Paul Wins CPAC Strawpoll

[FargoBison]

Paul has no chance, not surprised he won the strawpoll in this political climate but in he is just a bit too out there for the mainstream, probably too much of an isolationist.

I don't like a single candidate at CPAC, I'm hoping for a darkhorse to emerge. None of them are really electable, that said I hope some Paul's ideas rub off on the party. Some of what he says makes a lot of sense, I just don't think he is the right guy to deliver on it....I'm just glad Palin or Huck didn't win the poll, that would be a true sign that the conservative movement is dead.

[mainejeff]

Paul doesn't wear religion on his sleeve........NO WAY he gets the Republican nomination.

[Ivytalk]

I'm backing the blueballs-Baldy ticket in '12! They're of age and citizens of different states, so I'm on board!

[youngterrier]

If Paul wins the nomination, regardless if he wins the general election the Republicans will remember who they were before the Bush/Clinton dynasty. The platform will actually be a conservative non-interventionist foreign policy and people will look at the Federal Reserve differently

[UNI88]

How is Ron Paul off his rocker?

Just finished End The Fed (based on recommendations here) and I'm still trying to digest it. It was definitely filled with ideas that I hadn't even considered but just because I never studied Austrian economics (Econ minor who was only fed Keynes vs. Friedman) doesn't mean their points don't have validity. The book did make me want to find a counterpoint for comparison but I'm not sure I can find one that doesn't simply dismiss the Austrians as "being off their rockers" without a real argument as to why.

I'm not sure how feasible a gold standard is but I agreed with Paul's points about the Fed's power and the dangers and abuses of a fiat currency.

your welcome

Your and I believe ASUMountaineer were the deciding factors.

It's a good "read" (I listened on CD).

[ASUMountaineer]

your welcome

Your and I believe ASUMountaineer were the deciding factors.

It's a good "read" (I listened on CD).

Great, you should check out The Revolution: A Manifesto. Pretty good read on the Constitution and foreign policy. It's in the same vein as End the Fed, so it won't be anything shocking to read, but some good ideas. The concept of maximizing personal freedom and limiting government intrusion is central to my political ideology, which is why I'm such a big fan of Paul's.

[mainejeff]

If Paul wins the nomination, regardless if he wins the general election the Republicans will remember who they were before the Bush/Clinton dynasty. The platform will actually be a conservative non-interventionist foreign policy and people will look at the Federal Reserve differently

But will we have to pledge allegiance to God rather than the United States?

[kalm]

Rather than whether or not Paul is viable as a GOP nominee, perhaps the question should be whether or not the GOP is a viable option for true conservatives/libertarians.

This article links to an American Enterprise Institute piece from 2005 that is very interesting:

http://www.aei.org/article/23352

The GOP's "small government" tea party fraud
By Glenn Greenwald

There's a major political fraud underway: the GOP is once again donning their libertarian, limited-government masks in order to re-invent itself and, more important, to co-opt the energy and passion of the Ron-Paul-faction that spawned and sustains the "tea party" movement. The Party that spat contempt at Paul during the Bush years and was diametrically opposed to most of his platform now pretends to share his views. Standard-issue Republicans and Ron Paul libertarians are as incompatible as two factions can be -- recall that the most celebrated right-wing moment of the 2008 presidential campaign was when Rudy Giuliani all but accused Paul of being an America-hating Terrorist-lover for daring to suggest that America's conduct might contribute to Islamic radicalism -- yet the Republicans, aided by the media, are pretending that this is one unified, harmonious, "small government" political movement.


The Right is petrified that this fraud will be exposed and is thus bending over backwards to sustain the myth. Paul was not only invited to be a featured speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference but also won its presidential straw poll. Sarah Palin endorsed Ron Paul's son in the Kentucky Senate race. National Review is lavishly praising Paul, while Ann Coulter "felt compelled [in her CPAC speech] to give a shout out to Paul-mania, saying she agreed with everything he stands for outside of foreign policy -- a statement met with cheers." Glenn Beck -- who literally cheered for the Wall Street bailout and Bush's endlessly expanding surveillance state -- now parades around as though he shares the libertarians' contempt for them. Red State's Erick Erickson, defending the new so-called conservative "manifesto," touts the need for Congress to be confined to the express powers of Article I, Section 8, all while lauding a GOP Congress that supported countless intrusive laws -- from federalized restrictions on assisted suicide, marriage, gambling, abortion and drugs to intervention in Terri Schiavo's end-of-life state court proceeding -- nowhere to be found in that Constitutional clause. With the GOP out of power, Fox News suddenly started featuring anti-government libertarians such as John Stossel and Reason Magazine commentators, whereas, when Bush was in power, there was no government power too expanded or limitless for Fox propagandists to praise.

This is what Republicans always do. When in power, they massively expand the power of the state in every realm. Deficit spending and the national debt skyrocket. The National Security State is bloated beyond description through wars and occupations, while no limits are tolerated on the Surveillance State. Then, when out of power, they suddenly pretend to re-discover their "small government principles." The very same Republicans who spent the 1990s vehemently opposing Bill Clinton's Terrorism-justified attempts to expand government surveillance and executive authority then, once in power, presided over the largest expansion in history of those very same powers. The last eight years of Republican rule was characterized by nothing other than endlessly expanded government power, even as they insisted -- both before they were empowered and again now -- that they are the standard-bearers of government restraint.

What makes this deceit particularly urgent for them now is that their only hope for re-branding and re-empowerment lies in a movement -- the tea partiers -- that has been (largely though not exclusively) dominated by libertarians, Paul followers, and other assorted idiosyncratic factions who are hostile to the GOP's actual approach to governing. This is a huge wedge waiting to be exposed -- to explode -- as the modern GOP establishment and the actual "small-government" libertarians that fuel the tea party are fundamentally incompatible. Right-wing mavens like Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin and National Review are suddenly feigning great respect for Ron Paul and like-minded activists because they're eager that the sham will be maintained: the blatant sham that the modern GOP and its movement conservatives are a coherent vehicle for those who believe in small government principles. The only evidence of a passionate movement urging GOP resurgence is from people whose views are antithetical to that Party. That's the dirty secret which right-wing polemicists are desperately trying to keep suppressed. Credit to Mike Huckabee for acknowledging this core incompatibility by saying he would not attend CPAC because of its "increasing libertarianism."

These fault lines began to emerge when Sarah Palin earlier this month delivered the keynote speech to the national tea party conference in Nashville, and stood there spitting out one platitude after the next which Paul-led libertarians despise: from neoconservative war-loving dogma and veneration of Israel to glorification of "War on Terror" domestic powers and the need of the state to enforce Palin's own religious and cultural values. Neocons (who still overwhelmingly dominate the GOP) and Paul-led libertarians are arch enemies, and the social conservatives on whom the GOP depends are barely viewed with greater affection. Sarah Palin and Ron Paul are about as far apart on most issues as one can get; the "tea party movement" can't possibly be about supporting each of their worldviews. Moreover, the GOP leadership is currently promising Wall Street even more loyal subservience than Democrats have given in exchange for support, thus bolstering the government/corporate axis which libertarians find so repugnant. And Coulter's manipulative claim that she "agrees with everything [Paul] stands for outside of foreign policy" is laughable; aside from the fact that "foreign policy" is a rather large issue in our political debates (Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia), they were on exactly the opposite sides of the most intense domestic controversies of the Bush era: torture, military commissions, habeas corpus, Guantanamo, CIA secrecy, telecom immunity, and warrantless eavesdropping.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[travelinman67]

Manic Monday, eh, Kalm?

Sourcing a Salon article which includes citations of Paul, Palin, Coulter, Schiavo, and Beck as proof of a political philosophy dysfunction?

Careful, now, or I'll respond with some Kucinich.

Go get a cup of coffee, relax a bit and start over.

[kalm]

Manic Monday, eh, Kalm?

Sourcing a Salon article which includes citations of Paul, Palin, Coulter, Schiavo, and Beck as proof of a political philosophy dysfunction?

Careful, now, or I'll respond with some Kucinich.

Go get a cup of coffee, relax a bit and start over.

Oh relax tman, we're all a little hypocritical from time to time. It's OK.

And please, feel free to respond with some Kucinich. Concerning audits of the Fed, Fannie, and Freddie Kucinich, Paul, and Bernie Sanders have practically been bedfellows of late. The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

[dgreco]

Huckabee is upset about the whole thing too

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... ea-parties?

he had a slight fighting chance, but I think he might of hurt his chances. Especially when he is supporting and endorsing many of the people there. He will just become a populist.

[GannonFan]

Paul doesn't wear religion on his sleeve........NO WAY he gets the Republican nomination.

McCain wasn't a religious nut and he got the nomination. I don't recall Bob Dole being hardcore either. Of course, both candidates were absolute failures in the tradition of Gore and Kerry, but they were candidates nonetheless.

[FargoBison]

Huckabee is upset about the whole thing too

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... ea-parties?

he had a slight fighting chance, but I think he might of hurt his chances. Especially when he is supporting and endorsing many of the people there. He will just become a populist.

I'm glad he is upset, Huck is no conservative, so the people over at CPAC must be doing something right.

[youngterrier]

If Paul wins the nomination, regardless if he wins the general election the Republicans will remember who they were before the Bush/Clinton dynasty. The platform will actually be a conservative non-interventionist foreign policy and people will look at the Federal Reserve differently

But will we have to pledge allegiance to God rather than the United States?

I never mentioned God

[ASUMountaineer]

But will we have to pledge allegiance to God rather than the United States?

I never mentioned God

MJ only has a few talking points, he's just recycling...

[houndawg]

Your and I believe ASUMountaineer were the deciding factors.

It's a good "read" (I listened on CD).

Great, you should check out The Revolution: A Manifesto. Pretty good read on the Constitution and foreign policy. It's in the same vein as End the Fed, so it won't be anything shocking to read, but some good ideas. The concept of maximizing personal freedom and limiting government intrusion is central to my political ideology, which is why I'm such a big fan of Paul's.

Check out Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon; one of the parallel stories, along with WW2 German gold and the Enigma code machine is about a data haven, a place where the gov't can't get to your information, as opposed to merely being not allowed to rifle your records.

[ASUMountaineer]

Great, you should check out The Revolution: A Manifesto. Pretty good read on the Constitution and foreign policy. It's in the same vein as End the Fed, so it won't be anything shocking to read, but some good ideas. The concept of maximizing personal freedom and limiting government intrusion is central to my political ideology, which is why I'm such a big fan of Paul's.

Check out Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon; one of the parallel stories, along with WW2 German gold and the Enigma code machine is about a data haven, a place where the gov't can't get to your information, as opposed to merely being not allowed to rifle your records.

Cool, thanks.

[UNI88]

Great, you should check out The Revolution: A Manifesto. Pretty good read on the Constitution and foreign policy. It's in the same vein as End the Fed, so it won't be anything shocking to read, but some good ideas. The concept of maximizing personal freedom and limiting government intrusion is central to my political ideology, which is why I'm such a big fan of Paul's.

Check out Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon; one of the parallel stories, along with WW2 German gold and the Enigma code machine is about a data haven, a place where the gov't can't get to your information, as opposed to merely being not allowed to rifle your records.

I need to add that one to my list as well. Dawg, you should read End The Fed. A very interesting point Paul makes is that the recent meltdown was not caused by too little government intervention (i.e. socialism) but too much. Before you scoff, Paul is talking not about the SEC but about the Fed and elastic money. He makes many compelling points that you might not completely agree with but will make you think and reconsider some of your positions.

[kalm]

Check out Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon; one of the parallel stories, along with WW2 German gold and the Enigma code machine is about a data haven, a place where the gov't can't get to your information, as opposed to merely being not allowed to rifle your records.

I need to add that one to my list as well. Dawg, you should read End The Fed. A very interesting point Paul makes is that the recent meltdown was not caused by too little government intervention (i.e. socialism) but too much. Before you scoff, Paul is talking not about the SEC but about the Fed and elastic money. He makes many compelling points that you might not completely agree with but will make you think and reconsider some of your positions.

Before I invest my valuable time in a Paul book and get dissappointed...how utopic is it?

Are his principles the way it should be but unrealistic unless we get to the point where we're shanking each other in the streets, or can they provide realistic remedy in the not so distant future?

[GannonFan]

Paul's got some good qualities and then he's got some crazy qualities. I don't really care for his weird obsession with the Austrian School, especially since it won't get us anywhere anyway. It's fun to talk about, but it's not realistic to implement. His ideas about government only serving the most basic of needs (his Libertarian views) are good, IMO, but I'm not a strict Libertarian so I wouldn't go that far. Not a Presidential guy, but I like that he could steer the debate a little.

[UNI88]

Before I invest my valuable time in a Paul book and get dissappointed...how utopic is it?

Are his principles the way it should be but unrealistic unless we get to the point where we're shanking each other in the streets, or can they provide realistic remedy in the not so distant future?

I didn't find it utopic. He is definitely a bootstrap libertarian but he makes a reasonable argument that the Fed and elastic money had more to do with the financial crisis and that their policies actually help to keep the less fortunate from getting ahead (for example, when the Fed prints more money it lessens the value of the money we currently have and the poor are ones least able to shelter their money from that effect).

Paul's got some good qualities and then he's got some crazy qualities. I don't really care for his weird obsession with the Austrian School, especially since it won't get us anywhere anyway. It's fun to talk about, but it's not realistic to implement. His ideas about government only serving the most basic of needs (his Libertarian views) are good, IMO, but I'm not a strict Libertarian so I wouldn't go that far. Not a Presidential guy, but I like that he could steer the debate a little.

I find the Austrian School extremely interesting and wonder if people dismiss it simply because it doesn't jive with our current system and everything they have been taught. To that I would say that there have been plenty of examples in a variety of fields where the established order has been proven wrong and a fringe concept correct. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that that is the case in this instance.

[native]

Ron Paul is more electable than folks think. A lot of people like myself think he's too far right on economics but think a term or two of him would do America good. I like Paul because...

We do need to close down some of our bases oversees.
We do need to abolish the fed or at least make changes to the system.
We do need to get rid of the worthless departments of homeland security and education.
We do need to get the US out of the UN.
We do need to make changes to social security because it is NOT sustainable.
...

Ditto! One of many excellent posts in this most excellent thread!

Ron Paul kinda separates the wheat from the chaff.

[native]

Great, you should check out The Revolution: A Manifesto. Pretty good read on the Constitution and foreign policy. It's in the same vein as End the Fed, so it won't be anything shocking to read, but some good ideas. The concept of maximizing personal freedom and limiting government intrusion is central to my political ideology, which is why I'm such a big fan of Paul's.

Check out Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon; one of the parallel stories, along with WW2 German gold and the Enigma code machine is about a data haven, a place where the gov't can't get to your information, as opposed to merely being not allowed to rifle your records.

Cryptonomicon? Daaaaawg, I didn't know you had it in ya!

[houndawg]

Check out Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon; one of the parallel stories, along with WW2 German gold and the Enigma code machine is about a data haven, a place where the gov't can't get to your information, as opposed to merely being not allowed to rifle your records.

Cryptonomicon? Daaaaawg, I didn't know you had it in ya!

You read it? We need to have a cold one some time!

[houndawg]

Check out Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon; one of the parallel stories, along with WW2 German gold and the Enigma code machine is about a data haven, a place where the gov't can't get to your information, as opposed to merely being not allowed to rifle your records.

I need to add that one to my list as well. Dawg, you should read End The Fed. A very interesting point Paul makes is that the recent meltdown was not caused by too little government intervention (i.e. socialism) but too much. Before you scoff, Paul is talking not about the SEC but about the Fed and elastic money. He makes many compelling points that you might not completely agree with but will make you think and reconsider some of your positions.

I don't have a lot of positions that I can reconsider about the Fed, I don't know much about it. One of the things that makes me a little nervous about Paul is that Gold Standard thing; 1) do we actually have enough gold physically in our posession to do something like that? 2) the last person I heard pushing the gold standard hard was Lyndon LaRouche.

I'm not following your comment about too little government intervention being socialism.