The Limits of Ron Paul-ism

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Doug Mataconis, WashIndependent. WashIndependent said: The Limits of Ron Paul-ism http://bit.ly/eQl8b [...]

Seems like the perfect rhetoric to use in a closed Republican primary, if you ask me. ;)

Here's some reassurance to the libertarian supporters: Rand would have voted against the war in Iraq. Rand has spoken out against the PATRIOT Act. Rand has said many times we need to follow the constitution and declare war when in conflict. These are not positions a warhawk or neocon would take.

Careful (and brilliant, mind you) politicking is all Rand's latest statement is.

Yes, don't worry Paultards, he'll be principled in office! He just needs to sell out in the primary – and maybe the general – election. But once he gets into the Senate, where Republican leadership is known to be very understanding about dissent, he'll take a firm libertarian stance. You'll see…

Don't know much about Rand Paul, but his first name makes me lol and cry. And it seems strangely ironic that Dr. No himself is now a would be first link in a political dynasty.

Is it possible he meant “all the prisoners in Guantanamo need to be tried, convicted and locked up in a jail”?

Insults: the last resort of idiots.

I have more confidence in Dr. Rand Paul than the plethora of self-serving professional politicians whose one guiding principle tends to be doing whatever is required to get elected. I have never met any candidate with whom I agree 100% of the time on every issue. However, Rand Paul appears to have principles closer to my own than 99% of the candidates across this nation. I believe the party and Senate leadership will be less likely to successfully in attempt to bully hium as his opponents in this election.

Nice. A sense of irony is oh so rare in wingnuts.

You're probably right about that. I just wish so many of Rand Paul's principles were more sane. But on the off chance that he makes it through the primary and general elections, he will hopefully be an ally to liberals and progressives on civil liberties and social issues, at least.

We'll see if he continues to cater to the ignorance and prejudices of the Republican base in this campaign as an indication of who is right, I guess.

No. If you have a simple question like that, follow the link to see the context of the quote.

Yeah, I picked that up later. Its one of the few things on which Rand Paul and I disagree. I think they should be tried in civil courts (so we can actually see the evidence) and gitmo should be closed. However, I still support Paul. I think the biggest issues confronting us are deficits and…oh…deficits. I have full faith in Paul's commitment to reducing the size of government, both in form and function.

Good for Rand Paul for not sticking his foot in his mouth to pander to a bunch of out-of-state Libertarian nuts.

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my comment. Just a thought, and not just for you but for Bill, and Eric D., and everyone here. Is it really necessary to insult others. It is so easy to use derogatory terms to describe the philosophies and principles of others, when reasoned civil debate is so much more interesting and worthy of the effort. And to the point about civil liberties, I agree, I hope he does defend the Constitution. Maybe some of the progressives will join him in defending the Constitution when it comes to profligate spending and the reach and intrusion of the federal government into the lives and property of the citizens. :) Not to mention his opposition to undeclared wars.

Generally, no, it is not necessary. But most of the hardcore Ron Paul activists really deserve no better, especially the white nationalists and conspiracy theorists.

As for working with libertarians, I doubt we're ever going to agree on whether the absolutely essential programs like Medicare and Social Security should be abolished, as we liberals don't want to see tens of millions of people subjected to the abject poverty and suffering that existed before their creation. But we can still agree on police state policies and abhorrence for neoconservative foreign policy.

Love that mainstream politicians (even libertarians) can get away with supporting Alice in Wonderland courts.

And I don't care that he doesn't mean what his press releases say. Its pathetic.

I would describe myself as a hardcore Constitutionalist libertarian (small 'l'), and a contributor to Ron Paul and C4L. Your portrayal of RP supporters does not jive with my experience. I will not associate with rascists and people who see conspiracies everywhere. I certainly don't think of myself that way. In my years involved in politics (since late 70's) I have seen good and bad people in both major parties (and 3rd for that matter), as candiates and supporters. Dirty tricks, deception, questionable financial dealings, pay to play, etc. I just do not like generalizations.

So your right. I suspect, we would not agree on much, but maybe enough. Then I would fight you tooth and nail. But win or lose, go home, come back and fight another day.

Mr. Dondero, is that you?

Well, for every Ron Paul supporter Rand loses, he'll pick up twice as many Pro-Defense Libertarians who were not inclined to support him.

Good move on Rand's part. I feel confident now he's gonna win.

Yes, because there are so many non-neo-con defense-hawk libertarians about who held their nose and voted McCain instead of Ron Paul, right?

This is /KENTUCKY/ for God's sake, he's not running for fucking president.

Rand's official stance is that he wants Gitmo prisoners to be tried in Military Court, as they are not residents on North American soil, nor US Citizens.

This doesn't include domestic terrorism, which would be tried in civilian courts on domestic soil. This goes hand-in-hand with his father's belief that we shouldn't force our Constitution on others around the world, outside of American soil.

I'm glad to hear that. You sound like one of the good ones. But I will never be able to think of Ron Paul as a good or decent man or truly principled politician due to his deliberate and cynical courtship of extremists during his long career. His links to racists and anti-government militants sympathetic to terrorism are far too many to be coincidental and his willingness to take money from and speak to despicable groups and individuals is not much better than the corporate whores who dominate our politics.

Regardless, as long as you don't hold Ron Paul rallies or tea parties on Second Life or World of Warcraft, you are all right by me. I must attend to my fire now.

I wouldn't worry too much about the Medicare and Social Security issue. As far as social security goes at the moment, he doesn't want to abolish it, merely offer an opt out option. And if you were then worried about funding, Ron/Rand Paul would probably divert money saved from military spending to sustain current entitlements that are deemed essential. Also, the poverty and suffering would probably be worse since people expect the benefits and have become dependent.

Rand isn't a threat to those programs anyway. Those programs will need to be abolished or diminished out of necessity if current spending priorities remain constant. If they are diminished, it will be to a point where they might as well have been abolished. Basically, when you take into consideration future forecasted liabilities and budgets, it's not sustainable.

One last note, you're being a jackass by judging the man based on a minority of people that follow him. The varied minority of kooks, nuts, flakes, and other breakfast cereal varieties endorse him, not the other way around.

You're a fool if you remain willfully ignorant of Ron Paul's courting of repugnant extremists.

I will bookmark and continue reading your blog in the future! Thanks alot for the informative post!

respect
jenny martin
______________________________________________