« This Week's Business News | Main | Working for Failure in Iraq »

The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul

John Hawkins makes the conservative case against Ron Paul's candidacy at Townhall today. Having mentioned Paul in a couple of columns and gotten quite a bit of reaction from some Paul supporters, I am really feeling John's point #5.

Comments (40)

If that article claims that... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

If that article claims that Paul is "more liberal" than Kucinich, then the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have lost all meaning.

Respect for, and promotion of, individual liberty should be the highest priority for any politician and Ron Paul is the best on that criterion. He doesn't believe in unnecessary foreign entanglements and spoke the truth when he said our foreign policy was a factor in the 9-11 attacks even though both beliefs run totally afoul of Bush's brand of NeoConservatism, which isn't really conservative at all.

He also doesn't believe in government getting involved in the affairs of churches or of the free association of individuals. You'd think both of those would be considered "conservative" as well.

I agree that his racial remarks are troublesome, but there's really no racism in his voting record.

As for the "truthers," there are still some questions that need answering about 9-11, and when government is so reluctant to address these issues, it only raises further suspicions. If Paul wants to open up all the records to the public, I think that woud be great.

As for his electability, well, that's strictly objective and I can understand that the party, which gets tons of cash from lots of groups who believe government should be their means of meddling in the lives of individuals, would be worried about someone who would tell all of them to take a hike, but it's very refreshing. Reminds me a lot of the Republican party from the days of Barry Goldwater.

So maybe you folks should read the record and not just the slanted words of a site whose business it is to advance the NeoCon agenda.

"Subjective," not "objectiv... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

"Subjective," not "objective" in para 6. It's been a long day...

Ron Paul needs a case made ... (Below threshold)

Ron Paul needs a case made against him?

Why, he does that very well himself.

Other than phony online polls that have been spammed by the kos kiddies and others he has the amount of support he deserves, near zero.

And I should have added... ... (Below threshold)

And I should have added... this is Ron Paul:

"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

Obviously BS as he discounts every attack on U.S. interests prior to 9/11.

Moreover he apparently is no authority (i.e. clueless) on what Osama has said on the U.S. presence in the Middle East:

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

Ron Paul is irrelevant. He ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Ron Paul is irrelevant. He is not even a blip on the presidential radar screen.

Ron Paul is very important ... (Below threshold)

Ron Paul is very important in the campaigm process for the 2008 election cycle. He's the sole person responsible for keeping John Edwards being the worst example of any person who chose to run for our nation's highest office. He's also good for a few laughs too, as are his supporters.

That should read 'from bein... (Below threshold)

That should read 'from being', it's hard to laugh at idiocy of that level and type at the time.

He's got the liberaltarian ... (Below threshold)

He's got the liberaltarian vote locked up, but then again, I would trust a liberaltarian as much as a liberal when it comes to national security.

Guess you were busy laughin... (Below threshold)

Guess you were busy laughing at yourself when you tried to correct yourself.

bryanD?====... (Below threshold)


He really needs to get a la... (Below threshold)

He really needs to get a last name. "Ron Paul" sounds like what you call Ron Paul Flickenbingen to differentiate him from Ron Phillip Flickenbingen.

Ron Paul is actually RuPaul... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Ron Paul is actually RuPaul in disguise.

As a Texas, Ron Paul is kno... (Below threshold)

As a Texas, Ron Paul is known as a flake. ww

He's an out and out loon as... (Below threshold)

He's an out and out loon as proved by his actions and words.

"If that article claims that Paul is "more liberal" than Kucinich, then the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have lost all meaning."

Not really, try comparing his voting record to Kucinich's to see where he stands.

By the way, Fred is channel... (Below threshold)

By the way, Fred is channeling Solon; a little Kitto cat told me so.

"the terms "liberal" and... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have lost all meaning"

That happened a long time ago. "Liberal" now means "pro-abortion socialist" which is the antithesis of liberal and I'm not sure what "conservative" means anymore.

P. Bunyan: How would YOU d... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

P. Bunyan: How would YOU define "conservative?" For me, it's always meant small government, sound economic policies and minimizing the impact of Washington in the lives of individuals. It's only been the last 25 years or so that conservatism has become linked with so many intrusive social policies, which *used* to be something that defined liberalism.

Gmac: Let me ask you the s... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Gmac: Let me ask you the same question I asked Bunyan above -- How would YOU define "conservative?"

I agree with your definitio... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I agree with your definition Paul.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinic... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich should get together on a "third party" ticket. That way people who are a few bricks shy of a load, have one oar out of the water, are not playing with a full deck, or are a few beans shy of a burrito will have someone for whom to vote.

Correction to my 12:42 comm... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Correction to my 12:42 comment:

I agree that Paul's defintion is what "conservative" USED To mean.

You forgot "two fries short... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

You forgot "two fries short of a Happy Meal" and "their elevator doesn't run all the way to the top floor." :)

Okay, P., so do you think t... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Okay, P., so do you think the current drift of the party is a good thing or a bad thing?

Dang! I've got to check my... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Dang! I've got to check my words before I click...

I meant do you think the current drift of the definition of conservatism toward a more values-centered agenda is a good or a bad thing?

The Ron Paul issue is very ... (Below threshold)

The Ron Paul issue is very interesting. For a candidate that can't win, an awful lot of blogosphere is used up trying to convince everyone what a loser he is.

If he is harmless and impact-less and doesn't register in polls, why is he hated so much by the corporate-republicans?

He is quite popular in his home district. He's honest. He hasn't been indicted. He IS NOT a lawyer!!! He doesn't kow-tow to list after list of donors and special interest groups. He favors low taxes, small government and personal responsibility. He is also in favor of not being invloved in one war after another.

I almost forgot possibly the biggest reason of why he is hated. Ron Paul believes in the U.S. Constitution and the limits it places on the federal government!!!

Once again, why is he hated by the corporate-republicans?

I think the current drift i... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I think the current drift is a bad thing. I think it had a lot to do with the 2006 election results.

Howard Dean seems pretty nutty to me most of the time, but his "50 state" strategy was brilliant. He new that America was a lot more conservative than socialist, so many of the Democrats who were running last year simply pretended to be conservative. And it worked. It fooled a lot of people--of course that's not a hard thing to do.

The real question is, will the people figure out that they were hood winked before 2008?

I think it really depends on whether the Democrat controlled congress is successful in their attempts to let the terrorists claim victory in Iraq or not.

But I could be wrong.

It will be hilarious watchi... (Below threshold)
C Bowen:

It will be hilarious watching "conservatives" fall in line to support whatever leftist Republican gets nominated. Fred Thompson, Council on Foreign Relations? Too funny. Yeah, he'll fix immigration...

"He IS NOT a lawyer!!!"<... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"He IS NOT a lawyer!!!"

O.k., I'll grant you that is a big plus and in that one respect Paul beats Fred Thompson (and pretty much every Democrat).

Still, in Fred's case, I'll have to violate my cardinal rule (never vote for lawyers!).

Actually I support the core values of the Libertarians almost 100%. However, when they get into the specifics, the way the choose to apply those values, tje loose me big time.

It's a shame...

@2:37 "tje" = "they"... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

@2:37 "tje" = "they"

@2:21 "new" = "knew"

Paul I just re-read your 1:... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Paul I just re-read your 1:00 pm comment and I have to correct my 2:21 comment.

I don't have a problem with "the current drift of the definition of conservatism toward a more values-centered agenda". I don't even recognize that drift as I think they've been there pretty much my whole life.

I was refering to the drift toward big government socialism. That is a bad thing.

P., what you are calling so... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

P., what you are calling socialism, and I call the nannystate is a real issue. And to me, it's just as wrong whether it comes from the purported left or the purported right.

I'll admit that a few decades ago, there was a drive by the liberals and the Democrats to stick the government's nose in EVERYTHING. When I was a teenager and an idealist, I was all for it, but I gradually came to the awareness that you cannot impose morality from above. In the name of "making life better" for the folks in ghettoes, we went through a decade or so of putting up huge housing projects like Cabrini Green in Chicago. The result was that everything that was wrong in the ghettoes -- crime, drugs, poverty, etc -- was still there, and more concentrated than ever. It was a classic case of good intentions leading directly to hell. I could go into details about why it was doomed to failure but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

Now this sort of fuzzy liberal utopia is pretty much behind us, and good riddance, but unfortunately it's fall was interpreted by some folks on the other side of the political spectrum as an endorsement of their own narrow agenda.

Now we have efforts to impose religion on children in the public schools, putting symbolic faux-patriotism above the sort of respect for individual rights that the country TRULY stands for, and most especially the effort to swap liberty for the illusion of security.

And when you really get down to it, stuff like the USA-PATRIOT Act is the faux-conservative version of the faux-liberals' projects. These folks perceive a problem and impose their own vision of a better society. For the left, it was a sort of enfored equality of outcomes, and for the right, it was a nation where they had much more ability to pursue their perceptions of a multitude of enemies both within and without.

But the one thing both had in common was that it disregarded the well-being of the average person. Their own individual wants and needs were submerged in a "greater good" which was really no good at all.

Bottom line is that we don't need to live in government-provided housing singing Kumbaya, we need to provide the means and the encouragement for people to better themselves. And we don't need to have Big Brother watching over our shoulders to make sure we are "patriotic enough" or have the government-approved beliefs, or simply snooping around at ALL in things that are none of the government's business.

So socialism/nannystate government comes in many forms and we need to be wary of all of them. And -- to finally tie this epic post back to the thread -- that's why I respect Ron Paul.

"Now we have efforts to ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Now we have efforts to impose religion on children in the public schools"

What? Can you give me an example?

Also can you give me an actual real, non-hypothetical example of the Patriot Act infringing on someone's liberties? I mean someone who did not have ties to terrorism?

I can sympathize with you Paul, in that you, like me, seem to have problems with both parties, but I believe the Republicans are the lesser of the two evils while you seem the thing the Democrats are. I could be wrong about that though-- your early posts at WizBlue seem to betray that conclusion somewhat. And by early posts I means those made in the early days of that site. I can't comment on what you posted there recently as I don't have the energy or desire to wade through that pool of evil sewage anymore.

Examples of religion in the... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Examples of religion in the public schools would include religion classes, and prayers as a part of commencement activities as opposed to having a separate religious observance as a part of graduation week, like when I was in school. There are many others including the "under God" in the Pledge (which is now mandatory in most states), and wasn't a part of the Pledge until the 50s and prayers before public school athletic events.

And I'm not hostile to religion -- just hostile to the government deciding that EVERYONE needs a dose of their chosen religion as a part of attendance in a public school. I think an ideal solution is what happens in my home town. Students who *choose* to do so gather around the flagpole before the start of classes. They all form a circle and join hands and someone says a prayer and then they go inside. That way, those who want a religious observance as a part of the school day can have it and those who do not don't have it imposed on them. Everyone wins.

And P., you need to realize that the very fact that the government keeps records of my banking activities, library rentals and all the other activities of my life is an infringement on my liberties in itself. That's why we have the fourth amendment.

And as I said in the long note above, both parties are equally guilty of disrespect for the constitution. They manifest that disrespect in different ways and it's my belief that stuff like Bush's snooping and holding citizens prisoner indefinitely without trial far exceed any danger from earlier Dem attempts at social engineering. So I will continue to hold both parties' feet to the fire, and I expect congress to reverse the worst of the recent abuses ASAP.

And I'm sorry you feel that way about Blue. Like any site that features peoples' comments, it's as good -- or bad -- as the people who post there. I appreciate the objectivity and friendly nature of the exchanges I've had on this subject and the one yesterday and if people use that same attitude over on Blue, it could be just as good.

Forget Ron Paul! The fake ... (Below threshold)

Forget Ron Paul! The fake conservative who is leading in the polls is Rudy G.! Now I ask you: does anyone who supports the right to abortion, supports gun control, and is just mildly homophobic deserve to be the presidential nominee of that conservative party known as the Republican Party?

Before you answer, you bible-loving conservatives, recall this:

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. (Deut. 22:5)

And then check out Rudy bedazzling Donald Trump in this video here:


Ask yourselves, conservatives, do you like the dress that Rudy is wearing and does Rudy Giuliani TRULY share your superstitious religious beliefs?

I can't understand how he k... (Below threshold)

I can't understand how he keeps getting reelected. That's right up there with liberals pretending to be conservatives and fooling their electorates enough to win.

Thank you, P&P.=====... (Below threshold)

Thank you, P&P.

"...does Rudy Giuliani TRUL... (Below threshold)

"...does Rudy Giuliani TRULY share your superstitious religious beliefs?"

For a moment there I thought you weren't lying and were actually a religious person concerned about abortion and gun control and social issues. But I guess that's because I didn't read closely and notice the "slightly homophobic" description.

I detest people, and I mean that in the nicest possible way, who promote intolerance and homophobia for the purpose of manipulating their political opponents.

All for a good cause, eh?

Paul Hamilton, you hit the ... (Below threshold)

Paul Hamilton, you hit the nail on the head.

bryanD?====Po... (Below threshold)

Posted by: kim

Sorry, JT banned me. (But if I were here, I would say "Ron Paul "08!")

Can't he let you out pendin... (Below threshold)

Can't he let you out pending appeal? It's just awful around here without the tunes, the 'toons, and the 'tude, Dude.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy