founders. Just slander and slime. The good news is that they are slowly dying out or being converted. The neocons here are the last of a dying breed. The final defenders of a thoroughly discredited foreign policy. We are taking over and they hate it because we hold a mirror up to their bloodthirsty and cowardly souls. The GOP is moving towards Ron Paul and true liberty and away from the neocon policies of Clinton, Bush and Obama.

iwasbornwithit on May 9, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:05 PM

I guess that they are for the sole and direct benefit of an individual company by Paul’s standards, and hidden so not to point how how Constitutional he is?

Kermit on May 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM

You’ve tried to peddle this lie before and wound up defeating your own argument.

Are you an American citizen?

Dante on May 9, 2012

How many lies has this guy/gal been caught in now? Pretty pathetic that he exists for the sole purpose of making derogatory posts about Ron Paul on HA.

iwasbornwithit on May 9, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:13 PM

What personal attack?

Are you still maintaining that Paul’s foreign policy is also that of the Republican Party before liberal hawks left the Democratic Party and infected the Republican Party and that Senator Taft exemplifies that?

Paul would have endorsed the bombing of China and expanding the Korean War? Is that what you’re saying?

joana on May 9, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Why is your foreign policy indistinguishable from Barack Obama’s and Hilary Clinton’s?

You pretend to be a libertarian, but libertarianism is predicated on recognizing the rights of others and opposing the initiation of force.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Right you are. Libertarianism is about recognizing the rights of others. So, why is it Muslims don’t recognize my wife’s right not to wear an ugly black burka from head to toe? Why do these Islamists want to take away my beer? Why do they want to force public school children across Europe and now even here in the United States in places like Minneapolis and Dearborn, Michigan to learn about their culture and history, when it is completely foreign to Americanism? Why do they want to hang my gay friends from the nearest lamppost? Why do they want to jail my marijuana smoking friends? And what about bikinis at the beach? Why do they want to tell hot blonde American gals they can’t wear skimpy bathing attire? Or French girls that they can’t go topless in Marseilles and Nice and the Cote d’ Azur?

Why is is we have to recognize their rights, but they are not required to recognize the rights of us Americans?

ericdondero on May 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM

You’ve tried to peddle this lie before and wound up defeating your own argument.

Are you an American citizen?

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM

everything i’ve stated is true, the newsletters exist

as for your gestapo line of questioning over whether i’m a citizen or not, i find your premise insulting, and this is the 4′ time you have asked me in the past 2 days, you clearly think this is some sort of winning strategy.

golembythehudson on May 9, 2012 at 9:42 PM

…no comment…just saw the count at 299 and had to give the Doctor…one more.

KOOLAID2 on May 9, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4