Ron Paul loses his mind; whines about neocons
This is simply too rich to pass up. Just when we all thought he'd gone back home, and was focusing on his reelection bid for the House, Ron Paul steps up, and slanders the party:
Ron Paul says the legions of newcomers his presidential campaign brought to the Republican Party are getting the cold shoulder from John McCain and from the party.
The Texas congressman says neither he nor his supporters have heard from Mr. McCain or Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan since March 4, when the Arizona senator accumulated enough delegates to clinch the party's presidential nomination.
"I don't think they want them," Mr. Paul told The Washington Times, adding that indifference doesn't surprise him because the party's establishment has deserted traditional conservative principles for big government and foreign intervention.
"We don't agree with them," he says. "We agree with the Old Right, and they're the New Right, which is 'The Wrong,' [because] the New Right has morphed into neoconservative."
Many of his 800,000 presidential nomination votes were from newcomers to the Republican Party — the kind of dedicated small-donor volunteers the party needs, he says.
Mr. Duncan says he informed Mr. Paul that Mr. McCain had gone over the top on delegates but did not discuss how the party might hold onto Mr. Paul's supporters — and their potential future financial contributions.
Only Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, has bothered to tell Mr. Paul that his supporters are welcome, and valued, in the party. Mr. Cole, an evangelical Christian who says he too once felt unwelcome in the party, confirmed in a separate interview that he wants to see Mr. Paul's supporters stay and help expand the party's ranks.
Mr. McCain hasn't approached Mr. Paul's voters because Mr. Paul has not called to say he is ending his run, says McCain campaign senior adviser Charles Black.
Dean Esmay has a perfect piece describing and identifying the origins of the term "neoconservatism," and I highly recommend that Rep. Paul and his supporters research it. Why? Because the Republican party didn't morph into the neoconservative way of thinking. While a few Republicans have expanded the scope of the party's original ideological roots, the vast majority haven't. As a matter of fact, the vast majority supported our invasion of Iraq not on the premise that so many on the Left present -- WMDs -- but rather because they understood the that the ties to terrorists Saddam Hussein had was a threat to the West, especially the United States. When he and his supporters latch onto the Left's talking points, they ostracize themselves from the ranks of the party.
He's right on the point regarding the size and scope of government. We agree with him on that point. The government does need to be shrunk in more ways, and one more fronts, than one. However his idea of conservatism is out of touch with many of the minds that formed the conservative wing of the Republican party. It isn't reflected in Ronald Reagan's brand of conservatism, or even William F. Buckley's. His version of conservatism goes back to the 20's and 30's with the isolationist attitudes of the day. That won't help us in the world we live in today. Our enemies won't go slithering back under their rock if we withdraw from the world. They'll take it as a sign of weakness, and come at us from a variety of different angles. Can anyone imagine if radical Islam gets a foothold in Europe the way it has, politically, in Lebanon? Or even Iran? Imagine the sort of problems the EU could give us should they allow such animals to rise to power and prominence there. It'd be like dealing with a whole, brand-new UN. Only this time, it'd be virulently anti-American from the start rather than building up to that over the course of decades.
And painting the party with a broad brush is no way to win friends and influence people. Like it or not, Libertarians identify more with our party than they do with Democrats. Sure they have some nutty ideas from time to time, but they're fairly sound for the most part. We'd like to see a time where they can share a place in the party in the future, but right now they don't identify with us. Furthermore, Ron Paul's white supremacists writing in his newsletter shows us all we need to know about his ideology. His statement that he was unaware doesn't mean diddly-squat. It's his newsletter, and he should have known what was being written. Additionally, accepting donations from the likes of Stormfront leader Don Black is beyond the pale. We've done our best to keep such people out of the party. (Rep. Paul will recall that we threw David Duke out of the party so fast, there were skid marks on the ground where his ass hit the pavement.)
Rep. Paul is given to nutty rants, and this appears to be another one. Add to the fact that he hasn't announced he's ending his bid for the presidency (which would be a smart move as he has no chance of swaying anyone in the convention to depart from nominating John McCain.) I know there are people out there that believe we've departed from the idea of conservatism. I'll challenge any of them to tell and PROVE my wife and I have. (We haven't.) I know they think they can change the way we're going. Trust me on this when I say that change is coming. We have some very fine conservatives coming up the ranks of the party that can shift us back to the way of smaller government, less entitlements, lower taxes, and a strong national defense. You just have to give them time. (Bobby Jindal, Michael Steele, and Sarah Palin are among those people, but they need more experience before taking the next crucial step.)
The best thing Ron Paul can do is go back to the House. Stay focused in trying to keep the Democrats and RINOs from spending the snot out of the taxpayer's money.
Publius II
Ron Paul says the legions of newcomers his presidential campaign brought to the Republican Party are getting the cold shoulder from John McCain and from the party.
The Texas congressman says neither he nor his supporters have heard from Mr. McCain or Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan since March 4, when the Arizona senator accumulated enough delegates to clinch the party's presidential nomination.
"I don't think they want them," Mr. Paul told The Washington Times, adding that indifference doesn't surprise him because the party's establishment has deserted traditional conservative principles for big government and foreign intervention.
"We don't agree with them," he says. "We agree with the Old Right, and they're the New Right, which is 'The Wrong,' [because] the New Right has morphed into neoconservative."
Many of his 800,000 presidential nomination votes were from newcomers to the Republican Party — the kind of dedicated small-donor volunteers the party needs, he says.
Mr. Duncan says he informed Mr. Paul that Mr. McCain had gone over the top on delegates but did not discuss how the party might hold onto Mr. Paul's supporters — and their potential future financial contributions.
Only Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, has bothered to tell Mr. Paul that his supporters are welcome, and valued, in the party. Mr. Cole, an evangelical Christian who says he too once felt unwelcome in the party, confirmed in a separate interview that he wants to see Mr. Paul's supporters stay and help expand the party's ranks.
Mr. McCain hasn't approached Mr. Paul's voters because Mr. Paul has not called to say he is ending his run, says McCain campaign senior adviser Charles Black.
Dean Esmay has a perfect piece describing and identifying the origins of the term "neoconservatism," and I highly recommend that Rep. Paul and his supporters research it. Why? Because the Republican party didn't morph into the neoconservative way of thinking. While a few Republicans have expanded the scope of the party's original ideological roots, the vast majority haven't. As a matter of fact, the vast majority supported our invasion of Iraq not on the premise that so many on the Left present -- WMDs -- but rather because they understood the that the ties to terrorists Saddam Hussein had was a threat to the West, especially the United States. When he and his supporters latch onto the Left's talking points, they ostracize themselves from the ranks of the party.
He's right on the point regarding the size and scope of government. We agree with him on that point. The government does need to be shrunk in more ways, and one more fronts, than one. However his idea of conservatism is out of touch with many of the minds that formed the conservative wing of the Republican party. It isn't reflected in Ronald Reagan's brand of conservatism, or even William F. Buckley's. His version of conservatism goes back to the 20's and 30's with the isolationist attitudes of the day. That won't help us in the world we live in today. Our enemies won't go slithering back under their rock if we withdraw from the world. They'll take it as a sign of weakness, and come at us from a variety of different angles. Can anyone imagine if radical Islam gets a foothold in Europe the way it has, politically, in Lebanon? Or even Iran? Imagine the sort of problems the EU could give us should they allow such animals to rise to power and prominence there. It'd be like dealing with a whole, brand-new UN. Only this time, it'd be virulently anti-American from the start rather than building up to that over the course of decades.
And painting the party with a broad brush is no way to win friends and influence people. Like it or not, Libertarians identify more with our party than they do with Democrats. Sure they have some nutty ideas from time to time, but they're fairly sound for the most part. We'd like to see a time where they can share a place in the party in the future, but right now they don't identify with us. Furthermore, Ron Paul's white supremacists writing in his newsletter shows us all we need to know about his ideology. His statement that he was unaware doesn't mean diddly-squat. It's his newsletter, and he should have known what was being written. Additionally, accepting donations from the likes of Stormfront leader Don Black is beyond the pale. We've done our best to keep such people out of the party. (Rep. Paul will recall that we threw David Duke out of the party so fast, there were skid marks on the ground where his ass hit the pavement.)
Rep. Paul is given to nutty rants, and this appears to be another one. Add to the fact that he hasn't announced he's ending his bid for the presidency (which would be a smart move as he has no chance of swaying anyone in the convention to depart from nominating John McCain.) I know there are people out there that believe we've departed from the idea of conservatism. I'll challenge any of them to tell and PROVE my wife and I have. (We haven't.) I know they think they can change the way we're going. Trust me on this when I say that change is coming. We have some very fine conservatives coming up the ranks of the party that can shift us back to the way of smaller government, less entitlements, lower taxes, and a strong national defense. You just have to give them time. (Bobby Jindal, Michael Steele, and Sarah Palin are among those people, but they need more experience before taking the next crucial step.)
The best thing Ron Paul can do is go back to the House. Stay focused in trying to keep the Democrats and RINOs from spending the snot out of the taxpayer's money.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:10 PM
<< Home