Ron Paul Has Betrayed The GOP!

but when he became a White Flag Republican earlier this year, he lost me completely and forever. His kind of conservatism died in 1941. We can't be driving a global economy with national interests exposed across the globe without the backing of our government and military. It is an outdated and flawed way of looking at the world. Excellent post.

I was shocked when I read the statement. I new it was bad but I did not know it was that bad. Thanks for taking the time to read.

I kind of suspected it. Being a libertarian has always been a signal to me that the person I am talking to hasn't thought things through and is probably longing for "good old days" of the depression except without the morality. Fiscally conservative but socially liberal. I have the same suspicions about Brownback, another White Flag Republican. Seems like everyone is "partly pregnant" on the issues these days.

THAT is a very good point.

You know, the name is supposed to be a derivative of "Liberty" if I am not mistaken... I have always seen more of a "Liberal" meaning to it.

Socially liberal..."No no no folks! I am not as bad as a liberal... I'm a social liberal!"

"Partly pregnant" is an accurate phrase. I agree with you on Brownback by the way and your point in general. Frankly, it is my belief that full fledged liberalism has taken over all fringe parties and some in our own party unfortunately. I don't give any of the others the time of day, and trust me, I've got big problems with my own party. As long as the difference is such shades of night and day, I can continue to be an aggressive team player. About the time all of GOP starts behaving like Dr. "Strangelove" Paul is about the time I am outta here. Heh, "outta here" to where is the impossible question however.

about being loyal team players and you have plenty of company but I really believe that entering a negotiation, which is what political campaigning is, by stating that you are going to vote for whoever wins the nomination takes you right out of the debate. I have a list of what I want and I don't want to clutter your blog with it but if you're interested, I make my case on my own blog. BTW, if you really want to start a spirited discussion, try telling people that you are a "1776 Liberal". That is what I consider myself. Liberal is not a dirty word if used correctly. This country was founded on the concept of maximum freedom for the enlightened and responsible. It takes virtue to establish and hold on to freedom. Modern liberalism advocates anarchy that leads to tyranny.

Keep posting and commenting. I can be persuaded.

Why is it when I write or say what you just wrote about voting for whoever wins the nomination I get scolded like a child? Is there no principle at all left in the GOP? Why do the GOP die hards not understand that they actually need to DESERVE TO WIN? I'm sorry, but is it just me or does it make you feel creepy to have to compromise and vote for an abortionist or the guy with pretty hair from the most liberal state in the universe?

Furthermore, it also takes strength and conviction to hold onto freedom. Which means that security, plainly and outright, trumps liberty in a free society... if you intend to actually keep it that is. I find myself for some reason having to repeat this again and again to the Ron Paul trolls who have infected both my site and Pat Gray's site as well: War is not an intellectual exercise... not while our soldiers are fighting and dying.

I am of the Churchill cloth when it comes to liberalism... and I'm sure you've heard or read it yourself many times; I'm paraphrasing: If you are not a liberal in your 20's you have no heart and if you are not a conservative at 30 then you have no brain. Funny how it wasn't a personal decision of mine; it just happened that way naturally. Heh, I guess Churchill would then say, "Well you have a brain my boy!" in that charming and strict way of his.

Also, you are hardly "cluttering my blog". I ban no one and all comments are welcome here. I cannot stop Townhall from banning someone from my site however... which has already happened, if the whining about not being able to post here from the Paul trolls is any indication.

Despite all of the hand-wringing by the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, I am very confident in a positive outcome to the 2008 elections.... for conservatives. Simple scenario: the Dems retook control of Congress by getting Blue Dogs elected. Reagan was very effective with this kind of Congress. The Dem leadership is hamstrung with these guys and will be replaced before they can get their ultra-left wing agenda in place. Unfortunately, the GOP seems hell-bent to do it for them but they have to do and blame Bush which means they are running out of time too. No one is going to de-fund the Iraq war before 2008 and it really looks like the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill is going to be a radioactive third rail for Congress. The younger members want to get re-elected and amnesty efforts will be dead if not enacted before Bush leaves office. Whoever becomes president will inherit Iraq so "cut-and-run" will look less and less attractive as primaries and elections near. The real story for 2008, I think will be the election of a more conservative Congress no matter who controls it and probably a liberal but neutered president. Gridlock baby! Contract with America in 2010 and conservative president in 2012. If it doesn't happen, then don't listen to me anymore.

Excellent comments! While I loathe the thought of a Dem as President in '08; I can very much see your scenario coming true. And I would love nothing more than a new and enforced Contract With America. It could very well be worth 4 years of a Democratic Executive if we get a Contract With America 2 years after "it" is elected. Ultimately I will take a hard core conservative controlled Congress over a so-called "Republican" President any day. It only means we'll have the Presidency in the very near future after that.

Your scenario is the only one that has us losing the Executive in '08 whithout completely scaring the living crap out of me. It still makes me shudder though. Honest, I just tested it to make sure... and sure enough when I thought about it I got the shudder. The Dems are all just so horrible.

What part of the contract with america wasn't a rouse? Ron Paul e.g. actually believes in the smaller government claims/goals of the contract and he's said to be "selling out the GOP" meanwhile the Republican controlled congress and White House spend and regulate incontinently and they are defended here. How does that even make sense?

My Congressman flat-out lied about his term-limits pledge etc., that and almost everything else in the contract appears to have been forsaken; yet one of the few conservative interested in small government ideas (and running this year) is said to be a "sell-out."

I ask; how does that make sense?

Why all the question of personally morality? Which sins should the government outlaw? What is the difference between a crime and a sin? Maybe you should DEFINE YOUR TERMS

When did conservatives start supporting wars and patronage, and the big government it fosters? I think some of the founders, influenced by the country critique, were very opposed to this -- surely Jefferson and Jackson. You're not going to let the Democrats claim Jefferson and Jackson are you?

Thanks for reading.

I don't "let" the Democrats do anything. Candidates that support industrial hemp farming across America, hate Jews, retreat from our enemy, and blame my country for 9/11 are not fit to be in the GOP. Let the Democrats have him if he wants to be a Congressman. Those are my terms Geoff.

I don't know exactly what GOP you envision... and name dropping Founding Fathers in an attempt to shame me in some way is silly and a complete waste of your time. I hate to break it to you, but Jefferson is dead. I don't know what he would do today because he never faced an enemy like this one.... OH WAIT HE DID!!! Jefferson sent the Navy to Tripoli after reading the Koran. Now, we know he did not send them because of the Koran but because of hostages being held by Muslim terrorists. The same Koran given to Jefferson and dedicated to his enemy, the freak of fool Ellison swore in on, not that he ever cracked open the book once.

I digress; the point is you have no clue what Jefferson would do, OR you are purposely being dishonest and editing out things Jefferson did or said which don't fit into your liberal view.

I simply cannot help you, nor is there any way you are going to agree with me. I am not deleting the post or altering it in any way because you don't like what it says. Jefferson is not the President, George Bush is. I really don't care if you like it or not; it is simply reality, that's all. You Ron Paul Zombies refuse to live in the 'here and now' instead of in the past, and you refuse to understand that the 'here and now' has consequences for tomorrow.

We are just not going to agree. My posts on this topic, not only here but elsewhere, should prove this to you beyond any doubt. Move on.

Thank you for your careful consideration. Additionally, thank you for thanking me for reading. That was kind.

I don't know what Jefferson would do were he alive today -- I didn't claim I did. What I do claim is various persons have had ideas off of which we can work today, some of those ideas are "non-intervention" and opposition to government patronage and the power/control/corruption that goes along with it -- all of which are fueled by war.

Now consider: just as I do not know what Jefferson would do were he alive today so I do not know what the future consequences ("blow back") of propping up this or that unsavory character to help in achieving short-term goals (e.g. fighting the soviets) will be -- stating this is not blaming "my country for 9-11" or even stating it is "responsible."

There are different levels of responsibility -- those most directly "responsible" where piloting the planes; they are all dead -- behind them were those who paid, trained and supported them. When we speak in this way we use "responsible" as a term referring to "moral culpability" and causation.

There also exists their religion of violence (Islam). . . so too, if our policy involves intervening in ways which in hindsight made the existence of these types of Islamic groups easier (or however it is phrased) it is a factor. Interventionism as a policy has to deal with this fact.

Saying things like "you blame 9-11 on. . " to "shame" me is, well, stupid. Please stop it.
On a final note I don't know if anyone "hates Jews" and neither do you -- additionally, is retreat ever a strategically good option?

Look, you brought up me giving the Democrats Jefferson... was it a threat? attempt at shame? whatever you want to call it. The only thing silly was you bringing it up.

On 9/11; that is right out of his mouth and I have the audio personally. Take it up with Ron Paul. Everything linked is straight to his website other than this post of course which is an official release from a Senior Staff Member who worked for the anti-Semite for over a decade... so... TAKE IT UP WITH HIM TOO. These are all THEIR WORDS. Did you read the post? Or anything else it linked to? Like the freak's own Cogressional website for instance?

If you refuse to do what I said and take his own words instead of blaming me then there is just no conversation at all. So, cut the crap and research it yourself. I would suggest honestly that you take this up with Jesse Benton his Press Secretary, I don't speak for Dr. Strangelove nor am I going to answer questions for him.

There is just no way you don't already know all this. You choose to be against the war; that is fine... just stop making excuses for what it is.
And yes, I believe in strategic retreats, FROM BATTLE if necessary... NOT FROM A WAR AGAINST EVIL FASCISTS. There is a clear distinction. You must understand that is the context I am coming from. We all have a prism we look through; for you to even suggest you don't is an outright lie so don't waste your time.

I do however, appreciate you commenting here without spamming. Post anytime.

It was a question.

There are certian ideas which are symbolized by using the names of certian individuals, for instance Jefferson or maybe better Madison for "non intervention" or Jackson on the central bank. . . I understand as people they may have dealt with these issues inconsistantly (that doesn't mean I/we should or have to however) but I meant: you're not conceeding Jefferson (or whomever's) ideas to the Democrats.

I understand those ideas to be conservative and/or Republican ideas (non-intervention, free markets, deregulation etc.) thus I wouldn't want to see those ideas excluded from the Republican party -- I phrased this as "conceding them to the Democrats" which was not articulate -- I should have said "kicked out of the tent."

What audio do you have. I believe his statements were along the lines of my explanation above. I would like the exact qoute in context. . . if you make the claim it must be substantiated.

I read the post, I read:

"I've been asked by others if my former boss is an Anti-Semite. My answer is an emphatic NO. I am half Jewish. I am familiar with Anti-Semites. Ron is not one of them."

Did you read the post? You posted it.

Makes one wonder who the zombie is

By the way, I'm no zombie -- knock of the name-calling.

thank you,

Geoff

Will the writer of this blog please write a civil-worded essay describing his feelings about Ron Paul. I am very confused. I thought the GOP was supposed to support conservatives. Why the hate for Ron?

. . . to do that he would have to leave zombie mode

. . . of course if you write EVIL FASCISTS in all caps, that's an argument stopper

You should know that Cortes.

Geoff

p.s. this isn't a threat or anything (calm down) it's just to point out rhetorical flourishes only work on TV (they don't work here) but appear to be all Cary can/will do

If it were said about you, you'd ask for proof.

I heard the interview. I called you on it. You're misleading, if you're misleading intentionally you're lying.

It isn't that difficult.

Note carefully, I don't say this -- but you deserve to have it said about you, "Cary hates Jews" -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Don't be a zombie.

Geoff

As I said... you can email me for the MP3 of the audio you requested OR you can contact Pat Gray and Edd Hendee for it.

Don't you realize you are posting what you are posting beneath the very words of a man who worked for Ron Paul for over a decade? Geoff, you need to take it up with Eric. It would be like you complaining about man made global warming while standing directly beneath the great ball of fire in the sky!!! Don't you get that?

I told you that you and I are simply not going to agree on the issue of Ron Paul. That should be obvious to you from my blog posts alone. I do thank you for the comments and I'm glad you can read. Honest.

So... you have the words of the post you are posting under right now... and I offered you the audio. It's under 9mb. I am not going to answer any more questions on THIS topic. Period. If you want the audio you can email me and THEN and ONLY THEN will I begin to even entertain somewhere over the rainbow discussing this with you again.

Thanks for reading AFK.

If you want, I can clarify this again -- just ask:

Now consider: just as I do not know what Jefferson would do were he alive today so I do not know what the future consequences ("blow back") of propping up this or that unsavory character to help in achieving short-term goals (e.g. fighting the soviets) will be -- stating this is not blaming "my country for 9-11" or even stating it is "responsible."

There are different levels of responsibility -- those most directly "responsible" where piloting the planes; they are all dead -- behind them were those who paid, trained and supported them. When we speak in this way we use "responsible" as a term referring to "moral culpability" and direct causation, i.e. planning, executing the plan etc.

There also exists more indirect "causes," including their religion of violence (Islam). . . so too, if our policy involves intervening in ways which in hindsight made the existence of these types of Islamic groups easier (or however it is phrased) it is a factor. Interventionism as a policy has to deal with this fact/potential.

Do you understand that or is it confusing to you. I can try and clear it up if you'd like.

On a final note I don't know if anyone "hates Jews" and neither do you

Ron and Eric can have their own spat in private.

I was discussing two things -- one, whether he "blamed America for 9-11" and whether "he hates jews"

Eric didn't address either of those things -- those are your charges

E-mail is on it's way

Eric claims to be Pro-Defense, but what does that have to do with the offensive war in Iraq? I grew up in Paul's district (Victoria) and have only noticed an escalation of his platform, not a change. Being "Patriotic/Pro-Troops/Pro-Veterans" doesn't mean that you want to fight every war you possibly can. If anything, 9-11 gave credence to his platform that entangling alliances bring about future problems. And his turn away from Bush has happened to many who were duped to think that Bush was a uniter and not a nation builder. How can any Conservative support a Prez who has only vetoed 2 bills? There's nothing Conservative about expanding government!

I also can't understand why Paul's problems with our disproportionate support of Israel is a problem. Why is that any different that not wanting to give extra support to Hungary? What's so special about Israel, and why is having a Constitution beef with sending money to Israel an automatic smack in the face of Israel and Jews? That's ridiculous! What do we owe them?

You've been Neo-Conned:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

So your position is to sit back and watch another Holocaust? You probably don't even think it happened right? It's not that we owe them anything. It's simply the right thing to do. But then again, I hardly expect hemp growers and defeatist isolationists to understand that.

It's all an intellectual exercise to you people. You live in the world of theory and there is littel discussion to be had.

Thank you for reading however. Glad to have you here. Feel free to comment on topics other than one's dealing with your leader.

Any time someone criticizes Ron Paul, the Neo Con charge comes out sooner or later. Iraq was a legitimate battle in the war we face. It still is. Those who do not see that we must come out of that victorious are delusional. Illuminating post. I intend to look this guy up, though I had already made my mind up about Paul based on things he had said.

The War on Iraq killed resulted in more dead Americans than 9/11. Saddam had nothing to do with bin laden and 9/11. However, Saddam has been aggressive towards Israel and the AIPAC lobby has pushed for US military intervention in Iraq for years before 9/11. Finally, the right timing arose, and the Israel-First lobby, the defense contractors, Big Oil, and jingoistic neocons formed a coalition that has resulted in the quagmire in Iraq. Next on their agenda is Iran. None of this serves the interest of the average American citizen. Google search any "top tier" Dem or Rep and you will see they are all in bed with AIPAC already.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hillary+clinton+on+iran&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=obama+on+iran
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=mccain+on+iran&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=romney+on+iran&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=giuliani+on+iran&spell=1
Only Ron Paul will serve the common American over the special interests. Incidentally this will not only reduce the grievances of the Jihadists, but it will also be more fair to
Americans, and will force Israel to learn to "play nice" with its neigbors because it won't be hiding behind American brawn. Believe it or not neocons, this is the only way to end the intifadas.

Ron Paul is not anti troop or anti vet.
He just want a constitutional government that DECLARES WAR.
He is trying to save the Republican Party and he is doing a great job building the party with true conservitives who respect Liberty and want our Troops home not sent to invade other countries.
Israel can take care of it self.
I am ex USMC and all of the people I know from the USMC who served in combat are supporting the Ron Paul Revolution! We need to be respected in the world again. Our pollicy now is going to get us all killed.

Dondero admits Paul bears no personal animosity against Jews. So Paul is no Jessie 'hemie town' Jackson. Clears that up.

You Israel-fettish guys need to decide which country you're loyal to: America or Israel.
Israel consistently puts spies in our government.
Israel practices apartheid.
Israel is very anti-christian within its own borders, which you can confirm by talking with Christian missionaries who live there.
Israel is mostly an atheist nation, most of her citizens reject even orthodox jewish beliefs.
Israel has 200+ nukes, most of which they stole from us. They can take care of themselves, as they did when they bombed Iraq's nuke reactors in the early 80's. They don't need us, they only want to use us. By the way, did you know they actually attacked a US ship once and killed American sailors? Sorry to burst your bubble.

9-11 did not nullify the US Constitution. It is still illegal to invade other countries that never harmed us without a declaration of war. It is foolhardy to build an empire abroad when we are under a mount-Everest of debt at home, and the Welfare state continues to increase under Bush and his congress.

Ron Paul is a Constitutional conservative, not a 'big government conservative' (oxymoron if ever there was).

Isn't it sad that the current Republican standard bearer G. Bush is actually closer to HILLARY on foreign policy and welfare statism (prescription drug benefits and domestic spending) than he is to a true conservative like RON PAUL?!?!