Ron Paul Has Won
by Patrick Ruffini :: November 26th, 2007 10:30 amHe won’t win the nomination. He won’t win any primaries. But for Ron Paul’s quixotic bid for the White House, it’s “Mission Accomplished.”
Take a look at this from Sunday’s Washington Post. Not just the article but the killer packaging:
In the past few months, Ron Paul has dramatically raised the profile of libertarianism inside the Republican Party. My small-l libertarian friends seem more comfortable describing themselves as such, even though they’ll go out of their way to disassociate themselves from Ron Paul and the big-L kind.
Libertarianism in the GOP took a big hit on 9/11, and it’s slowly coming back, with Ron Paul as the catalyst. Its underlying ideals still have appeal well beyond the cramped confines of the LP. If it’s possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up. Markos too brands himself a “libertarian Democrat,” though he’s never read Hayek and supports big government social programs.
Some campaigns can win big without ever coming close to winning an actual contest. Pat Robertson’s 1988 campaign signaled that Christian Conservatives had arrived in the GOP. Ron Paul is doing the same for libertarians. This is not a counterweight to the religious right per se, since Paul is identified as pro-life, but it does potentially open up a new army of activists on the right not primarily motivated by social/moral issues.
Not every losing single-issue candidate succeeds like this. Immigration-restrictionists still lack an outlet in the GOP, thanks to Tom Tancredo’s embarrassing tone-deafness as a candidate. Sam Brownback’s campaign had hoped to galvanize single-issue pro-lifers, but was hobbled by his dry persona. Duncan Hunter looks mostly like a campaign for Secretary of Defense.
Assuming Paul loses, where does small-l libertarianism go from here? His movement already did the smart thing by making peace with social conservatism. Libertarianism is no longer aligned with libertine stances on abortion and gay rights.
To become the ascendant ideology within the GOP, I suspect they’ll have to find a way to do the same thing on national security. The war on terror writ large is the one big thing social and economic conservatives agree on, and Ron Paul is vocally aligned against both.
Mainstream Republican libertarians might be gung-ho for Paul’s small-government idealism, they might adopt Glenn Reynoldsish skepticism of the homeland security bureaucracy, and even John McCain has lately made a thing of ripping the military-industrial complex, but there is no way — I repeat NO WAY — they will embrace Ron Paul if he continues to blame America for 9/11 and imply that America is acting illegally in defending itself around the globe. Even if they aren’t the biggest fans of the war, most people that are available for Ron Paul on the right are by temperament patriotic and will never vote for someone who sounds like Noam Chomsky.
As someone who routinely called myself a libertarian prior to 9/11, here’s how I would square the circle: Absolute freedom within our borders, for our own citizens; eternal vigilance and (when necessary) ruthlessness abroad. For libertarian ideals to survive, they must be relentlessly defended against the likes of Islamic extremists. Take a look at Andrew Sullivan’s writing right after 9/11 to see this ideal in its purest form; far from a religious crusade, ours was a war for secularism, tolerance, and free societies where gays don’t get stoned to death.
The key principle is one of reciprocity. If you behave peacefully and embrace the norms of a libertarian society, we leave you alone. If you seek to destroy a free society, we will destroy you.
If they’re serious about defending their ideals and seeing to it that libertarianism survives more than a generation in actual practice, I don’t see any reason why libertarians couldn’t embrace a more conservative positioning on national security.
Tagged: libertarianism 
ron paul
Comments (93) 
Trackbacks (1) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
“He won’t win the nomination. He won’t win any primaries.”
He will win the nomination, and he will win 40 primaries.
After all, as David Freddoso points out in National Review today, he has more cash on hand at the moment than any other Republican — and wait until the Dec. 16th moneybomb.
He draws larger crowds than any other Republican. Much larger.
He’s climbing in the polls — 8% now in Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and we have reason to believe those polls undercount his real support.
He’s got far more meetup groups than any other candidate. And far more online support.
But still, Patrick Ruffini tells us he won’t win the nomination — indeed, that he won’t win a primary!
Why, Patrick? I’d be interested to hear your reasoning behind those bold predictions. He’s leading every single available metric except the obsolete, obviously-manipulated “scientific” (read: landline) polls, and even there he’s gaining.
So give us a why, kiddo.
Everyone who supports balanced and fair coverage on our cable networks should visit www.savetucker.org. It is rumored that MSNBC is thinking about canceling the one conservative host that they have. Two guys from Florida have set up this site to send a message to MSNBC, and everyone should check it out…
I am all for Operation Iraqi Freedom but I agree with a few hundred thousand conservative men, at least, that there is more of a danger to our society from feminists within than from Islamofascists without.
Why can’t Bush work with the Muslims to confront the American domestic violence industry which has radical feminism running roughshod on the rights of married males (and now any male who lives with a woman)?
The answer is that Bush has feminists in the administration that want no compromise with Islam and no compromise with the American male.
Conservative males should be regularly reading www.mensnewsdaily.com (for new on the battle of the homefront) as well as www.strategypage.com (for news on Iraq).
At least Ron Paul voted no for the VAWA and IMBRA laws. He votes no for everything of course, but that is the kind of guy who should run government.
We need more conservatives saying NO to more laws.
We need government agencies dismantled. Especially the unconstitutional Office on Violence Against Women.
“You just did.”
Sorry A, I don’t have my cryptic comments decoder ring handy. What’s the rationale for Ruffini claiming Ron Paul won’t win a single primary, much less the nomination?
I keep hearing all these media pundits — although fewer and fewer, to be fair — who flat-out state that Ron Paul “can’t” or “won’t” win the nomination. But they never seem to back it up with facts, because…the available facts point to Ron Paul doing very well come voting time.
Well, I’m a bit of a Ron Paul fan myself, but Patrick is right. He most likely won’t win the R nomination. You have to realize that of the what… 53,000,000 that came out to vote for Bush… the majority of them were R base party line voters.
These voters, for the most part, are looking at the “top tier” candidates. These voters are not included in most polls, do not come out early for ANY event, and rarely state their support for a candidate until it comes time to vote.
So what if Ron Paul has big support right now. As much as I dislike the thought… his support will be pale in comparison to that of the dreaded “top tier” candidate.
Soon Patrick will be posting an “I told you so”. Just watch…
Because Patrick is a tool for the CFR and they know who they will pick. In fact, even if every eligible person in the USA voted for Ron Paul, he would still not be picked for the nomination. Instead there’d have to be a bloody revolution like in some south american country.
Only then would people see it is not they who controls the elections.
I suppose my complaint with the big-R position on foreign policy and the ‘war on terror’ is that it is majestically misguided. Ron Paul has never stated he is against the use of military force in response to an attack or to protect American interests, but whatever you want to say about Iraq, it is pretty clear now and was pretty clear before that they posed no threat to the US, much the same as Iran does now. On the other hand, attacking Iraq drew resources out of Afghanistan, making it less likely we’d ever catch Bin Laden.
All I’m saying is that the responses enacted by the Bush government to 9/11 have, largely, failed to address the underlying problem while at the same time cost a whole gopping large amount of money and lives. As a ’something to think about’, I heard 80% of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis and 50% of the suicide bombers in Iraq have been Saudis. Bin Laden is a Saudi, a member of the royal family. Terrorism worldwide has been financed by Saudi royal family members for a long time now. Yet, we attack Iraq…
Predictions are wishes pretending to be wisdom.
The word “liberal” once meant those who favored liberty, so it was stolen by those who don’t. Those who do then began calling themselves “libertarians”. Those who don’t are now busy stealing that word. “Capitalism” used to mean free trade, now it means fascist corporatism. As Lenin advised, “First, confuse the vocabulary”.
The world has many sadistic little bullies who hate liberty, property, privacy, and peace. They love war (when they are not in it) and authority and are full of big opinions about what everyone on earth should be forced to do.
Their fear of Ron Paul and his rapidly growing popularity is like the fear of rats in a fire. They are beginning to panic and their misanthropic dishonesty is becoming transparent.
I contributed a hundred bucks to the Ron Paul campaign, even though I don’t think he will ultimately win the nomination. He is saying what needs to be said, and for me that’s enough.
Paul has said he’s not going to be running as a third party candidate, so if he loses the nomination, he won’t be a spoiler for the general election. The question then for me will be whether to vote Republican or to sit this election out.
I supported GWB in his first term, but I didn’t vote for him again because of his weak stance on civil liberties, and his willingness to play politics with gay issues just to appease the religious Republican right.
This election doesn’t look promising either. Apparently there is no place for the gay or lesbian voter in the modern GOP. So fine, if you don’t want my vote, I’ll support a party that demonstrates a “live and let live” attitude toward people like myself. Democrats are just as bigoted as Republicans (the Defense of Marriage Act was co-sponsored by the most liberal members of the House and Senate), and I can’t stomach their free-spending ways, so I’ll cast my lot with the Libertarians until something better comes along.
With all due respect, sir, Libertarianism is based on the principle of non-aggression. It’s nothing more and nothing less.
What that means is quite simple.
You (and everyone else) has the right to do whatever they want with their person or property, as long as by doing so, they don’t infringe on other people’s right to do the same with theirs.
No aggression against person or property.
Period.
That would relegate people like Markos at DailyKos, Glenn Beck, Bill Maher, and yourself - as something other than libertarians.
But, clearly the ideas of liberty are popular, or people who’ve read Hayek (and/or Rothbard and Mises) wouldn’t be calling themselves libertarians when they’re clearly not.
Vive Liberty!
Eric writes:
“Well, I’m a bit of a Ron Paul fan myself, but Patrick is right. He most likely won’t win the R nomination. You have to realize that of the what… 53,000,000 that came out to vote for Bush… the majority of them were R base party line voters.”
Only 6.6% of Republicans voted in the 2004 primaries, which were largely uncontested, and not more than 10-12% are likely to vote this time.
Ron Paul’s going to take this thing, and a lot of pundits — like Ruffini — are going to take major credibility hits over it.
Hey Eric, who do YOU think is going to win the nomination? C’mon, give us a name.
“I don’t see any reason why libertarians couldn’t embrace a more conservative positioning on national security.”
They are more conservative on national security than the current and past administrations.
We keep going to war in other countries for stupid reasons. Since WW 2, we’ve had military action in: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Iraq. . . Why do our boys have to die so we can act as “World Cop” for somebody else? Only after, billions (or even trillions) of dollars and thousands of our lives later do we stop– And then we repeat the process after a few years of peace.
Something like WW 2 where we were attacked and had war declared on us, is a justified war. Going into Afganistan to take out Bin Laden was justified. But there are so many military actions that are useless and unnecessary.
American money and American lives is what we should be concerned with. We should only concern ourselves without our own problems. This notion of pre-emptive attacks and playing “world cop” is not conservative and it’s not sensible.
President Eisenhower said it best, “Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.”
“but there is no way — I repeat NO WAY — they will embrace Ron Paul if he continues to blame America for 9/11 and imply that America is acting illegally in defending itself around the globe.”
Typical BS. He cannot “continue” to do what he has never done. The two words that most are BS? “blame America” and “defending itself” Replace them with the truth and it reads like this:
“but there is no way - I repeat NO WAY - they will embrace Ron Paul if he continues to blame interventionist foreign policy for 9/11 and imply that congress must declare war to attack a foreign country.”
Ron Paul has PERSONIFIED the true libritarian Republican.
—————–The key principle is one of reciprocity. If you behave peacefully and embrace the norms of a libertarian society, we leave you alone. If you seek to destroy a free society, we will destroy you.—————————
And who decides that someone is “seeks to destroy a free society”?
The media? When they were saying Iraq had WMD and needed to be invaded?
Now that they are mistranslating Ahmadinejad and claiming that he said “Israel should be wiped off the map”
MISTRANSLATION:
“WIPED OFF THE MAP” - The Rumor of the Century
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/736/164/
What if the media ignores the truth and creates a threat that doesn’t exist? Iran’s real position on Israel:
In November 2005 Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine:
We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.
The fact is, nobody, including Ron Paul, is advocating not attacking someone who is an imminent threat, or not declaring war against anyone that attacks the United States. What Ron Paul and sane people are are advocating is to not wage wars against people just because you don’t like them (thanks to a lot of media propaganda).
“His movement already did the smart thing by making peace with social conservatism. Libertarianism is no longer aligned with libertine stances on abortion and gay rights.
To become the ascendant ideology within the GOP, I suspect they’ll have to find a way to do the same thing on national security. The war on terror writ large is the one big thing social and economic conservatives agree on, and Ron Paul is vocally aligned against both.”
So basically in order to “become the ascendant ideology”, all libertarians have to do is abandon any ideas which might differentiate them from ordinary conservatives? Sounds like a brilliant strategy!
The war on terror is being seen for what it is, a thin excuse to project large amounts of military force in order to keep the war profiteers in business, while completely neglecting any serious pursuit of the actual terrorists who attacked on 9/11. Large military conquests are useless against decentralized enemies and ideologies such as the ones we face. They do nothing but exacerbate our problems.
The GOP is the one that’s going to have to change, unless they’re looking forward to getting squashed by the Democrats in 2008, 2010, 2012….
I understand that peace begets peace/quid pro quo, but it’s not like the terrorist guys have bases all around the world too — it’s unilaterally American. The idea is that if we scale back our worldwide presence, then the terrorists will have less fodder for recruitment. Yes, it’s theoretical, but so is the status quo, it’s just the status quo has been an ongoing experiment for years now, and I don’t feel at that peaceful here at home.
Ron Paul is not saying that we are “illegally defending” ourselves around the world, because there is nothing defensive about the Iraq war in the first place.
I consider Ron Paul to be the strongest candidate of all when it comes to national defense because he actually understands the motivations of terrorists. Terrorists attack us because they perceive our actions in the middle east as being a threat to Islam, NOT because we are free, period. So, the supporter of current US foreign policy must make the following argument: the benefits of of our actions in the middle east outweigh the risk of making some individuals (terrorists) want to attack us.
In other words, the supporter of current US foreign policy must say that involving ourselves in the affairs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, having troops in Saudi Arabia (which Paul Wolfowitz admitted were one of the reasons Al-Queda attacked us), and the sanctions on Iraq in the 90’s that killed 500,000 (all three reasons are supported by the 9/11 commission report) are/were worth the attacks on 9/11 and the risk of all potential attacks in the future.
I just don’t see it.
You dont get it do you. You cant have maximum freedom within our borders if you continue to insite hatred abroad by supporting the likes of Israel, Pakistan, Turkey and meddling in foreign affairs. Our foreign affairs policy is what makes us vulnerable to terrorism and therefore minimizes our freedoms here at home. Anyone with half a brain understands this. I remember after 9/11 happened, people, friends, coworkers were all blaming 9/11 on our support for Israel. I am by no means anti-sematic, but I have enough sense to figure out the real reason for 9/11. Anything else is a diversion from the truth.
“if he continues to blame America for 9/11 and imply that America is acting illegally in defending itself around the globe.”
I see you through in the Pro-Rudy lie. He never blamed America, he blamed our foreign policy. I don’t see how that is even debatable, or how it can be a matter of opinion. You are straight out, and purposely misrepresenting what he said even after the fact it has been proven clarified if their was even a question. Doing this is in fact SLANDER, and also not debatable.
At any rate, on the issue of the war, which is what the issue is about if you don’t try to warp it into the blame game. Over 70% of americans are against it, and none of the candidates are even thinking about leaving, they are all wanting to start another war in Iran or Darfur and continue the foriegn policy.
So, like barely above 10% approval rating for congress, less than 30% approval for Bush, 70% against the war. And yet, so called experts in the major media are trying to tell me, and others that the candidates who just continue this status quo are the most popular? All based on “scientific” polls which even show they split the country down the middle by filtering the results as such to get the image of a country split between the sides. When they did the blind poll, and just included everyone, Ron Paul won easily.
“The key principle is one of reciprocity. If you behave peacefully and embrace the norms of a libertarian society, we leave you alone. If you seek to destroy a free society, we will destroy you.”
The point of reciprocity is to prevent attack against you, not just to blindly flail when you’ve been hit for revenge’s sake. Reciprocity worked when we were dealing with states. Now we are dealing with an amorphous threat. Striking out *randomly* (eg Iraq war) does not help, it is only going to make the situation worse because it will encourage hatred. The failure to realize this is the giant flaw in your argument. Ron Paul’s position is that we would be safer if we simply stopped being so aggressive and stopped encouraging hatred. I would love a response to this but I doubt it’s coming.
I just want to comment that obviously since 9/11 a certain portion of the population has lost their minds. It is so interesting to me that a population of people who sit around on their hind ends watching gun fighting, and explosions, through various forms of media, are willing to simply hand over their liberty because of some guys with boxcutters. Patrick Raffini, freely admitted to calling himself a Libertarian up until 9/11. Some Libertarian he was!!! He held that position firmly didn’t he??? First sign of trouble and he’s already in line for the gas chamber! “I’m sorry Uncle Sam! I was wrong. Protect me from the big bad men with box cutters!” We are living in a nation of cowards! Patrick Henry said, “Give me Liberty or Give me Death!”. We say, “Take my liberty! Here, I’ll wrap it up for you!”. What happened on 9/11 was and is tragic. It was tragic that so many people lost their lives due to the fact that so much liberty had been stolen that neither the pilots of those planes nor the passengers could defend themselves against men with Boxcutters. It is far more tragic that rather than let that horrible incident teach us a lesson, we have compounded the problem by running around like chicken little, and allowing our government to steal even more of our liberty. IMHO it is like a child who sticks a key in a light socket, and then it doesn’t hurt enough so he keeps going back for more. Praise God for Ron Paul, who is trying to pull us back from the socket!
“We need government agencies dismantled. Especially the unconstitutional Office on Violence Against Women.”
oh, yeah. this point needs to be stressed. ron paul is the only one who actually pays attentions to things like that. ask huckabee and i am sure he would be all for funding such a “noble” department.
Remember Jesse Ventura?
Theres no way America is “defending itself” by being stationed in over 130 countries. Ron Paul does not blame America for 9/11 either, take a look at history and foreign policy and maybe you’ll understand his view.
We were defending ourselves in Bosnia? We were defending ourselves in Somalia? Are we defending ourselves in Djibouti, Ghana? Or in the Philipines, Kyrgyzstan, Paraguay, Uganda, Denmark, Cyprus, Germany, Honduras, and Spain?
Here’s a site that lists US military bases around the world - http://www.globemaster.de/bases.html - feel free to peruse it for many, many more examples of how our military might and our nation’s wealth is frittered away.
Well, look at the bright side, folks. Patrick wants “Absolute freedom within our borders, for our own citizens”. That’s worth something at least! So no more Patriot Act, or Military Commissions Act, right Patrick? Restore habeus corpus, end the War on Drugs, eliminate BATFE, and on and on. If Patrick can get behind all these things, that’s great!
I don’t expect everyone who calls himself libertarian to be perfectly libertarian. We all have chinks in our armor.
I’m just wondering, if we all have absolute freedom, then there can be no draft. So how are all these bogus wars going to be prosecuted?
“If it’s possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up.”
You are not now, nor have you ever been a libertarian, if the last two ideas appealed to you.
“…but there is no way — I repeat NO WAY — they will embrace Ron Paul if he continues to blame America for 9/11…”
Which he never has. Oh wait, you’re probably as retarded as Wendell Goler and Rudy Giuliani. I’ll have to keep my words simple to get all of this across.
“…and imply that America is acting illegally in defending itself around the globe.”
America is not acting in defense anywhere around the globe. America’s actions against the people of Iraq are no more defensive than Hitler’s actions against the people of Poland. But being the moron you are, you would easily believe that Hitler’s actions were defensive.
“As someone who routinely called myself a libertarian prior to 9/11…”
So, liar or dupe, which was it? I call it a little from column A and a little from column B.
“imply that America is acting illegally in defending itself around the globe.”
I am not a libertarian. I am a paleoconservative, but I am anti-intervention (as the label implies) and a very strong supporter of Ron Paul. So America is “defending itself around the globe” by attacking Iraq? Please work that one out for me. And any mention of spreading democracy, enforcing UN resolutions, toppling dictators, creative destruction, Saddam was a big meanie, etc. will be dismissed as the liberal, Jacobin foolishness that it is. How was Iraq an imminent threat to the US that justified a full scale invasion? This blatant act of aggression violates every principle of Christian Just War Doctrine. And the War IS illegal because it was not declared. Since when did following the Constitution become optional?
There will be no squaring the circle as you suggest. There are two incompatible visions. There is big government, unconstitutional interventionism and small government, Founder approved, constitutional non-interventionism. Any accommodation to interventionism and libertarianism will cease to be libertarianism and authentic (paleo) conservatism will cease to be authentic conservatism.
Where will the Ron Paul supporters go after Feb. 5? Most will go to Giuliani. The GOP is about to nominate the most libertarian Presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater; A guy who’s fiscally conservative, socially tolerant, and strong on defense. The Paul fanatics will get over their strident non-interventionism, look at Hillary, and come on over to Giuliani. They may not be totally pleased, but they’ll be pleased enough.
(Though a few diehards will also defect to the Libertarian Party.)
Many of us are already supporting Giuliani.
Libertarians for Giuliani:
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003
Good evening, Patrick.
You wrote: “The war on terror writ large is the one big thing social and economic conservatives agree on, and Ron Paul is vocally aligned against both.”
Gee. I didn’t know that it was “conservative” to burden — literally punish — US taxpayers with trillions of dollars borrowed from China and Japan and somehow printed out of thin air by a secretive central bank. By “social and economic conservatives,” you surely meant “moralists and mercantilists.”
You wrote: “Even if they aren’t the biggest fans of the war, most people that are available for Ron Paul on the right are by temperament patriotic and will never vote for someone who sounds like Noam Chomsky.”
Which is why they’ll vote for Ron Paul instead. That Goebbelian “blame America for 9/11″ libel has been exposed and debunked for months. And the comparison to Chomsky is a cheap way of using fallacious innuendo to imply that Ron Paul and his supporters are unpatriotic. (The words “projection” and “transference” come to mind here.) But keep trying, Pat; something is bound to stick, eventually. (I wouldn’t bet on it though.)
You can do better, man. Surely you don’t believe that the status quo foreign policy is foremost conservative, constitutional or libertarian; do you?
Eric Dondero — I have read things that you have posted around the web, and you have claimed before that you will vote for Ron Paul. Now you say that you are a “Libertarian for Giuliani.” What a joke — Giuliani is a full-fledged authoritarian, he believes in strong government and weak people who need to be taken care of by HIM, the great drag-queen.
Furthermore, Dondero, it is no secret that you have been pro-Iraq war since it started. You are NO libertarian, and Ron Paul is well rid of you.
In all the postings that you have put up around the web and that I have read — I have become convinced of one thing: you are a true nutcase, and take whatever side you need in order to smear and denigrate Ron Paul and elevate yourself.
I see that Eric the Dunderhead is out of his padded cell again. Somebody out him back in again please? The fact that he considers the First-Amendment-trampling drag queen to be a libertarian should be proof enough that he’s completely nuts.
Stick in him the same cell with Ruffini. Those tow are made for each other–both wrong and both insane.
Eric Dondero??? He was fired by Ron Paul. And then Eric vowed to run against him for his Congressional seat in Texas, and then dropped out two weeks later. On libertarian blogs Eric Dondero’s name has become synonymous with a classic case of sour grapes gone very, very rotten.
Oh, and as for Rude Rudy, it all about N I N E E E E E E L L L L L E E E E V V V V E E E E N N N N N N N N !!!!! He may be leading the land line, bought-and-paid-for “scientific” polls, is the Faux News media darling, and gets lots of cash from financial and military-industrial complex interests, but he has little grassroots support. He had a big rally this week in NH and only a couple of dozen supporters showed up. Even the media took notice that there were more Ron Paul supporters at this event! http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/24/479449.aspx
hi, wow, looks like you’ve already gotten an earful.
First of all, thanks for the write up. I too have noticed that Paul’s candidacy has started shaping the messages of the campaigns. This is a good thing. As for the wiretapping, preemptive strike nonsense, don’t sweat this, it’s entirely unnecessary.
The threat posed by fundamental terrorists is less than that of incidental lightning deaths, or lethal bee stings.
We don’t need to suspend habeus for either of those and we don’t need to suspend habeus for a few cave dwellers either.
Regardless of how the nomination boils down, the Paul campaign will heavily inform the future of the GOP candidacy. Paul is bringing in thousands of new GOP voters and turning previous Democrats in to GOP members. Rather than see this for the windfall that is, many GOP voters are crying foul over a sadly misguided foreign policy.
The last candidate to attract so many new voters into the GOP umbrella was Reagan, meanwhile, all of the current candidates are trying desperately to wrap themselves into his image, at the same time ridiculing Dr. Paul.
It’s a bit comical to be honest.
One of his most compelling contributions to this campaign is to contrast the current line of shills to that of a principled conservative candidate.
You have the morally bankrupt like Dondero trying to tell you that pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-police state Guiliani is a small l libertarian, personal freedom’s style conservative, and he might have pulled it off if a real conservative wasn’t in the race.
Look, we won the Iraq war the minute Saddam’s neck snapped. Our continued presence is because we were sold “you break it you own it” by the European Union. If Iraq is going to have a civil war, then our continued presence only prolongs the inevitable.
No country, or organization, wants the US prowling at their doorstep. No country or organization wants to risk being wiped off the planet to harm us. It’s time to declare victory and get our men home with their families, and to quit giving all these other countries billions of dollars to thumb their noses at us.
Eric, you can’t be serious. Rudy Giuliani is “the most libertarian Presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater,” but only if George Bush is the most constitutionalist president since Thomas Jefferson.
And are we to take you seriously when you say that people will stop supporting Paul — then take a serious look at Hillary, like she’s just a hop-skip away from Paul’s platform — only to decide to go with Giuliani, like he’s some ideological counterweight to her? Pro-Giuliani folks may buy that theory, but likely only because they’re desperate to show contrast between Rudy and Hillary; so they’ll favor Rudy’s Republican-branded statism over the more overtly socialistic statism of Hillary.
The idea that most Ron Paul supporters will suddenly see either Hillary or Giuliani as a viable alternative is practically inconceivable. You underestimate and trivialize those voters’ constitutional values of individual liberty, prosperity, and peace. Surely you don’t believe that people are supporting Ron Paul for his willingness to use Executive privilege, “spread democracy,” disarm law-abiding US citizens, tweak bureaucracy, or shift revenues; do you?
Hi Eric,
I will not vote for anyone other then Ron Paul that’s it period.
How about some real numbers? Our meet up group meets every other week and some kind of support happens nearly every day for Ron. We now have just over 300 actual members but our last meeting had 403. A show of hands supports the following:
254 are GOP members
56 are donky members
31 Libertaian
17 constitution Party
45 were no party affilitation at all.
Look at the numbers!
I have been a GOP member with over 20 years before that I was a 20 year old with no voting direction. If it wasn’t for Ron Paul I would have joined the Constitution Party this year. Having voted for Bush I can only award him with a failing grade in every measured area. Ron Paul offers our nation a real chance for change.
In closing our orginal group stared with only four people after the fist GOP debate. Show me another canidate who has grown as fast as Paul and no I dont’ trust the polls at all. Why? I attended a Paul function a few weeks ago where he had over 1500 people the week before Mike Huckabee had only 140 people. So how can Mike Huckabee be ahead of Paul in the polls when Ron Paul has more support from every indication? As far as Rudy? I would never support Rudy vs a protest vote to oppose Hillary… Why? only Ron Paul has earned my vote.
First off, let me do this.
Next: Eric, are you insane? You think people who support Ron Paul now might shift to being real supporters of Giuliani? I’d rather vote for Hillary than that fascist.
Jeez. You’d think someone with a website in their own name could afford software which did some compartmentalizing.
Y’all don’t mind Eric. He is immune to logic and reason. He is obsessed Chicken Little style with the fear that islamofascists are going to invade America and force his wife to wear a burqua. He has yet to explain which Islamic military force is going to do this and how (that massive Iranian navy I guess), but like any mindless phobia facts don’t seem to matter to him.
I will not vote for either Hillary or Rudy; If that’s the choice, our country is f***ked.
Just once I’d like to hear a supporter of the “war on terror write large” explain to me exactly:
a. what our goal is…what constitutes victory in such a war?
b. how that goal is reasonably achievable
c. why all these terrorists who are supposedly itching to blow us up are so stupid that they fall for a war of distraction and start attacking our soldiers in Iraq instead of ocming over here to do their damage (the whole ‘we fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here’ line)
Ron Paul has said it well a number of times already, ‘terrorism’ is a tactic that some wicked people use to fight for their cause. How can we declare war on a tactic? It makes no sense. We war with nations, we use civil courts to punish individual criminals (which is what people who blow up innocent noncombatants to advance their political agendas are…see Timothy McVeigh). This is not a ‘weak’ foreign policy, it is a foreign policy that is actually practicable. There is nothing that will make us weaker than claiming a responsibilty and right to use military force to fight abstractions (like terror…). Such a war has no tangible goal that is reasonable and thus has no ‘face saving’ end. So we just do it forever and ever…until we sink our economy.
there is nothing conservative about preemptive war.
“As someone who routinely called myself a libertarian prior to 9/11, here’s how I would square the circle: Absolute freedom within our borders, for our own citizens; eternal vigilance and (when necessary) ruthlessness abroad. For libertarian ideals to survive, they must be relentlessly defended against the likes of Islamic extremists. Take a look at Andrew Sullivan’s writing right after 9/11 to see this ideal in its purest form; far from a religious crusade, ours was a war for secularism, tolerance, and free societies where gays don’t get stoned to death.”
You, Sir, are no Liberarian and clearly don’t understand the basic fundamental principles behind it. Any war for secularism, as your last sentence describes, involves imposing one ideology over another which is the opposite of what true secularism means. In fact, the entire secular agenda is ridiculous UNLESS part of a libertarian culture which allows various different individual, local and regional cultures to evolve as they see fit rather than sliding into centralised systems - which your approach demands - and which by DEFINIIION are absolutely and relatively NOT libertarian.
Another American pundit, ignorant, confused, confident, thoroughly misguided, intellectually deficient,spreading yet more confusion all over the place….
I see Patrick needs another Ron Paul post so that he can get some hits on his web site. It’s a simply formula. When you’re not getting any hits, ATTACK Ron Paul! You’re sure to draw a lot of responses in his defense.
Meanwhile we’re offered the enlightening tidbit that economic conservatives and national security conservatives will not support Ron Paul. Who was it that got the most contributions from military donors that last two quarters? Wouldn’t they be among the national security conservatives? What he means is that Ron Paul won’t get the support of the military-industrial complex and their media shills at the National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal. And, of course, on a small scale, Patrick’s own web site.
It’s the Bush Administration who’s getting heat from the Joint Chiefs of Staff over their hare-brained scheme to bomb Iran. It’s the Bush Administration that has been humilitated by its own Centcom Commander who has said that bombing Iran won’t happen on his watch.
And if national security conservatives can recognize dumb foreign policy when they see it, I think economic conservatives won’t be too hard to persuade.
Ron Paul certainly believes America has a right to defend itself - intelligently.
Add up the endorsements. Rudy Giuliani has more celebrity and elected officials who are libertarians endorsing him than all other Presidential candidates combined. Folks like Dennis Miller, Steve Forbes, Sally Pipes, Deroy Murdock, and today we learn of longtime Mass. GOP State Chairman Jim Rappaport.
Ron Paul has one good libertarian endorsement - Barry Goldwater II.
But compared to Rudy’s long list of libertarians behind him that’s small potatos indeed.
As far as I can see, most people who call themselves libertarians are socialists who want to legalize drugs. You can’t be a libertarian and support empire-building (euphemistically known as nation-building) abroad.
It is absurd to try to predict a primary election this early. Most people simply don’t make up their minds until the final week. Many a candidate has been known to double his numbers or even more in the final week. You can get a hint as to who has momentum by looking at the polls, but even that won’t tell you how much momentum or when the pendulum will swing the other way.
Romney is tied with Thompson in South Carolina in the latest Rasmussen poll. That goes along with leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. If Romney sweeps these early contests, the momentum could overwhelm Giuliani in the big Feb. 5 contests. So Giuliani is starting to attack Romney in New Hampshire. Usually a third candidate gains from such blood-letting (Check out NH - 1964. Rockefeller and Goldwater tore each other apart and Henry Cabot Lodge won on a write-in). McCain is old news, but Ron Paul is a new face who has just started to advertise and build name-recognition. Could NH, where anti-war sentiment is strong, go for RP. In a heart beat. I’m not predicting it. But it is far from inconceivable.
It’s like this - Democrats and Republicans are nothing
more than two strains of the same virus. At least,
that’s true of the parties in their present form.
Dr. Paul represents what Republicans historically have
been. He espouses the truly conservative ideas of small government (not the almost tripling in size that has come to pass under the current dunce in chief), a non interventionalist foreign policy (not “isolationism”
as the rabid corporate neocons refer to it), the protection of life, the return of the Constitutional liberties and freedom we’ve lost under the auspices of
the fictitious war on terror that was propogated by
a false flag event (9/11), and he wants to transfer the power to create and regulate money back to the Congress, as it was from the beginning.
He believes in protecting our borders for real, and not just blowing smoke about it like Bush has (our country was supposedly attacked by foreigners, and he wants to grant amnesty to illegals and make the borders more or less nonexistant? What the hell?) Bush and the neocons
are more than happy to sell us down the river to private
corporations, and under his watch our industry has tanked,
gas prices are at unbelievable prices because the dollar
has become so terribly devalued, and we’re involved in wars with two countries that never attacked us. Yeah,
give me more of that flavor of “repubilcan”.
If you want to continue having your rights eroded on the
basis of a lie, or if you want to see the country bankrupted by out of control spending, by all means,
vote Democrat or Republican. If your only choices come
from two corporate whore parties, how much choice do
you really have? Honestly, you only have one legitimate
choice. One man who has backed up his words with his
Congressional voting record. That man is Ron Paul.
Ron Paul for President in 08!
I remember voting for Bush in 2000. My main issue was his promise not to “police the world.” We do need to defend ourselves, but we don’t need to defend the whole world. Having served in the military, and done so overseas, I’ve seen first-hand how our overseas military operations is less about protecting America and more about keeping a presence in other countries and defending their countries for them.
I, as a patriot, am less concerned if a foreign country is attacked, even if it is an ally. They can defend themselves, and when that fails, that’s when we should deploy if our help is requested. We’re not getting anything for defending the world from all of the bad guys out there. What we’re doing is forcing American’s to foot the defense bill for the entire US while telling an entire generation that they must be the foot soldiers in this but they can’t expect anything promised to previous generations. If we are to defend the world, then the world needs to start paying America for the service. I’m tired of footing the bill for Japan’s defense, for Germany’s defense, and every other country out there. I’m patriotic to America, not Britain, Germany, Japan, or China.
Looking at my income for the year and how much went to taxes, and knowing how much higher taxes will need to go to pay the debts, I say the world can do without America’s generocity for a while. Let them die for their countries for a while, and in the meantime, we focus on America and America’s needs. That’s why I’m a Ron Paul supporter.
Patrick Ruffini?
Aren’t you the same guy who said Ron Paul would come in 2nd in Iowa Straw Poll?
As Dr. Paul said, you “have been wrong about everything else, why should we believe you now?”
And Eric Dondero: If you really believe that the average Ron Paul supporter will shift to Giuliani if Ron Paul doesn’t win any primaries, then you must _*really*_ want to see an end to the drug war, because you are smoking some really wacky weed.
Fiscally conservative (as if) and socially liberal doesn’t make one a Libertarian if it’s based on the personal preferences of the POTUS. A real Libertarian finds his liberty in the Constitution, a document that Julie-annie would use to wipe his ass, as soon as look at it.
Rudy is a:
Gun grabbing
Wiretapping
Waterboarding
Sneak and peeking
rendition approving
ferret hating
Authoritarian
warmonger
with no shred of decent respect for the Constitutional Duty of Congress to declare the wars.
Later.
Barry Goldwater Jr. is ’small potatoes’ as a libertarian endorsement compared to…who were those people you mentioned again, Eric? Oh yeah, I have heard of Dennis Miller. I’m not sure in what sense he’s a ‘libertarian.’ Is that what he says about himself?
This whole idea of preemptively warring libertarianism is an oxymoron. War only increases the power of the state, destroys property on a wide scale, and induces citizens out of fear to yield more to the state’s demands. None of this is libertarian, at all, and that’s assuming that the basic goals of the preemptive war were somehow good and noble. Even if that were so, the costs are too great as any libertarian should be able to see. But again we are sweating bullets over the coming Islamic takeover/bombing that is going to destroy our way of life. This seriously keeps us up at night, apparently. So much so that we will destory our way of life to keep it from happening.
Eric, I’d love to hear your answers to my questions from earlier:
a. what is ‘victory’ in the ‘war on terrorism’?
b. is this a reasonable (attainable) goal?
c. why does fighting a war abroad somehow distract jihadists from carrying out their nefarious plans over here? Are they just stupid?
“Take a look at Andrew Sullivan’s writing right after 9/11 to see this ideal in its purest form”
Andrew has seen the error of his way and recanted!
Mr. Ruffini, what part of illegally and wrongly invading Iraq was defending American interests? I suppose if you mean the tiny cabal of Americans who have profited immensely from the deaths of our people and theirs over these last years, you would be right. As for me, I fail to see where I benefit by this nation’s blood and treasure being spilled into the sand of the Fertile Crescent. If you really think that people need to be killed in Iraq to make us safe here, why not cut the B.S. and get off your keyboard and enlist already instead of cheering on death from afar. Blow off some 13-year old’s head and then try to convince yourself that it was somehow in defense of freedom. Sickening, sir, for shame.
Giuliani has psychotic dual Israeli-American citizens as his main advisors. Giuliani’s advisors have been described as “AIPAC’s dream team”.
Fuck you Dondero!
The military supports Ron Paul. He gets more campaign contributions from active military personel than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat. He gets more than half of all campaign contributions from veterans of former wars.
Ronald Reagan about Ron Paul:
“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense.”
“As a former air force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first”
“We need to keep him fighting for our country”
Ron Paul,
A Foreign Policy of Freedom
There is one and only one voice in Congress for a foreign policy of freedom, and it belongs to Ron Paul, who has stood alone for freedom for many years. Ron is the seemingly impossible: a voice for reason and truth in a den of thieves.
A Foreign Policy of Freedom is his 372-page manifesto, a collection of inspired statements to the House of Representatives that show him to be the most consistent and morally responsible politician, perhaps, in the whole of American history.
This book takes on a special significance with his 2008 run for the US presidency. Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., writes the introduction.
Recently, you might have heard Ron condemning foreign aid, the Iraq War, our vast and needlessly growing military budgets, bombings of this country and that, troops in most all countries in the world, and all the other meddlesome activities of the US empire. This foreign policy, Congressman Paul has pointed out, is contrary to American ideals, diminishes American liberty, and ends up making worse the very problems it seeks to alleviate.
But did you know that Ron has been delivering this message through thick and thin from his first day in Congress in 1976 until the present day? That’s 31 years of prophetic warnings, 31 years of courageous stands against the tide, 31 years of being proven right by subsequent events. There are no flip-flops, backpeddles, regrets, or coverups. He has told the truth again and again, no matter what it cost him.
In the middle of the Cold War, he decried the endless streams of subsidies from the US to communist governments. At the same time, he stood firm against aid to insurgents seeking to overthrow those regimes. He sensibly pointed out that the Soviet Union would collapse if it had to face financial reality, and an end to US aid would make that possible. He has been a stickler on the power of the presidency, refusing to grant the president authority to start wars without Congressional approval.
Herein you will find a chronicle of hypocrisy. Paul condemned the policy that subsidized Saddam Hussein, and the policy that waged war on Iraq and killed Saddam. The same is true of Noriega in Panama and the “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan who later made up the shock troops of Al-Qaeda.
“Our experiment with foreign policy interventionism has failed, just as our experience with domestic economic interventionism has failed,” he said in 1982.
He said the same in mid-1990s.
“War, and the threat of war, are big government’s best friend,” he wrote only recently. “Liberals support big government social programs, and conservatives support big government war policies, thus satisfying two major special interest groups. And when push comes to shove, the two groups cooperate and support big government across the board — always at the expense of personal liberty. Both sides pay lip service to freedom, but neither stands against the welfare-warfare state and its promises of unlimited entitlements and endless war.”
In many ways, this book is a history of a quarter century of folly, told by a man who saw what others did not, and had the temerity to state his view publicly. No voice for peace has been as consistent in the demand that government stop its intervention across the board. No supporter of free markets has been so determined to apply the logic of liberty to all aspects of foreign policy.
This book makes Ron Paul’s place in history. There has never been anything so forthright, truth telling, and ultimately devastating from a US politician. Not since Taft has there been a book like this, and this one makes Taft’s own classic seems vague and abstract by comparison.
I think some of the most valid numbers are that the MSM is losing its base down between (in regards to the papers these numbers are circulation) 40-60 percent ABC, CBS, CNN,NY TIMES, BOSTON GLOBE, etc. They seem to be worried as to why people do not want to pay for badly informed, totally biased and compromised news. This news come out from several times daily to once a week.When you have a million sources on the web,who needs these dinosaurs Plus a person can interact with most of it.The news on the web is always being up dated. Why wait?
What the MSM does not understand is the game is up. The consumers of news are now in control for the first time, perhaps. They do not seem to like these facts.I believe this is one the contributing factors to so many hit pieces on Ron Paul. The second is his lack of support for the jewish lobby and most of the major outlets are controlled jewish people. This is the major reason Ron Paul gets little tv coverage and when he does he gets treated poorly. In the news papers you find him if at all,in sections other than politics where you find all the other candidates even Gravel. If you go to the newspapers’ or magazines’ websites you have to scroll to the bottom or the next page to find anything about him. Then there is all the name calling a”kook, flake, crazy, magoo fringe, racist, etc”.(they forget he is a member of the US congress). Then there are other things like polls if you see him in a poll on tv that he has won, he will not be on the top but in the middle. LIKE FOX for example ghouliani is always on top of him even after he has lost. WHO DECIDES WHO TOP TIERED ANY WAY? They always seem to get preferred coverage anyway. It is sad that these people have controlled the media this way, with the internet it is now totally clear. The so called reporters if they can be called this should be ashamed.
they are never right any way like you because it is a new day and the internet means if you suck people gonna laugh. so I am laugh at your biased lame badly written story and I say to myself doesn’t this guy have any dignity?
Most people in this country now use computers and it is a powerful and possibly the first equalizing force between the masses and the people in power. NO MORE WILL WE LET YOU DECIDE WHO THE NOMINATION IS GOING TO BE.
Americans do not want to be suppressed and I think this is Ron Paul greatest appeal. His next great appeal is the war parents do not want their child to be the last to die in a war that they can clearly is a lie. LOOK AT BLACK ARMY ENLISTMENTS.
Here is a bit of how those so called polls work in S. Carolina, fred thompson is in the lead then mike huckabee (he has raised a fraction of Ron Paul’s money, he has had a little more tv time then R.P. now he is ahead according to the polls .How this happens I KNOW NOT BUT HE IS NOW GETTING THE PRESS r.p. SHOULD GET)25 to 23 percent respectively. In this poll Ron Paul is at 4%. the key thing here is this when asked about the president bush’s performance 79 percent thought he was a good job. 79%, I do not know what planet they are on. They is a more out of touch than Whitehouse. That sums up the validity of the MSM and those joke polls.
THE INTERNET HAS ARRIVED AND IT IS THE DOMINATE FORCE IN THIS COUNTRY>
Xon, what is victory in the War on Terrorism? What we’ve got now. We’ve won. And it’s been one of the most glorious victories in the history of the United States Military.
Would you have ever thought on September 12, 2001, that we’d go 7 years without another attack on the soil of the US? Nobody thought that! But it’s happened. Bush deserves a great deal of credit for this. Yes, he could have done more. But Iraq and Afghanistan have been enormous victories in the War on Terror.
Let’s recap:
1. We got Saddam Hussein - the Hitler of our time. Greatest victory since WWII easy.
2. We got his two murderous thug sons Uday and Qusay.
3. We got Zarcawi.
4. We captured Khalid Sheik Muhammed, the Mastermind behind 9/11.
5. We liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban. Huge, huge victory.
6. We liberated Iraq from the grasp of Terrorist supporting, Kurk murdering Saddam Hussein, and installed a democracy.
Losses? Yes, there’s been a couple:
1. We still have not gotten Bin Laden or Ayman Al-Zwahiri.
2. We never got Mullah Omar.
Bush has failed on those two fronts. But compared to getting Saddam Hussein, you could make the argument that getting Bin Laden in the grand scheme of things was less important.
Mike, so what you’re saying is that the problem with Giuliani is he’s “too close to the Jews,” ‘eh?
Spoken like a true Nazi, straight out of the David Duke, Don Black, David Macko handbook. Oh, and what a coincidence, those three are all supporting Ron Paul.
What American interests were we defending in attacking Saddam Hussein?
Let’s see now: How about the 37 US SAILORS WHO WERE KILLED BY SADDAM HUSSEIN IN THE LATE 1980S ON BOARD THE USS STARK!!! (They were shipmates of mine.)
Funny how the Neo-Nazis always talk about the attack of the Israeli Air Force on the USS Liberty off the coast of Israel back in 1969, but you never, ever hear a peep out of them about the Iraqis blowing up the USS Stark and killing 37 US Sailors, twenty years later.
Who is Dennis Miller? Only the Nation’s Number One libertarian (tied with Jonn Stossel and Neal Boortz).
He’s a comedian who regularly espouses libertarian views on O’Reilly, the Number One Cable News show in America. He also has a nationally syndicated radio show. And he’s also a Sports broadcaster. Miller used to be on Saturday Night Live. He’s a diehard Free Market advocate who wants to cut taxes greatly, a fierce opponent of the Left and their government growing schemes, and a critic of those who want to impose the Nanny-state on Americans through smoking bans, outlawing of prostitution, and censorship through political correctness. He’s also a staunch supporter of the Military and opponent of Islamo-Fascism.
He’s simply the Greatest libertarian to come along since PJ O’Rourke.
Kevin,
And Ron Paul is a:
Neo-Nazi apologizing,
Women’s rights banning,
Immigrant bashing,
Lyndon Larouchie conspiracy sounding,
Beer drinker hating,
Islamo-Fascist loving,
America-bashing,
extremist kook.
The American Conservative Magazine reported July 18th, 2005, on Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago. Here is some of what he had to say:
“Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources—Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others—so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.”
“This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.”
“This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.”
“The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.”
“Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.”
“Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.”
-Robert Pape, author of Dying To Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism.
Source: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html
This article is complete gibberish.
We invaded Iraq about 2 months after they changed their medium for oil exchange from the dollar to that euro. That cut one of the only strongholds that the USA had left on world economy. WE ARE BANKRUPT. With the exception of Russia and one or two other countries, the entire world exchnges oil based on the American dollar. When Iraq switched up, Bush announced that Suddam had WMD and off we went. After we were there for a couple of months, Iraq returned to exchanging oil on the dollar under our oppression. I wonder why? History tells us what works and what doesn’t and we have current examples all over the world that show us what doesn’t work, including but not limited to right here in the USA. If Ron Paul doesn’t win, the American people can, according to our constitution, get rid of government. If more people opened more books we would already know this as a nation. And why are we promoting Democracy in Iraq with guns? WE aren’t a Democracy! WE ARE A REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!! …and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands. There is a big difference and if you don’t know what it is, I suggest you read up on political philosophies. And if you do know the difference, you might want to ask yourselves why we hear it all the time that we are a democracy! It’s in the details that we are brain-washed. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
Eric, you’re committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I bought a magic rock that allegedly keeps tigers away. In seven years I have not been mauled by any tigers. All thanks be to my magic rock!
Let’s see now: How about the 37 US SAILORS WHO WERE KILLED BY SADDAM HUSSEIN IN THE LATE 1980S ON BOARD THE USS STARK!!! (They were shipmates of mine.)
Funny how the Neo-Nazis always talk about the attack of the Israeli Air Force on the USS Liberty off the coast of Israel back in 1969, but you never, ever hear a peep out of them about the Iraqis blowing up the USS Stark and killing 37 US Sailors, twenty years later.
So we go to war, and kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians (who had not managed to be killed by Saddam, somehow), over 37 sailors? I’m not a utilitarian per se, but at some point numbers have to play into a reasonable analysis.
We lost over 200 Marines in Beirut, and Reagan pulled out. No massive-scale war of revenge.
Xon, what is victory in the War on Terrorism? What we’ve got now. We’ve won. And it’s been one of the most glorious victories in the history of the United States Military.
Would you have ever thought on September 12, 2001, that we’d go 7 years without another attack on the soil of the US? Nobody thought that! But it’s happened. Bush deserves a great deal of credit for this. Yes, he could have done more. But Iraq and Afghanistan have been enormous victories in the War on Terror.
On 9/11 I was already a convinced paleoconservative who believed that Islam will always hate the Christian West, yet at the same time I also believed that our foreign policy often makes things much worse than they need to be by poking these monsters in the eye with a stick for no good reason. So when the towers fell I mourned with everyone else, but I also thought at that time that the monster had just come in the back door that we left open for him. Unfortunately we continue to do the same crap.
And if, God forbid, we DO get attacked agian, then everyone will acknowledge that Bush is a failure, right?
I don’t approve of this sort of analysis, either way. Wicked men want to do wicked things. A few of them may succeed. Our borders are wide open, our ports are not well guarded, our airports STILL let contraband through all the time, etc. Ultimately I have simply gotten to the point where I would rather live my life as a free man, and if I get blown up by a wacko one day while going to work, so be it. I’d rather enjoy life now then live in constant fear. I don’t know why you don’t feel the same way, but in this country freedom is the dominant value so you war supporters need to come up with something besides “we’re going to die! We’re going to die!” to get us to give ours up. That has finally worn a bit thin after seven years.
Besides, there are not nearly so many people who truly want to travel over here and blow us up anyway. There are a LOT of Islamist radicals who want to see Islam take over the world, but that’s not the same thing as it actually being a possibility. Want to know how I know there are not very many people actually itching to come over here and kill us? Because it doesn’t happen that often! Think about it: if you or I really wanted to kill a bunch of people at a coffee shop, and we didn’t care if we died too, we could do it very easily. In any remotely free society, there is simply no way to prevent such atrocities from EVER occurring through sheer force of law. Yet despite how easy it is to do if you are so inclined, it doesn’t happen all that often (relatively speaking). My theory is that this is because not all that many people are actually so inclined.
Again, there are a lot of Islamist radicals who hate the west. But that’s not the same thing as being willing to travel across the world and kill people who have done nothing to you. Basic human nature kicks in for a lot of people in that situation, and makes them far less likely to act on their hatred in that extreme of a way. Unless, that is, we do something to rile them up…
But as far as Iraq and Afghanistan being ‘victories’ in the ‘war on terror,’ again I am asking you to DEFINE what that even means. You list a bunch of stuff where our military killed so and so or overthrew such and such. And that’s great; our military is the best in the world and it can accomplish all kinds of tactical goals. But I’m asking about the point of the WAR, not this or that particular battle. If we’re talking about a war on ‘terror’, ‘writ large’ as Patrick said in his original post, then the War in Iraq is only one battle in the larger theatre. My question is about that larger theatre. What exactly is our reason for the larger war? What are we trying to ACCOMPLISH in the war on terror? Wipe all terrorists off the face of the earth? Wipe all governments who fail to fully control terrorists off the face of the earth? Keep the world stable and democratic, all the time? I’m asking seriously, and it is curious that you did not answer me directly earlier. Instead of simply saying “we’ve already won,” yet we appear to be fighting still, tell me WHAT it is that we’ve won exactly? What has the war in Iraq done to defeat ‘terror’?
And of course, if God forbid some terrorists who are angered by our current war end up blowing up a building over here in 20 years, and a new Ron Paul comes along and calls it ‘blowback’, you will say he’s crazy and the whole cycle will start all over again. You refuse to see simple cause and effect in human action as it relates to our foreign policy, and so to you every act of hatred is treated as an isolated act of pure evil. Evil people just attacked us because that’s what they wanted to do, period. Such explanations should not satisfy free people in a thinking society.
But compared to getting Saddam Hussein, you could make the argument that getting Bin Laden in the grand scheme of things was less important.
Riiight….because “9/11 changed everything.” 9/11 was so horrible, in fact, that it made us lose all sense of proportion and caused us to care more about a petty tyrant in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 rather than the mastermind of the atrocity.
Eric,
Your argument proves nothing. Bin Laden has been quite open about his strategy. The bombing of the World Trade Center was not to be followed by another attack on U.S. soil. The purpose of the bombing was to incite the U.S. to attack him in Afghanistan where he would fight us the same way he did the Soviets. In the process, the U.S. would go bankrupt just as the Soviets did.
So far his strategy is working beautifully. Not only have we attacked him in Afghanistan, but Bush has invaded Iraq as well. Afghanistan alone couldn’t bankrupt the U.S. but Bush has helped bin Laden out. Anyone who thinks we are “winning” in Iraq OR Afghanistan just isn’t paying attention. We actually won the wars in both countries. It’s the occupations that we are losing. This is hardly a surprise. Occupations are always very difficult unless the occupied country has already been exhausted by a very destructive war as happened with Germany and Japan after WW II. Empires fall because they are too expensive. Bin Laden understands this. Bush does not.
The real test of the success of the Ron Paul campaign probably won’t be known until 2012. I think it is premature to claim that Ron Paul has won, in the sense that he has changed the terms of the debate.
But, assuming a Democrat victory in 2008, there will be a big fight for control of the Republican Party which will manifest in a battle between the neo-cons and the paleo-conservatives and libertarians. Evangelical Christians may well hold the balance of power in that struggle.
Neo-cons have little popular support. They’re strength rests in the conservative media from Fox News to the Weekly Standard, in the well-funded Washington think tanks, and in control of the national party apparatus.
The really important question is, will paleo-cons and libertarians walk? Will they leave the Republican Party altogether and try to form a third movement? If so, the GOP would be reduced to permanent minority status once again. It might even lose out to a third movement.
The real legacy of the Bush Administration where party politics is concerned is in the destruction of the coalition of national security conservatives, economic conservatives, and social conservatives. That coalition is in disarray. It may never unite again.
That’s a great point rob.
I think that when push comes to shove though, the neocons will fall in line. They may represent 10-20% of the population, no way they’ll go it alone.
The U.S. has such a strong liberty streak that at some point they’ll have to face facts. Big government warfare states aren’t any more popular than big government welfare states.
So they’ll steal from the liberal playbook, demonize their opponents as racists and lunatics. They’ll pass laws to shore up their power and introduce a concept of political correctness that means you’re unpatriotic if you disagree with them. But that never really works i the long run.
The socialists in the democratic party have been playing that strategy for 60 years now, and all it’s done is foster resentment. The neocons will hit the same wall.
Rob, why would we libertarians align ourselves with the Paleo-Cons. We’re Goldwater Republicans. We’re Pro-Defense. The Paleo-Cons are opposed to the War on Islamo-Fascism.
Yes, we disagree with the social conservatism of the NeoCons. But in such a match-up I think the NeoCons come out ahead with us libertarians, cause of our shared views in fighting Islamo-Fascism.
They want to fight Islamo-Fascists cause they’re religious Christians. We libertarians want to fight Islamo-Fascists cause we see them as a threat to our civil liberties: outlaw prostitution, marijuana, free speech rights, force women to wear burqas, ect..
But we both are united in our hatred for the Islamo-Fascists.
haha “we” libertarians.
Libertarianism is in it’s essence the philosophy of non-aggression. That’s the beauty of being a libertarian. It’s not a bunch of ad hoc positions taken willy nilly, its a principled philosophy based on axioms.
Thus, you can take a few benchmark ideals from libertarianism and deduce the remainder of the policies.
For example, government control is coercive, by its definition, so libertarians favor as little of it as possible.
Here’s a fine example.
“The Libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.” - For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, by Murray N. Rothbard
You have demonstrated your utter ignorance of the libertarian principles, so no matter what you label yourself as, you’re ignorance doesn’t pass the test.
If you think the neocons are even remotely similar to actual paleocons or libertarians this is further proof that you lack even average intelligence.
THE basis of the libertarian party is the nonagression axiom. Claiming to be pro-war and a libertarian just means you dont understand the word you reference.
I would like to assume for a moment that you’re actually honest in your ignorance.
If this is so, then that would mean that you’re a pro-war/small government advocate. I hope you understand the implications of the two. Each are antagonistic to the other. You’d just as well claim to be pro-welfare/small government. Neither is more incompatible than the other.
No, you sure got that wrong. What you describe is Anarchism.
The essence of libertarianism is “fiscally conservative/socially tolerant.”
Simple as that.
Sorry Chris Matthews. It’s Islamo-Fascism which is inconsistent with libertarian philosophy.
Islamo-Fascists wish to force our wives/girlfriends to wear ugly black burqas from head to toe, outlaw free speech particularly for newspaper cartoonists, stone prostitutes in the town square, jail all marijuana smokers for life, and cut off the genitals of our gay friends.
How is that consistent with libertarian philosphy?
And if you oppose the War on Islamo-Fascism you’re as good as an Islamo-Fascist supporter yourself.
Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism = Libertarian
Anti-War on Islamo-Fascism = Fascist
Doubt “my libertarianism”?
I’ve got a libertarian resume that would make your head spin, buddy:
2 years - Libertarian National Committee
2 years - Libertarian Party of Florida Secretary
Libertarian candidate for State Legislature
2 years - Travel Aide, Ron Paul, Libertarian for President, 1987/88
Florida Chairman, Libertarian Republican Organizing Comm. 1989/90
1990, Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus
Personal Aide, 1976 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Roger MacBride, 5 years
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1996
Senior Aide, US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), 1997-2003
Match that Newbie!
haha, I’ll match that easily. I understand what the word libertarian means.
You neglected your 2 weeks run for Paul’s office you abandoned in your resume there bud.
Hillary was a republican in college, what does that mean? The same thing your past exploits mean, nothing.
I realize you got fired(by Ron Paul) for not being literate and all but it’s really sad to see you whore yourself out for a crossdresser. Let it go man, it takes about 30 seconds of research to understand you lack a grasp of the concepts being discussed.
You’re a libertarian but you didn’t know about the nonaggression axiom? Let me guess, Keynes was the founder of Austrian economics!
The notion that any Islamic country could force the US to do anything is patently foolish at face value. It doesn’t require actual analysis, and equating the nonaggression axiom with facism is equally laughable.
There is a century old celebrated history of libertarianism, its premise, its ideals, and its axioms. You have understood none.
There are schools of libertarianism that believe that property is sacrosanct, and schools that believe that property is theft. There are minarchists and anarchists, there are a diverse set of viewpoints under the libertarian fold, but they all hold the nonagression axiom as their basis.
You sir, are not a libertarian.
Let me ammend that. You are a self styled neo-libertarian, and like the neoconservative movement came from the democratic party, you happen to come from a party of your betters.
I think you, and the few people like you play an important role in the political movement, primarily as a “what not to do” compass.
Look at the title of this post… now consider, Paul is shaping this debate in important ways, whether he wins the nomination or just shapes the election he’ll have done his part for moving liberty forward.
You’re a very active internet personality, and you clearly believe in your message, but you should understand that “your message” is not libertarian. I personally don’t care what you label yourself as, except when your misnomer may become confusing for other people.
You’ve chosen the mainstream practice of choosing your positions ad hoc, based on what you “feel”. That’s fine for you and i hope it makes you happy, but libertarianism is based on a set of principles and axioms, the remainder of its policies are deduced from the axioms, in other words, it’s a social science, not a grab bag of personal tastes and gauging what you can sell the public.
In other words, you’re trying to relate physics and astrology. Now, i dont personally care if you tell everyone what your “sign” is or tell everyone that your “Scorpio” is coming out, just don’t try to sell it as physics.
In the spirit of a lively and purposeful debate –Being necessary for the public choosing of policy in a republic– Shall you, Mr. Dondero, care to counter Professor Robert Pape’s research?
Gay Sex Galleries Of Gay Sex Gay Male Porn…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…