More on the GOP: All the King’s Horses and All the King’s Men…
An old acquaintance from Florida. A libertarian. I know what you’re saying - Libertarians are just Republicans who smoke weed - but hold on, there may be more to it. From LibertyBoi (who I think is probably about 76):
The Other Guy
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the fracturing of the Republican Party. Most of the discussion identifies three factions: the corporatists (Romney types), the militarists (McCain types), and the evangelicals (Huckabee types). But it’s not all big business, military Keynesianism, and tent-revivals. There’s an important faction that the media - and the party - is overlooking, just as they’re overlooking the candidate that represents that faction: the libertarians. And they overlook that vote at their peril. For, while the military industrialists are motivated by power and greed and the religious fundamentalists by power and hatred, libertarians are motivated by principle. And principles can be difficult to soft soap.
The candidate that’s being forced from the public consciousness is, of course, Ron Paul - a candidate who has done consistently better in caucuses and primaries than some of the purportedly “mainstream” candidates (Paul has 16 delegates compared to Giuliani and Thompson’s combined total of zero). This might seem strange since Paul’s positions reflect traditional conservative values, once-mainstream Republican positions, and the opinions of an increasing number of American citizens. The Republican Liberty Caucus is about the only sector of the GOP that’s gaining adherents.
So why is Ron Paul - the only true believer in individual rights, limited government, and free enterprise - relegated to the dark corners of the Republican Party? Simple: unlike corporatism, militarism, and bastardized Christianity, there’s no money to be made off of liberty.
The big story this year will not prove to be the comforting platitudes of Barack Obama and the renaissance of hope (whatever the hell that means), but the splintering of the Republican Party - and its potential relegation to the status of a minority party. And that will not be due to the Wall Street types, the Pentagon types, or the racist Bible Belters. It will be due to those that actually respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Who saw that coming?
<em> I’m not sure what I make of that photoshopped snap of Rep. Paul all in sepia and head lice. (1834 was not a good year for personal hygiene) .
I don’t think he got the following he has by reminding people of Millard Fillmore, so maybe that photo needs a rethink. (He does have an impish, curmudgeonly charm though doesn’t he?)
He uses the term “Military Keynesianism”. It’s a good one and I think we’ll be hearing it again</em>.
To see where the candidates stand on an issue, visit Issue 2008
February 7th, 2008 at 3:31 am
I’ve had several identical conversations about Ron Paul with friends of mine recently. They all go something like this:
Me: Who do you think you’re going to vote for in the primary?
Friend: Hmm, well, I like Ron Paul.
Me: How come?
Friend: He’s the only true constitutionalist and he voted against the war.
Me: Yes, but he also doesn’t believe in gun control or federal funding for…well…anything.
Friend: (Long pause) Oh.
My friends were so sucked into the Texas Representative’s anti-war and anti-Patriot Act talk (and the big blimp) that they didn’t even check to see that he’s actually an incredibly conservative Republican.
To start off with, here is something I do like about Rep. Ron Paul, besides his stance on Iraq:
He proposed re-introducing the “Sunlight Rule,” HR 63, ensuring that members have 10 days to read legislative documents before voting. A good thing considering the 300+ page Patriot Act was passed within a day of it being delivered to the floor.
My top five reasons why I DO NOT support Rep. Ron Paul:
1) On his website, Rep. Paul says he voted against HR 2520 (stem cell research) because the government shouldn’t fund medical research.
The problem with abolishing federal funding of medical research and relying on state funding is that while a state like California, with its annual GDP of 1.7 trillion, might be able to afford to fund medical research in between funding “Spider Man 4,” a state like Vermont, with its annual GDP of 2.3 billion, wouldn’t fare as well.
As someone who was born in California and raised on those Golden State nuts, berries, and granola, I know California can’t cure Parkinson’s disease and produce transplantation therapy for diabetics all on its lonesome.
2) Among his many votes against gun control, my “favorite” is H.R. 1897, sponsored by Rep. Paul, to “end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.”
A “hazardous situation” to Americans posed by National Parks? What are we protecting ourselves against in Yosemite, bears? Is there a bear rebellion forcing our “well regulated militia” to lock and load that I’m not aware of?
3) In the foreign policy issue section of Rep. Paul’s website he writes, “The [Bush] administration has behaved as if there are only two choices in foreign policy - sending money or sending bombs. Our founding fathers knew a better way - to talk with our neighbors, do honest business with them, cultivate friendship…”
Yes, our founding fathers did do all those things. But they also relied heavily on foreign MILITARY aid.
In 1777 France gave munitions and sent soldiers to help America fight the good fight. Soon after they were joined by the Spanish, Prussian, Portuguese, Swedish, Austrian, and the Dutch with their funny wood shoes.
4) From RonPaul2008.com: “The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant American.”
Well, yeah, except for that whole “robustly Christian” part, because they, like, so totally didn’t…
In the Treaty of Tripoli, John Adams wrote: “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”
The founding fathers were enlightenment deists, they believed in a Creator, but many of them questioned the divinity of Jesus, the main tenet of Christianity. Also, the Constitution contains zero references to God. The Framers were smart guys; I don’t think this was an accidental omission.
5) Rep. Paul: “the Roe v. Wade decision will prove to be the most flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. There is no real or imagined ‘right to abortion’ in the Constitution”
He’s right; there is no “right to abortion” in the Constitution. However, there is the 14 amendment, with a right to privacy, which is what the 7 justices ruled on in Roe v. Wade.
On a side note, I’d like to point out that a lot of the things we feel we have a right to aren’t spelled out in the Constitution, like there is also no “right to trash collecting.” I’d like to see how Representative Paul does without that handy little convenience paid for by tax dollars.