Hey, Ron Paul Republicans!?! It's Time For A GOP Palace Coup!
With all the party and media babble about who is better equipped to take over the Republican party in the wake of the bloodbath of the '08 election, it's impressive how deeply the pundits have been able to repress the memory of the Ron Paul campaign.
After all, compare the Ron Paul 'Revolution' campaign with Barack Obama's now acknowledged electoral genius. That stuff Republicans are now realizing they have to do in the future? Paul did it months ago. Excited new voters beyond the base? Check. Raised massive amounts of money from small donations online? Ditto. Legions of creative people generating their own campaign content on YouTube and beyond? Did it. Young voters? Had those.
The biggest problem for Ron Paul and his supporters is the turd-in-the-punchbowl way they were treated by the Republicans. Remember Rudy's snide confusion over the idea that the United State's foreign policy may have somehow have been a factor in why the U.S. was attacked on 9/11? Recall the debate shunning?
But look how things have changed. McCain's psuedo-maverick-ism tore the Republicans a gaping new one after they collectively rejected Ron Paul; the only candidate with ideas for real, actual change...such as ending the Iraq War.
The beauty of the current GOP anarchy is that it may present the perfect chance for the anarachists to take over the establishment. Or the anarcho-capitalists or limited government small L libertarians and or whatever y'all can agree on. (And good luck on that -- agreement isn't what libertarians do well.)
The party is ripe for the taking. Ripe, I say!
It's weeks past the election. Everyone should have sobered up by now. The fact that there is a significant chunk of Republicans that are still crushing on Sarah Palin shows that it's time show the same mercy for the Grand Old Party that The Chief showed to Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest -- any sense of rational thought is gone, so pull out the pillow and start smothering until the kicking stops.
Now here's a tougher question. Do you want the Republican Party? It's got high name recognition and if the two logo choices are the elephant or the donkey, I think the elephant wins. Sure, you don't want most of the people left behind after the Obama rapture devastated Karl Rove's dream of a Permanent Republican Majority and sent anyone with a bow tie, an IQ of over 100 and a dog earned copy of Atlas Shrugged floating off to conservative Valhalla. The ragtag band of people that remain in the blue hats mainly agree that gays shouldn't marry and that straights can't have abortions and that the unmarried gays shouldn't adopt the babies that the non-aborting straights have.
The appeal of Ron Paul was his ideas, not his lovable ole' funeral director looks. So it's time for someone to grab those ideas, grab the organizational skill of herding a bunch of individualists and grab control of the damn Republican party right now... before I have to listen to Mike Huckabee's jokes, Mitt Romney's dumb advice or Sarah Palin's effin' voice for the next four years.
Follow Lee Stranahan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Stranahan
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The reason Republicans lost is because of Corruption or at least the "thought" of Corruption. In 2006 Mark Foley cost us the election. Even though he wasn't guilty, there was a presumption that people knew things and tried to cover it up. Then we also had people like Don Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez, Scooter Libby, Jack Abramhoff and others who also raised the suspicion and guilt of Corruption. Then in 2008 we lost because Ted Stevens and Larry Craig.
Republicans will always be able to win in the future. I hope Ron Paul is elected, but if not he can still be in our Party unlike the Democrats. We are a big tent Party which allows many different views. And while Ron may not be chosen now, he could be drawn from in the Future. That's why I'm proud to be a Republican.
Frankly we need to embrace Gay Marriage and Gay Rights as a Party. Many Gay/Lesbians have the same views as Republicans but are shut out because of our "religious" conservatives. Don't forget we do have LOG Cabin Republicans!
You lost because of incompetance and cronyism. you lost because your party promotes hate and division using fear as its favorite weapon, you lost because voters like you elected and reelected a President not up to the job at hand and who hired many of the people you mention. You lost because honesty and truth are not things you respect and honor. You lost for many, many reasons, Mark Foley is not one of them. You will continue to lose in the future because your ideas are stale, your view is archaic and you do not support and cherish the US Constitutiton. You will continue to lose in the future due to your insistance that your the "big tent" party even though facts more than prove that your leaders demand absolute obedience and set many barriers to entry. You will continue to lose into the future because America is changing and your party hates change.
jor,
Haven't you noticed that the 'pendulum' always swings back? Government always fails to deliver on it's promises and the party in charge gets booted.
Here is a small representation of what The Campaign for Liberty is up against...
http://www
(and don't for a minute think real progressives don't have a false left beast swinging a sword upon you).
You mean someone who might lean towards, oh say, a Teddy Roosevelt type of politics? Someone who might actually make it safe to vote Republican again? Someone who can pull in all those voters who are more concerned about individual rights and less about ramming their religion down other people's throats?
Those folks are going to be hard to find these days since most of them have finally defected away from the madness that was the Republican party of the last 14+ years. (Contract With America anyone?)
But yeah, the party is ripe for the pickin'.
Ron Paul WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!!!
http://cam
Ron Paul's problem is that the staff writers of GOSSIP GIRL have a better grasp on how real life works than Libertarians do. Libertarian philosophies only work when everyone's on the same side and abides by the rules; I tried reading THE PROBABILITY BROACH and saw a world where I could easily be a warlord because Libertarians erroneously believe people are good and someone obtaining military-grade weaponry for personal use doesn't raise suspicion. The world has changed significantly over the past 232 years, and the old ideas just don't fit anymore.
blackjac - that is a very weak assessment and even poorer argument. tyranny is the age-old way of the world. liberty (libertariansism, be it left or right) is new in historical terms. there is no reason we can not apply our roots and traditions once again. in fact, we have sporadically throughout our own history, but certainly not in the last 37 years.
and as far as your other statements, i don't think you have a clue about libertarianism, especially how it has tried to apply its principles within the framework of "modern" times.
you tell me...what is modern about imperialism, terror, opression, and financial slavery?
baaaaa baaaaaa baaa
You forget how resistant people can be to change, especially sudden change. CDs aren't that far removed from vinyl records. An iPod is just a really expensive Walkman. The F-22 looks a lot like the F-15 it's supposed to replace. And a home computer is just a step up from the typewriter.
This is the flaw with Libertarianism: it doesn't take human nature into account.
You say Gossip Girl has a better grasp on "real life" but yet you back this claim by saying that everyone has to be on the "same side" for Libertarianism to succeed. And this doesn't strike you as an overly simplistic, completely unrealistic view of the world? The implicit message being there are essentially two sides in life - good guys and bad guys? In essence, what you're saying, is Libertarianism wouldn't work because - although you're a good person - nobody else is to be trusted.
I would argue Libertarianism would be more successful if people were NOT on the "same side." Consider free market success and failure -- a Libertarian belief, it largely depends on competition to push companies to innovate, change when necessary and adopt better, more fluid business models. Unlike the dinosaurs the current system of tax breaks and subsidies has helped create out of the auto industry for example.
I'd have to respectfully disagree. Most people I meet are good people. Are thoughtful of other people. Don't intend on purposefully hurting others -- physically, emotionally or financially. There are always going to be "bad guys" but the system of governance in place doesn't matter to the corrupt -- they'll always get around the rules, regardless.
We need to concern ourselves with what benefits US MORE than what benefits THEM LESS.
And I hardly think the idea of personal liberty is an old idea that doesn't fit the world we live in anymore.
Nikola Tesla had similar beliefs. He was subsequently scammed by Westinghouse, his patents ripped off by Marconi, and his character essentially assassinated by Edison. No wonder he rejected the lifetime achievement award they later offered him.
A lot of people erroneously believe they'd be part of the ruling class of their ideal society, and you're one of those people. At best you'd be Waylon Smithers to some high-ranking VP because you lack the nefariousness required to become an executive. If I'm wrong about this, why did I find my copy of Musashi's BOOK OF FIVE RINGS in the Business section of Barnes & Noble?
Your homework for the long weekend is to read or watch all of the following:
* THE 48 LAWS OF POWER by Robert Greene
* WHAT MAKES SAMMY RUN? by Budd Schulberg
* The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition
* A#*HOLE by Martin Kihn
* the television show PROFIT
Spot on James.
Completely opposite..
I would love to see the GOP taken over by Old Right conservatives and anarcho-capitalist. I don't believe anarchist-
Religion however must be eliminated from the political arena. Religious zealots screwed the GOP for some while because of their intolerant, crazy belief system. It will be vital that the new GOP focuses on anarco-capitalistic markets and does not interfere with markets or have a Federal Reserve System of any kind.
After the GOP is made into a new kind of party, it will then be Socialism vs. Capitalism which is how it should be. It should not be crony corporatism vs. crony corporatism.
Absolutely agree.
The Republicans need to decide whether they will be conservative. Bush is no conservative. He's a radical who grew government, debt, and international expansiveness. He turned us to nation building and to international policing, all while borrowing large sums from the Chinese and the Saudis.
When did deficit spending become conservative? When did foreign adventurism become conservative? When did no-bid contracts become conservative? When did waste become conservative? When did big government become conservative? When did restriction of personal liberty and invation of privacy become conservative?
I can tie every one of these ideas to the Republican Party. I can't tie a single one to a conservative agenda or a conservative ideology.
If we're going have any real choice at the federal level, we need a Ron Paul. He is a smart man who relies on facts. I don't always agree with him, but I respect him. I can't say that for most of the Republican crop, a group that waves in the direction of the political wind, or, in the case of Palin, doesn't realize that the wind is blowing.
Same thing happened with every other post-Eisenhower Republican President. Campaign as a conservative and then once you get elected, flip the script and govern as a deficit spending, nation building fascist.
Doesnt Ron Paul want to end public education?
An educated labor pool is an expensive labor pool, as people with so much as a high school diploma think they're worth more than the shiny bottlecap a day they're being paid.
There is nothing in the federal constitution regarding public education. That function is left to states or individuals. ( 10th amendment). There are arguments out there that say private education does a better job than public education. The best universities are private. The presidents send their kids to private schools. It's a good argument that private schools are better than public schools. Pauls' libertarian ideas suggest that public education may be hindering private education. Many parents have to pay for both public education and private education. Can you come up with a solution that will allow families to send their kids to schools of their choice without being penalized financial? Its more about ending a state run monopoly on the education system. At the university level we have both private and public schools. Why can't we have an equal type of system at the lower grade levels?
There's nothing in the federal Constitution regarding the Air Force; what's your point?
Private schools do better because the kids have the motivation to do better--fail and you're expelled rather than held back a year. There's also no challenging grades in court or reclassifying wrong answers as "alternate theories."
no. he just doesn't want to give our money to the federal govt and have it wasted. he wants to keep it in the state where you have representation.
...not understanding that in a lot of "red" states, the only book allowed in class would be the bible.
You know what would be a really good school exercise - trace what happens to one tax dollar as it leaves your pocket book and travels through the bureaucracy of one government program to one program recipient. Breakdown by percentage how much gets attributed to things outside and inside the program like administration and associated costs.
They have all of the government documents in the library vaults at major state universities. Why not have the students do something really innovative and productive in their financial analysis classes for the taxpayers benefit? Surely, this would be better than having them study yet another Fortune 500 junk company.
You could make it a university challenge and see which team could do better research than their rival schools.
I'm guessing a good hard look at some of these numbers and you will be leading the charge for REAL CHANGE in the Education Program.
It's not really defensible to seek to run government unless you believe in the legitimacy of government.
Thats not a good argument. The libertarian ideas don't include eliminating the government. Where did you get that from? The libertarians disagree in what functions the government takes on. Many out there believe the government needs to be involved in every aspect of society and the world..The US military has to be involved in every minor dispute in every corner of the world. Libertarians have faith in people. Its Similar to what the Renaissance era felt about society during the 15th century. Before that time,society had to defer to the church and God. and in turn, the king. Renaissance thought changed the focus to individuals and their place in the world. Look how art changed during that time. Look at documents like the Magna Carte. The focus changed to human rights rather than the rights of the monarchy. Libertarians want the rights of individuals to be put ahead of the governments interests. Sort of what the constitution and Bill of Rights was all about.
Two words: "Hurricane Katrina."
Next time your house catches fire, don't call 911 to send the government's socialized and unconstitutional fire department like a nanny-state Tax & Spend liberal wants you to do. Instead put out a cost-plus RFQ for private contractors to bid on putting out the fire 'cause that method's worked so well in Iraq.
Better than taking over the party, they should just pack their bags and go over to the Libertarians. Leave the GOP and all its baggage to the theocrats and the neocons.
I disagree. There are numerous advantages to working within a major party. The whole system is designed to prevent the third parties from having any real power or influence. And the libertarian influence is a vast improvement over the theocrat and neocon baggage.
The Libertarians, while I can't agree with a lot of their ideas, are at least intelligent, for the most part, and fun to argue with (for the most part). I would love them to take over the GOP. At least we would have a "loyal opposition" again and I think that's very much needed. No party is immune to hubris and Democrats are no exception. Someone has to hold their feet to the fire in things such as the FISA vote.
Unfortunately, the radical religious types and the Neos show no inclination to leave and the GOP shows no inclination to kick them out either. Hopefully there will be at least some movement on this in the next few years.
The evangelicals took over the Republican party and look where it took the party. I say , kick out the Bible thumpers and grab another group. The Human Rights Campaign would be a good addition.
"There's a good reason that libertarians only get 3-5% of the popular vote. Most people know better."
Wrong. Most people don't know better, most people don't know at ALL. Or anything. Or even care enough to. Most people are ignorant, either willfully or just because. Most people do not have the capacity for independent thought and will form their personal and world views based on what someone else says. It just enters their brain and becomes part of the basis for what they think. And I always say, don't believe everything you think. And in today's mass media world, we're getting told a 100 different things and if you don't have the capacity for critical thought, you will that much more confused at what to believe and will either believe nothing or whatever you were told last. People are morons, they are clay, they are apathetic and they are pathetic. It's 5% of us dragging the rest of them and some days I honestly don't know how humanity has made it this far.
And most importantly, don't forget that people is a herd animal, acting in mobs, afraid to go against the group for fear of rejection from the tribe, where one is cast outside without food, shelter and protection from nature. Evolutionary biology and cognitive dissonance are the masters of the emotional reactionaries and lizard brain folk.
Sounds like you'd be happier living in China, Cuba or Myanmar.
That's hardly what Mars was saying and your comment was off-the-wall. Where did that come from? While I think Mars was a bit over the top, he is correct about a lot of it. Have you ever read Eric Hofer's "The True Believer?" It should be standard reading in school.
Ron Paul = the smartest man in the room. I get chub when I watch him school Bernanke on economic policy. And I could watch his primary debates all day. He is the only sane member of the ENTIRE Republican Party. And if they were all like him, America would be better for it. What a contrast between Dr. Paul and Rethugs like Bush, Palin and Guiliani. Bush is about as sharp as the edge of town, Palin is as sharp as a mashed potato sandwich and I have yet to hear anything other than partisan hackery come out of the mouth of Ghouliani (aka Max Schrek Jr.)
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell
I agree with you. However, it isn't difficult to be the "smartest man in the room" when the bar is set so low.
Survey has shown that Ron Paul has a 17% base in the party and 17% of Democrats also agree with his beliefs. That is a strong base to work off of including the other divisions within the party that would as a majority stay. I also believe there are many not voting that would vote on individual freedoms.
When America quits demonizing people or letting media form their ideas and sit down and find out for themselves what they truly believe. They will find they have much more in common.
In fact economicly speaking. I have more in common with APEC and China's opinion how to handle this world crisis. Socialistic states praising Austrian economics, who would have thought that and our candidates following Keneysian principles that have caused this national and world crisis. Even Greenspan who ran a Keneysian system wrote of his Austrian belief.
Unless Americans start investigating on their own, they will fall mesmerized by those who lead.
The problems or attitudes of man does not change. It is only if they do it on their own or as a nation, how hard they fall.
Individual freedom requires responsibilities and government takes responsibility in exchange for your freedom. It is your choice. The easiest way to obtain limited government is cut the funds of printing money with the federal reserve.
If men were honest, I would be an anarchist.
What's the sampling on that?
I'll admit to knowing little about economic schools of thought, but wasn't the Keynes philosophy the one followed by FDR? What do Greenspan and FDR have in common? Beside the fact that FDR worked to end a depression and Greenspan worked to start one.
Greenspan expressed "shock" that leaving huge pots of money laying around unguarded resulted in massive theft. Unbelievable.
Woodrow Wilson helps get it establishe
FDR uses Fed money to "end the depression", but actually ensures it by similar monetary policies we're seeing today. difference? we had gold backing then and were production based.
Keynesian is centralized banking, fiat currency..
WWII deficit spending gets us out of the great depression. our production and gold reserves helped pay the debt back.....k
Greenspan was a free-market believer in the 60s. He sold out. A free market can't even exist in a Fed Reserve, fiat system...t
Ike warns against the military industrial complex.
kennedy challenges the federal reserve.
1971 bretton woods breakdown.
Fed continues to bubble and burst. Purposeful, and you will realize that once you go down the rabbit hole.
www.endthe
www.campai
www.mises.
www.silver
"Allow me to issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the rules!" Amschel Rothschild
Look to our constitution ...gold and silver and only congress to issue money. congress
google: "money as debt", "new world order for dummies"
google: von mises or hayek. these economic philosophies support sovereignty, liberty and freedom.
I really don't want to be disrespect
to save space, i'll break it down in stacato and provide some links for you to research.
j.p. morgan in late 1800s gets with rothchilds, tries banking overthrow
j.p. and co meet secretely in 1911, The Creature from Jekyll Island (Federal Reserve) is formed.
We've been following Keynesian economics? News to me. What's our current infrastructure project?
China is a socialist country? Again, that's news - probably news to sweatshop wage-slaves too.
One of me problems with the libertarian ideology is their first instinct is to eliminate what they don't see working. They would take the axe to the Dept. of Education or the Federal Reserve instead of trying to fix them first. And they don't like to consider the consequences of their actions - reinstating the gold standard would halt economic growth causing problems for the increasing population and environment. I fear for the unborn children of Alabama if the only education they will receive is from Alabama. If the courts are my only means of defending the environment because my neighbors sold their land to big factory hog farmers, I'll be tied up in a long lasting legal battle because I doubt I can afford the legal representation they can.
What I'm getting at is the libertarian ideology gives too much reverence to negative freedom (freedom to) and ignores positive freedom (freedom from).
And there's my natural suspicion of authority figures in uniform. I can't be unafraid of a government whose main job is to provide those people, but not for the common welfare - it just looks like the perfect recipe for a military coup.
If you knew the history behind the federal reserve, I hope you wouldn't be saying that unless you want to impoverish our nation. This is the third central bank that has taken hold of our monetary system. All the presidents that have opposed the central bankers have been assassinated or have assassination attempts on them. Thomas Jefferson shut down the first central bank. Andrew Jackson shut down the second central bank and was shot at twice because of it. Abraham Lincoln started to print his own money called the "Greenback". The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 while the majority of congress was on vacation. JFK put forth legislation for a debt free currency. Do the math. It shouldn't be too hard. Here is a link if you would like to start some research and once you find the truth it will be your duty to spread it.
http://vid
and another link as a gift to all
http://vid
As for the department of education, since it's start, education has become worse. Why would we pay so much money, especially to the federal government to educate our youngsters. Reducing the size of government brings it closer to us so we the people can control it. Do you know what our constitutional republic stands for? I can help.
http://www
I had never heard of Ron Paul until this year. I started liking him because he was the only Republican who made sense during the primary debates. I started reading more about him, watching YouTube videos etc and liked a lot of what he had to say (as did many of my college-educated, extremely liberal Democratic friends). When I did more research though, I realized that aside from the Iraq war and a few other topics, I vehemently disagreed with the majority of his other positions (like his round-up-a
even now, it's important to correct the mis-representations concerning Dr. Paul's positions Here is Dr. Paul's position on Immigration and Border Security:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods
It's pure hypocrisy, to be honest. He's all for open borders and free trade, but only for big business. It's just pandering to the wealthy interests in the corporate world, allowing them to continue employing millions for pennies a day, while preventing those same people from making a move to a place where they would have more opportunities.
Additionally, we need illegal immigrants to run our economy. If we don't have illegal immigrants taking care of our children, how will we have wealthy families? One-parent breadwinners aren't wealthy in this country, unless that one parent happens to be one in a million. How will we be able to afford our food or landscape our homes? Regardless of our minimum wage laws and job standards, illegal immigrants will work for less, and for longer hours in harsher conditions. Without that, we wouldn't be able to afford any of our own fruit or vegetables. We wouldn't be able to afford our new homes or nice lawns. Our nation is dependent these people for our welfare.
I agree that illegal immigration is out of control and has been for a very long time. The employers of illegals are the ones to blame for this, aren't they? Aren't they breaking the law? They are the ones that need prosecution, but aside from a few "wrist slaps" that just doesn't happen. Sort of like rounding up a few prostitutes just before election time to prove a "tough on crime" stance.
"No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That"s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws."
And how, exactly, do you propose we round up 10-20 million people and deport/jail them? The answer to all of this is not simple and must be dealt with in a sane and compassionate way.
I am a big Ron Paul supporter ( his ideas not the man), I can't support his ideas on immigration as explained on this page. If those are his ideas , he is only stating that we need to enforce those laws that are on the books now and not ignore existing laws. To have the executive branch decide what laws they want to enforce and what laws they ignor is the definition of a Police State. If such is the case , I would support changing immigration laws. I would liberalize them and make them more humane.
queotic's post does not express Dr. Pauls position on immigration. His position is available here:
http://www
The following are my understanding of Dr. Paul's positions on this issue and are not direct quotes. Any errors are mine only.
Paul does not support rounding up immigrants and deporting them as described above.
Paul opposes the incentives for illegal immigration.
Paul believes the law should be followed and the congress must decide on that law.
Paul has proposed an amendment to the constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship. Why? because some believe the 14th amendment guarantees it. Paul believes the only way to change the constitution is thru the amendment process.
Paul believes that because the economy is so bad, that illegal workers have been made the scapegoats. If our economy was booming, workers from South of our border would be a problem because they would be needed.
You know, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was a (much, MUCH better) book before it was a movie. And seeing how the movie was quite good... You didn't need to bring an Jack Nicholson.
One thing you didn't mention: If the GOP went to the ilk of Ron Paul, it would force some actual debate in Washington. That alone is reason enough for me to support this idea, even if I wouldn't like them in power (I have to admit though, they are better than our current Republicans).
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
