Ron Paul revolution is well beyond the fringe

posted at 1:31 pm on May 28, 2012 by Craig Westover

After a lengthy analysis of the Ron Paul influence evident at the Minnesota GOP Convention May 18-19 in St. Cloud (“Libertarian surge remakes state GOP,” May 20), the burning question for the Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial Board was whether “a caucus-based political system that magnifies populist tides [and enabled Paul supporters to dominate the state convention] serves this state well.”

Couple that with a harsher Washington Post piece published in full online (“The party of Ron Paul?” May 24) — which labeled recently adopted planks in the Iowa Republican Party platform “wacky” and “nutty” and gleefully anticipated “a few highly visible fights” erupting over “Paulite positions in the national platform” — and it’s evident the Strib is a more than a little confused about what the Ron Paul revolution is all about.

Let me do what I can to clarify.

First, let’s understand what a “movement” or a “revolution” is. All movements — the Pat Robertson Republican coup in the 1980s, gay rights, women’s suffrage, civil rights and, yes, the Ron Paul movement — follow a common pattern.

Movements all begin at the margins with people who have little or nothing to lose. Unsuccessful movements never expand beyond the sloganeering fringe. Successful movements — those with an intellectual and moral basis — mature to attract a mainstream following.

The gay-rights movement is a great example. Shirtless hunks in leather tutus and motorcycling “Dykes on Bikes” are no longer the point of the gay-rights spear. It’s the gay lawyer/gay accountant, lesbian legislator/lesbian physician — same-sex couples with kids and fundamental concerns about faith, family and freedom — who are now the face of the movement.

Focusing commentary on the remnants of the gay-rights fringe is something the media would never do. But focusing on the fringe of the Ron Paul movement is exactly what the Strib and WaPo commentaries actually do.

Libertarians today are on that cusp between being all about the T-shirt and all about ideas. I was a libertarian before it was cool and a Republican when it wasn’t cool.

As a political force in the 1970s, libertarians had little to lose. They were the folks who couldn’t be Democrats because they believed their money was theirs to spend; but they couldn’t be Republicans because they wanted to spend it on drugs and prostitutes.

Times have changed.

Libertarians today are less about provocative issues and more about reversing the expanding scope of government. Government expansion is bad in itself, but the future consequences are worse: Without defined limits on government, our liberties, our American republic, are truly at risk.

But, says the Washington Post, Americans aren’t buying that argument. If it were, Ron Paul would get more than 15 percent of the primary vote.

The Strib offers its caucus-questioning advice to an implied majority of “voters who believe government remains a useful tool for improving people’s lives.” Unfortunately, that glass-half-empty perspective on the Ron Paul revolution misses a significant point.

In Ron Paul, you have a charisma-challenged old white guy who, without pandering or pushing prejudice, inspires young people with the always sexy message of monetary policy.

A viable presidential challenge built by sticking to principle, not telling people only what they want to hear, is a political story the Strib and the Washington Post would shout from the rooftops — if only the message were a message they wanted to hear.

The power of an idea, personal freedom, doesn’t lie in manufactured popularity.

What about that Paul-inspired “wacky,” “nutty” “constitutional fundamentalism” found in Republican Party platforms?

Sure, abolishing the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Reserve is not going to happen even under a President Paul. But a political party that seriously considers abolishing cabinet-level departments and unaccountable government entities is a political party that probably won’t advocate for a new cabinet-level “Department of the Internet” and is serious about monetary policy.

It’s a party that stands for something.

That brings us to the WaPo admonition that “Paulites” learn to compromise, lest, says the Strib, the philosophical gulf “that’s already proving difficult to bridge by those seeking to govern this state” grows even wider.

One does not compromise principle. It’s a cliché and a fallacy that, given two diametrically opposed points of view, the “truth” must necessarily lie somewhere in the middle.

The Republican problem is buying into the “compromise is good” argument and declaring victory for every move to the left that “could have been so much worse.”

Paulites won’t make that compromise.

Ron Paul delegates to the RNC will support the nominee. However, integral to that support is holding the candidate and the party to the fundamental principles of limited government and personal and economic freedom. Constancy to principle is the ultimate loyalty.

All that said, I urge our media friends to examine the default position that government is good and invite them to think for themselves. The Ron Paul revolution offers the media, the Republican Party and America that opportunity. Take it.

——–

Craig Westover is a Republican activist and a Ron Paul delegate to the Republican National Convention. Follow him on Twitter: @CraigWestover and Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/craig.westover.

This article originally appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune May 26. 2012.

 

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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 8

“The end justify the mean” …

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Exactly the same bull I’ve heard from Rightwingistan for the last 10 years, to justify nearly every loss of freedom made ‘necessary’ by the War on Terror, and from the lefties to justify every government intrusion to “fight glo-bull warming”.

Try again.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 3:15 PM

All spending should be allocated. Big difference.

Earmarks are pork, 40% paid for by borrowing.

But so long as it’s RP doing the earmarking, then voting against it, you’re cool with it.

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Earmarks are earmarks. There are productive earmarks, and wasteful earmarks. The difference between the two… that’s often a matter of your philosophy of federalism.

And RP’s philosophy of federalism causes him to vote against all the earmarks.

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 3:16 PM

If he doesn’t support America’s financial support of Israel (our daughter country), he will never have my vote.

UODuckMan on May 28, 2012 at 1:41 PM

I’ve always found this point about aid to Israel to be really intriguing. Foreign aid is a redistribution of wealth. I thought we weren’t about that sort of thing.

As someone who isn’t fond of such a redistribution – I really am not comfortable with any of my tax dollars going to Pakistan, especially – I don’t understand why Paul’s position on foreign aid would be a deal breaker for any conservative.

On a side note, isn’t a tad condescending to call Israel our “daughter” country? Israel is a “grown up,” for all intents and purposes. She has a mightier military than the rest of the Middle East put together, and her economy is exceptionally strong given her rather small population. I think she’s well past the point of needing Dad for financial support. Don’t you?

humili mente on May 28, 2012 at 3:16 PM

When China first developed nuclear weapons, there were hawks warning us up and down the pike that we had to get them before they got us.

And now we sell them delicious hamburgers and tacos…

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Not to mention every plastic good under the sun…like the ones these mayfly-minded morons are using to compare Paulians to Nazis. The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife and serve with a scoop of ice cream.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 3:17 PM

More likely, he knew he could tout the earmarks among constituents as “bringing home the pork,”

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Seriously?

This is a man who votes against rice subsidies. Now, if he wanted to brag to the folks back home about “taking care of their interests”, the easiest thing in the world would be to vote for those subsidies, which are a helluva lot more valuable than any amount of “pork”. But he’d rather vote “No”.

He’d rather brag to his people about how he was always there to speak at Junior’s graduation, or Grandma’s 100th birthday, or how his staff makes sure constituents have no problem getting their Social Security check or their war medals. It’s called retail politics. The GOP might want to look into it.

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Every time I see a post here about Ron Paul and earmarks, the words “straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel” come to my mind. Even if you stupidly believe earmarks are bad, are they worse than the creation of a new entitlement (Medicare Part D) by the GOP? Are earmarks really a bigger issue than our monetary policy? Are they more important than TARP, stimulus and socialized medicine that were all supported by Romney? But RP supporters are morons and he’s a fake because his district received earmarks. Whoopty doo.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Israel is a “grown up,” for all intents and purposes. She has a mightier military than the rest of the Middle East put together, and her economy is exceptionally strong given her rather small population. I think she’s well past the point of needing Dad for financial support. Don’t you?

humili mente on May 28, 2012 at 3:16 PM

They gave us the Uzi. ‘Nuff said.

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 3:23 PM

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Paul made over $157 million in earmark requests for FY 2011, one of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks. Additionally, he made over $398 million in earmark requests for FY 2010, again one of the leading Republican House members. These earmark requests include:

* $8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Piers.
* $2.5 million from taxpayers for “new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting.”
* $2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an “Economically Disadvantaged” area.
* $2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a “Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center.”
* $38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to “encourage parents to read aloud to their children.”
* $18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
* $4 million from federal taxpayers for the “Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative.”
* $11 million from federal taxpayers for a “Community-Based Job Training Program.”
* $2 million from federal taxpayers for a “Clean Energy” pilot project.
* $5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
* $1.2 million for a “Low-income working families Day Care Program”
* $4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.

All of the above earmarks can be found on Paul’s own congressional website.

So RP is a fiscal conservative because he and three GOP fellows alone requested earmarks.

Return a portion back to them? Howsabout no earmarks, and reduce spending by the amount not earmarked?

Too complex for you?

You think if it were up to him, he wouldn’t cut this kind of thing out of the budget post-haste?

This is known as argumentum ad fantasy.

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:21 PM

It’s a bit like railing at a dopehead with 50 cents worth of weed in his pocket, while doing absolutely nothing about the drug kingpin bringing in millions of dollars of the stuff per year.

Even after Ron Paul is cold in his grave the system of earmarks will go on unless the problem is cut off at the source. The left certainly don’t do it, and judging from the right’s words and deeds, all they’ll do is find another scapegoat.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Even if you stupidly believe earmarks are bad

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:21 PM

So, Rand Paul is stupid?

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM

And RP’s philosophy of federalism causes him to vote against all the earmarks THAT HE REQUESTS. JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 3:16 PM

FIFY

Why does it make sense to ask for earmarks then vote against them?!

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Ron Paul

Primaries won= 0

Delegates= 119 (last place)

You folks might make a lot of noise but when it get’s down to pulling the lever you do not have the support….

Maybe you can spend that 2012 November night with your hero Ron waiting for that comet to come by and take you away…

A lie is o.k. as long as it comes from R.P’s mouth..

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 3:28 PM

And RP’s philosophy of federalism causes him to vote against all the earmarks THAT HE REQUESTS. JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Ah yes, I remember where you got that:

“Nothing can be more evident than that the thirteen States will be able to support a national government better if they lard bills with tons of earmarks, then vote against them.” -Publius, Federalist Number 13.

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 3:28 PM

So who do you support?

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Anybody who says that moRon paul isn’t in the lunatic-fringe is in the lunatic-fringe.

TeaPartyNation on May 28, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Howsabout no earmarks, and reduce spending by the amount not earmarked?

This is known as argumentum ad fantasy.

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Howsabout that?

Also, the idea that RP would cut that stuff is not just some claim that I’m making; it’s entirely consistent with his record voting against spending increases, for spending decreases, against government expansion… etc., etc. A reasonable observer would expect that such a clear trend would imply a particular course of action.

So RP is a fiscal conservative because he and three GOP fellows alone requested earmarks.

Again, whether you like it or not, his philosophy is that constituents money should not be taken from them and, failing that, that such funds ought to be returned to them when possible. It’s 100% consistent with fiscal conservatism.

Is a person who expects social security benefits for currently retired seniors to not be eliminated not a fiscal conservative, because social security is a bad program? Or are they doing the best they can dealing with the mess a big-government politicians put in place beforehand?

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Anybody who says that moRon paul isn’t in the lunatic-fringe is in the lunatic-fringe.

TeaBaggerPartyNation on May 28, 2012 at 3:33 PM

So sayeth King Wingnut the First!

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Our world is not as small as Ron Paul believes it is. He is about as nutty as any John Bircher I have ever met.

Voter from WA State on May 28, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Including or excluding your immediate family?

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Obamney 2012!! A win-win for the N.W.O. Take your pick….BwaaaHaaaHaaaaHaaaa!!!!

dom89031 on May 28, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Do you realize that your comment doesn’t make any sense relative to my comment? No, I bet you don’t.

Voter from WA State on May 28, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Was trying to ask just how many you’d actually met IRL. Posted too early.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I don’t agree with Rand on this issue, although I think that in the video that you link to he is talking about a certain type of abuse of earmarks (earmarks being used to support campaign donors). It is unfortunate that he would call for an end to earmarks simply because it is bad optics at the moment. I actually agree with McConnell’s statement on this particular issue (gag…barf…). He seemed to equivocate a bit as he was talking about spending needing to go through the committee process and be deliberated over. I wish he would have spoken more forcefully about Congress’ duty of controlling how money is spent rather than abdicating that authority to the executive branch.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Why does it make sense to ask for earmarks then vote against them?!

Akzed on May 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM

This is simple stuff, try to keep up.

He votes against the spending. He knows the spending will get passed anyway. If he didn’t include spending for his district they wouldn’t get anything. Do you think only districts of establishment Republicans should get their share of the pie? Remember, this is the districts getting back money the govt took from them in taxes.

rndmusrnm on May 28, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Akzed: I gotta roll, thanks for the debate – I generally enjoy your posts even if I don’t always agree with them!

thirtyandseven on May 28, 2012 at 3:49 PM

I am less bothered by Ron Paul’s hatrid of Israel than I am by ron Paul’s hatrid of America.

William Amos on May 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Ron Paul – believes in isolationism (doesn’t want to recognize that there is a world outside of the US)

Voter from WA State on May 28, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Do you think if you just keep repeating a lie over and over, the other side will get tired of defending it and it will just be accepted? It’s not going to happen.

Paul is a non-interventionist. The fact that you included:

doesn’t want to recognize that there is a world outside of the US

shows your level of understanding, it’s non-existent. Paul is a believer in free market economics, which includes free trade. Paul even supports free trade and travel with Cuba, how is that isolationist. He’s not the only reason you say that is to try to smear him. You’re a pos.

rndmusrnm on May 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM

If Ron Paul attracts even 1% of the youth vote into the GOP and away from the Dem plantation then it’s well worth having him around. RP was the “Tea party” candidate before the Tea Party existed(and was subsequently hijacked by evangelicals), and though I don’t agree with abandoning our foreign interests like he does, most of what he says makes sense on the domestic policy front. Cutting spending, foreign aid, welfare, auditing the fed, legalizing pot. These are things which make alot of sense and fall in line with a party that’s supposed to stand for personal freedom.

Rand is going to give the DNC nightmares for years though. Watch him steal 50% of the DNC voter base when he runs for President because all those 20-somethings Paul college supporters will be 30-something taxpayers

1984 in real life on May 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Isolationist, legal drug supporter, anti-Israel . . . yeah, that sounds like someone to elect to the highest office in the land . . . NOT!

Voter from WA State on May 28, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Why do you believe that he is an isolationist? He wants to trade with everybody. He just doesn’t want to bomb them.

His position on drugs is that the federal government has no constitutional authority to criminalize drugs and that that issue should be left up to the states.

He is not anti-Israel. He doesn’t want to give foreign aid to any other country, including Israel. That doesn’t make him any more “anti-Israel” than it does “anti-Pakistan” or “anti-Canada”.

But don’t let the facts get in the way of your hatred of liberty.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM

I am less bothered by Ron Paul’s hatrid of Israel than I am by ron Paul’s hatrid of America.

William Amos on May 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Such a stupid comment. Yeah, the guy who’s been screaming about our debt being unsustainable for decades “hates America”. Cool story

1984 in real life on May 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM

So to R.P. supporters a few hundred million here an few hundred million there is no biggie…

How bout you R.P. supporters then get together and cut ME a check for some of that chump change then….

I’m not greedy, I’ll take 1% of R.P’s earmarks over the past decade… surely that’s just chump change.. right…

Come on, it’s nothing right…

H Y P O C R I T E !

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM

is he from the same planet as kucinich? How come he couldnt land a hottie like that.

tom daschle concerned on May 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM

There are more similarities between Obama and Ron Paul than there is between Obama and Romney. Good thing I have as good a chance to be the GOP candidate as Paul does.

Voter from WA State on May 28, 2012 at 3:47 PM

BS. Name the similarities between Paul and Obama.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Paul-nuts.

BKeyser on May 28, 2012 at 2:12 PM

..isn’t he the guy who was a member of Tony Soprano’s crew?

The War Planner on May 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I hope Romney puts Rand Paul on the ticket.

Punchenko on May 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Always funny when “Conservatives” turn into fascists who look similar to Democrats when it comes to Isreal, Drugs, religion, etc.

1984 in real life on May 28, 2012 at 3:56 PM

After making some noise in Tampa, Ron Paul will fade away as his supporters switch to Cynthia McKinney and other fringe pursuits Paul has endorsed or tolerated in the past.

We will see if Rand Paul can avoid his father’s baggage to be a credible candidate several years from now. Otherwise, this high water mark for Ron Paul will just be a footnote.

WhatNot on May 28, 2012 at 3:56 PM

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM

You are so brave! Really speaking truth to power! Now, who do YOU support? God forbid we compare your candidate’s record on fiscal matters to Ron Paul’s.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:56 PM

I’m not greedy, I’ll take 1% of R.P’s earmarks over the past decade… surely that’s just chump change.. right…

Come on, it’s nothing right…

H Y P O C R I T E !

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM

..I’ll go you one better. I’ll take the interest off of 1% of RP’s earmarks for one year.

The War Planner on May 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM

You stated that anyone who opposed earmarks was stupid. Rand Paul opposes earmarks.

Seems to me, either you have to call Rand stupid, or issue a big apology to the rest of us who oppose earmarks.

Hmmm?

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

I hope Romney puts Rand Paul on the ticket.

Punchenko on May 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I wish, but I don’t think he will. Rand’s got a backbone and some actual conservative stances – he’d be a constant reminder to Romney of what he hasn’t, doesn’t, and never will have. Constant irritation even if Rand NEVER called him out, which he probably would.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 3:58 PM

They don’t call them ‘Paul Nuts’ for nothing. Whackadoodles.

mouell on May 28, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Voter from WA State on May 28, 2012 at 3:36 PM

BTW, what a culturally timely and witty use of “…NOT!”

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Well, you ARE stupid. So I won’t apologize for that. Rand is “stupid” on this issue, but I don’t think he is as going as far as you think that he is. Like I said, it would have been nice if he could have gone into more detail about the abdication of the spending authority by Congress to the executive branch. As he indicated in the video, it’s more of an unfortunate political pose for him to placate morons like yourself.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 4:05 PM

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 3:28 PM

So who do you support?

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Why’s that, you tired of talking about your hero?

Ron Paul primary wins= 0 (as in none)

Delegates= 117 (last place)

Senator Pauls legislative accomplishments in 30+ years= 1 bill made into law… and it was nothing of consequence. Yep he’s a real leader alright. Nothing like proving that over a long distinguished career.

Millions upon millions in earmarks brought home for Texas yet he never voted once for any of it… lol what a poser..

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 4:05 PM

He said he would elimintae the departments of HUD, Commerce, Education, Energy, and the Interior. Could you name me another Republican who would do that?
rndmusrnm on May 28, 2012 at 2:23 PM

That would be great but Talk is cheap. The question is how? No ground work has been laid to eliminate any department. Most of the people who work for these departments have “civil service” protection. Do you really believe either congress or the courts will go along with firing all of them? So you eliminate the department but you still have to find jobs for all those workers who are protected by law. Show me where Ron Paul has even tried to lay the ground work as a congressman and then I’ll believe he is more than just another blowhard like Obama.

chemman on May 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM

He is not anti-Israel. He doesn’t want to give foreign aid to any other country, including Israel. That doesn’t make him any more “anti-Israel” than it does “anti-Pakistan” or “anti-Canada”.

But don’t let the facts get in the way of your hatred of liberty.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1t4O9CcZQ0

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

let me know when he goes on Indian state television and calls the pakis Nazis….

golembythehudson on May 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

After Craig said that the gay rights movement had

an intellectual and moral basis

, I would have had to discount everything he wrote if I had kept reading.

logdogsmith on May 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

As he indicated in the video, it’s more of an unfortunate political pose for him to placate morons like yourself.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 4:05 PM

So it’s MY fault that Rand doesn’t support earmarks? Seriously?

And Ronbots wonder why normal people think you all are a bunch of nutjobs.

“Pork is pork, unless it’s Ron Paul’s pork.”

“Opposing earmarks is stupid, unless it’s Rand Paul, then you’re stupid not him.”

You people are priceless.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I wish, but I don’t think he will. Rand’s got a backbone and some actual conservative stances – he’d be a constant reminder to Romney of what he hasn’t, doesn’t, and never will have. Constant irritation even if Rand NEVER called him out, which he probably would.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 3:58 PM

I agree and would add that Romney’s foreign policy team wouldn’t be too enthused with having a Paul anywhere near the presidency. With that said, the Pauls seem to be the future of the party since they have the youth on their side on some of these issues.

Punchenko on May 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM

You can expect within 4 years to have majorities opposing it, not just among the youth.

anotherJoe on May 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Especially if the elites come up with the bright idea that it’s time to invade Mexico in order to stop the cartels.

Don’t think that it’s not on the agenda.

Dack Thrombosis on May 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

I would have had to discount everything he wrote if I had kept reading.

logdogsmith on May 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Reading is hard, I understand.

rndmusrnm on May 28, 2012 at 4:13 PM

So it’s MY fault that Rand doesn’t support earmarks? Seriously?

And Ronbots wonder why normal people think you all are a bunch of nutjobs.

“Pork is pork, unless it’s Ron Paul’s pork.”

“Opposing earmarks is stupid, unless it’s Rand Paul, then you’re stupid not him.”

You people are priceless.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

lol.. ain’t it the truth..

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

beatcanvas on May 28, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Where in Iowa? I’m in Des Moines…
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=423914954297130&id=676992053&notif_t=share_comment#!/profile.php?id=676992053

lovingmyUSA on May 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I agree and would add that Romney’s foreign policy team wouldn’t be too enthused with having a Paul anywhere near the presidency. With that said, the Pauls seem to be the future of the party since they have the youth on their side on some of these issues.

Punchenko on May 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Oh heck yeah. The foreign policy difference would be like wearing sandpaper underpants to Wrongney, and I don’t see how Rand could not bring it up.

I don’t know about the Pauls having the future of the party. In the first place the GOP has pretty much fossilized beyond repair. And secondly, the youth vote has to go up against a LOT of bitter old wingnuts who are no slouches at maintaining power.

Especially if the elites come up with the bright idea that it’s time to invade Mexico in order to stop the cartels.

Don’t think that it’s not on the agenda.

Dack Thrombosis on May 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

I doubt that’ll happen. If the drug trade were to truly be stopped, a lot of Americans would wise up to what they’re doing. Plus there would be more resources to fight them that are now used trying to keep lawful citizens safe from dealers and crazed junkies.

MelonCollie on May 28, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Libertarianism is and will continue to be nothing but a political cult.

Voter from WA State on May 28, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Not true, imho. That’s what the Tea Party is about, the federal govt is out of control! Libertarianism and fiscal conservatism is the backbone of the GOP.

I am a social conservative as well, pretty much, but to see the “Solely Socons” denigrate the backbone of the R party makes me think that we could be headed to a party splintering. We need to redouble our efforts to reconcile and be nice intraparty, or we are fractured, and the libs win [or a hybrid party, with the standard bearer being a more "moderate" version of Ron Paul, replaces the GOP altogether {as in 2016}].
If the libs win, though, we’re talking socialism, and extremely liberal social values (gay marriage is just the start). So I think Socons should not denigrate the fiscal cons and libertarians; and vice versa.

anotherJoe on May 28, 2012 at 4:18 PM

I am a social conservative as well, pretty much, but to see the “Solely Socons” denigrate the backbone of the R party makes me think that we could be headed to a party splintering.

anotherJoe on May 28, 2012 at 4:18 PM

The fact is, if you look at the strongest social conservatives in congress, you’ll also find that they’re the strongest fiscal conservatives as well. It’s the so-called “moderates” who are squishy both on fiscal and social policy.

As DeMint said, “You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative.” Every budget buster in the federal and state governments, are the logical consequences of social liberalism. It’s great that libertarians want sound fiscal policy, but they’re not going to get conservatives to kowtow to their liberal social agenda for that support.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM

How bout you R.P. supporters then get together and cut ME a check for some of that chump change then….

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Hmmm. Yes. Money for nothing, for someone who clearly meets the threshold for SSI due to mental incapacity.

How wonderfully progressive of you.

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

No, YOU are stupid irrespective of Rand Paul or the issue of earmarks. I thought I was clear about that.

You are stupid because you support progressive Romney whose record on fiscal matters is beyond abysmal, while hollering about Ron Paul’s earmarks. Please stop pretending like you care about the fiscal state of this country by sanctimoniously harping about earmarks.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM

ron got my vote, glad to see its being well used.

nathor on May 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

RockyJ. on May 28, 2012 at 4:05 PM

The fact that you won’t say who you support is really pathetic. I don’t blame you though. I wouldn’t be surprised if you supported Obama.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM

No, YOU are stupid irrespective of Rand Paul or the issue of earmarks. I thought I was clear about that.

You are stupid because you support progressive Romney whose record on fiscal matters is beyond abysmal, while hollering about Ron Paul’s earmarks.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Wow, way to win friends and influence people. You’re the one tossing out that those who oppose earmarks – which include the entire GOP in congress save four – are “stupid”. You flat out called Rand Paul stupid, not me, now you’re throwing out ad hominums as a smokescreen – ain’t working champ.

According to your own logic, Rand Paul is stupid – own it.

And for the record, I never called Ron Paul a fiscal conservative, you all did, I just pointed out the hypocrisy of crowning someone the king of fiscal conservatism while collecting tens of billions in pork. If you don’t like that, stop making that absurd claim.

More – I never supported Romney, in this primary or the last, and I voted for Newt in the Texas primary. So stop with that ridiculous strawman. Newt actually cut the federal government, something Paul, in all his 30 years, never did.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Ron Paul doesn’t represent any respectable brand of libertarianism or conservatism and most Ron Paul supporters do more harm than good and tend to be extremely ignorant on most issues.

joana on May 28, 2012 at 4:46 PM

The Ron Paul revolution offers the media, the Republican Party and America that opportunity. Take it.

So we should follow the RonPaulNuts when they

1) Stay home in November
2) Disrupt Republican Conventions
3) Paste RonPaul bumper stickers on strangers automobile paint jobs

Nothankyouverymuch! I’m a conservative. I’ve got STANDARDS!

BTW, I personally witnessed RonPaulBots doing all of the above. Color me unimpressed.

DannoJyd on May 28, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Such a stupid comment. Yeah, the guy who’s been screaming about our debt being unsustainable for decades “hates America”. Cool story

1984 in real life on May 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM

My statement has nothing to do with Ron Paul’s economic policies and everything to do with his foreign policies.

William Amos on May 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Justin Amash has just threatened to resign due to the harassment of the Paulites after a single vote yesterday they didn’t like – even though 99.9% of them clearly didn’t understand what was being voted because they learned about the bill via Alex Jones and Lew Rockwell.

Justin Amash. He’s had more sole No votes than any other congressmen in this legislature, including Paul.

If you’re not happy with Justin Amash because he isn’t pure enough, you simply ought to be put of the political game entirely.

Go read some Burke and Hayek instead of believing the myths and lies Rothbard and Lew Rockwell served you.

joana on May 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Earmarks are looked upon as “fair share” by constituents. What we have to do is stop the federal government from confiscating state funds to pay for things that they have no business funding in the first place. To filter money through large bloated bureaucracies in D.C. makes zero sense.

Cindy Munford on May 28, 2012 at 4:50 PM

As DeMint said, “You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative.”

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Yet another Retar logic FAIL…

“You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative.” does not equate to “If you are a social conservative, you are also a fiscal conservative.” As the Frothenator so richly demonstrated through his gay-bashing-yet-big-government-slobbering career.

But I would expect nothing more than idiocy from someone who thought that JP Stevens was still on the SCOTUS. So you met expectations perfectly, Retar.

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 4:50 PM

People looking for honest change should be checking out Republican Governor Gary Johnson. That man has standards which he refuses to set aside for anyone.

DannoJyd on May 28, 2012 at 4:50 PM

R*o*N p*A*u*L is f*cking NUTS.
He discredits Libertarianism.

Czar of Defenestration on May 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM

All well and fine until you consider that Islam is trying to take down this nation, and showing every sign of success in the attempt. Paul’s international utopian fantasies just won’t cut it.

paul1149 on May 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM

There’s nothing remotely conservative or liberatarian minded about Ron Paul position on currency creation and monetary policy.

Heroine? Legalize it. Fractional reserve banking? Prohibitionism is the solution.

joana on May 28, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM

And when it was down to Paul and Romney, you were here bashing Paul about earmarks while ignoring Romney’s abysmal record. Again, please stop pretending like you care about fiscal issues. If you supported Romney over Paul, it has nothing to do with fiscal issues.

I am done trying to influence you as you have no interest in anything other than b****** about earmarks in every post about Ron Paul. That’s it. So here we are again, bogged down in the totally stupid and inconsequential debate about earmarks with respect to Ron Paul as you completely ignore Mitt Romney’s far graver sins against fiscal conservatism.

If you are complaining about Ron Paul’s “earmarks”, your fiscal priorities are completely out of whack. Earmarks are not what is bringing this country to its knees. That’s entitlements and defense spending and the root cause which is our perverse monetary policy. You either don’t know or care about these issues so you choose to focus on the earmark pablum that is tossed out there for the mouth-breathers to lap up. Earmarks are not the problem.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM

does not equate to “If you are a social conservative, you are also a fiscal conservative”.

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Here you go.

Don’t you ever get tired of being proved wrong? No one is fooled by your ad hominems, and your credibility is zero – below zero if that’s even possible.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM

I might listen to Ron Paul if he and his supporters weren’t so damn insulting.

Corporal Tunnel on May 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Paul’s international utopian fantasies just won’t cut it.

paul1149 on May 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Odd. I thought he was an isolationist. Now you are calling his an international utopian.

In case you didn’t notice, the two are, in fact, mutually exclusive.

The neo-clowns should try getting on the same page.

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 4:56 PM

And when it was down to Paul and Romney

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM

It was never down to Paul or anyone. Paul never had a chance to win, ever. His primary runs were pure ego trips without the slighest chance to even get into the same ballpark as winning.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 4:58 PM

If Ron Paul and his accolades were simply about sound fiscal policy and personal freedom, I’d be all on board. But that’s not what it’s all about.

beatcanvas on May 28, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Well said, and I agree.

Corporal Tunnel on May 28, 2012 at 4:58 PM

So we should follow the RonPaulNuts when they

1) Stay home in November
2) Disrupt Republican Conventions
3) Paste RonPaul bumper stickers on strangers automobile paint jobs

Nothankyouverymuch! I’m a conservative. I’ve got STANDARDS!

BTW, I personally witnessed RonPaulBots doing all of the above. Color me unimpressed.

DannoJyd on May 28, 2012 at 4:46 PM

You have a time machine? Cool! Who wins?

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 4:59 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Have you EVER looked beyond the titles of Paul’s earmarks? I doubt it. He is a “corporatist” supporter in a very backhanded way.

Kermit on May 28, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Here you go.

Don’t you ever get tired of being proved wrong? No one is fooled by your ad hominems, and your credibility is zero – below zero if that’s even possible.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Man, you are as dumb as a box of hair, aren’t you?

Let’s try a lesson in logic, shall we?


You can’t be a fiscal conservative cocker spaniel and not be a social conservative dog.

does not equate to

“If you are a social conservative dog, you are also a fiscal conservative cocker spaniel.”

The truth of DeMint’s statement aside (which is very debatable), your attempt at logic was a massive FAIL, as demonstrated above.

But comes as a shock to nobody, able to pass the 8th grade reading tests in Florida (with or without the curve).

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 5:01 PM

1) Stay home in November

DannoJyd on May 28, 2012 at 4:46 PM

So you’re voting for Mitt?

CW on May 28, 2012 at 5:03 PM

R*o*N p*A*u*L is f*cking NUTS.
He discredits Libertarianism.

Czar of Defenestration on May 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM

How so?

CW on May 28, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I might listen to Ron Paul if he and his supporters weren’t so damn insulting.

Corporal Tunnel on May 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Whatever. You obviously pay no attention to the abuse that Paul supporters take here. We are called Nazis, anti-semites, retards, white supremacists, junkies, anti-American and closet Obama supporters regularly and when we deign to respond somewhat in kind then along comes the inevitable concern troll “You know, I would vote for Ron Paul if his supporters weren’t so insulting”. BS.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 5:06 PM

But comes as a shock to nobody

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 5:01 PM

It would come as a shock, if you made even a lick of sense.

Everyone knows that you’re resorting to personal attacks simply to cover up the fact that your candidate is a loser, who doesn’t represent the GOP or real libertarians, and is in fact a conman.

But please do continue to sputter out your rather lame and silly ad hominems, no one does as much damage to your cause – as you do.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Have you EVER looked beyond the titles of Paul’s earmarks? I doubt it. He is a “corporatist” supporter in a very backhanded way.

Kermit on May 28, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Well, if he supports corporate interests by voting “No”, then they have a different idea of support than is generally accepted in the political trade.

He forwards earmark requests (which he and I agree, should be applied to every penny of Congressional spending) to the appropriate committees, on behalf of constituents. You know why he does that? Because it is his job, as their Representative. Because if he doesn’t forward requests for what his constituents believe are legitimate spending priorities, who exactly is supposed to do it for them? That he votes “No”, is an indication that he disagrees with their assessment of those priorities as being legitimate.

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Good points. Social and fiscal conservatism go together.
There are just a couple of issues that are causing some dissension, and mutual denigration. I think it’s best that we try to have a civil discussion on these secondary issues, or the venom or bad will could lead to problems for the GOP as a whole.
For example, on drugs, the pro-drug war side is winning now. So be it. But for those who say that it’s “liberal” (John Stossel is not a liberal!) to call for the end of this war, the flip side to that is that it is authoritarian and statist (so, in theory, not conservative) to call for the continuation of that war. Further, probably many libertarian repubs do not favor the repeal of drug prohibition. (So, the drug war is not only a ‘libertarian’ issue.)
Main thing, it’s a secondary issue. It’s just that this Ron Paul thing came up here that it’s being discussed. I say just be civil, both sides, use rational argument, don’t call the other side “stupid” or liberal. Because ill-feelings could spark by ~2016 a potentially successful drive to build a 3rd party around a moderate version of the Ron Paul platform.

anotherJoe on May 28, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Everyone knows that you’re resorting to personal attacks simply to cover up the fact that your candidate is a loser, who doesn’t represent the GOP or real libertarians, and is in fact a conman.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Coming from a supporter of Newt Gingrich, that’s sort of amusing.

But nowhere near as amusing as your complete inability to refute what is a rather obvious logic FAIL.

Amusing, but not surprising.

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 5:10 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 5:10 PM

A Ronbot talking about logic?

That’s truly amusing.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 5:15 PM

So you’re voting for Mitt?

CW on May 28, 2012 at 5:03 PM

As I posted earlier, I’m a conservative. I’ve got STANDARDS!

As things stand today, I know who I’m voting for.

You have a time machine? Cool! Who wins?

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 4:59 PM

The American people will lose again. You see, America ALWAYS gets the government it deserves. ALWAYS!

DannoJyd on May 28, 2012 at 5:15 PM

As things stand today, I know who I’m voting for.

DannoJyd on May 28, 2012 at 5:15 PM

So in other words you might as well stay home.

Wow you’re a whackjob.

CW on May 28, 2012 at 5:16 PM

A Ronbot Retar talking about flailing at logic?

That’s truly amusing unsurprising.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 5:15 PM

FIFY

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 5:17 PM

I saw a car parked near my gym today. It’s rear window had about 3 ‘Hillary ’08′ stickers, a few ‘peacnik’ things, and right in the center was a HUGE…’Ron Paul Revolution’ thing.
Speaks volumes.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 28, 2012 at 5:17 PM

From this thread some would think Paul was against earmarks….

Now from his own keyboard….

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-16/more-earmarks-less-government/

CW on May 28, 2012 at 5:17 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 5:17 PM

*YAWN*

Your words are feeble and twisted as an old woman.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 5:18 PM

…’Ron Paul Revolution’ thing.
Speaks volumes.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 28, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Hmmm I know people who like RP that are pretty darn conservative so I think your post is pretty useless and full of straw.

CW on May 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM

So in other words you might as well stay home.

Wow you’re a whackjob.

CW on May 28, 2012 at 5:16 PM

I’m not the one willing to vote for 0bama white. Perhaps you are merely projecting yet again?

DannoJyd on May 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM

I saw a car parked near my gym today. It’s rear window had about 3 ‘Hillary ’08′ stickers, a few ‘peacnik’ things, and right in the center was a HUGE…’Ron Paul Revolution’ thing.
Speaks volumes.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 28, 2012 at 5:17 PM

A candidate who can poach votes across the aisle?

Heaven forbid!

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 5:20 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on May 28, 2012 at 5:17 PM

More “proof” brought to you by the genius that thinks all Paul supporters are secret Nazis.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 8