More Active Posts
Front Page
Whither thou, Ron?
 |
 6 Comments |
What happened to the Ron Paul Revolution? He raised more money than any Republican in the fourth quarter of 2007, and he hasn’t dropped out, although he has conceded that winning isn’t possible.
But even if Paul’s ideological purity is never going to get him to the White House, it does help illuminate the impurities - and sometimes the hypocrisies - of today’s Republicans, just as Ralph Nader can do for the Democrats. The G.O.P. candidates all claimed to defend taxpayers, but Paul was the only one who refused to accept a taxpayer-funded pension or taxpayer-funded junkets. The candidates all talked about shrinking big government, but Paul was the only one who included the Pentagon and NSA wiretaps and petroleum subsidies in his definition. Bush’s approval ratings have been abysmal for years, but Paul was the only Republican who really campaigned for change.
When Nader stole votes from Gore and cost him the election, the Democrats tried to pay attention, but they never really did. Ron Paul has stolen a lot of hearts away from the Republican candidates. For the sake of conservatism, let’s hope we pay attention to that.
 |
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: politics |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
One more diversion
Uh…Ron Paul IS a republican candidate. That’s part of his “revolution”; redefining the neocon meaning of “republican.” Ron Paul knows the third party option doesn’t work. He’s been there, done that.
Regarding the OTHER republican candidates, they didn’t really have the hearts of those people to begin with. For them, it was usually a matter of “voting for the lesser of two evils.” There is no heart in that; no conviction.
Ron Paul revolution will continue as a grass roots movement. Everyone knows Ron Paul won’t be around forever. I just received an email regarding a local group that wants to establish a network/organization for “liberty minded” republicans.
“When Nader stole votes from Gore and cost him the election, . . .”
I basically reject the idea that one candidate “steals” votes from another, whether it is Nader and Gore, Huckabee and Romney, or any others. Ron Paul appeared on “Coast to Coast” a few nights ago. It seemed to me that his supporters who called in didn’t really understand his positions aside from his opposition to the war. They aren’t your average Republicans.
“For the sake of conservatism, let’s hope we pay attention to that.”
So, Harrison, are you a true conservative?
Do you want to:
1. conserve deficit spending
2. conserve keynesian economics
3. conserve U.S. foreign meddling
4. conserve the rate of government expansion?
Really, why would you do ANYTHING “for the sake of conservatism.” Do whatever you do because it’s the right thing to do. If you believe the above four examples are right, then speak in those terms, not “for the sake of conservatism.”
k., yeah, whatever. Callers on “Coast to Coast” are also not necessarily your average Ron Paul supporter.
Wow, a Ron Paul thread on WoW with 100% of comments favorable toward him? That in itself is proof the Ron Paul rEVOLution is outliving the candidate. When is the last time anyone but academics talked about monetary policy? Not in my lifetime. Who was the last candidate to mention the Just War Theory of Christianity in a presidential candidate debate? Even Fox News is beginning to ask if it is Time to Listen to Ron Paul.
Wiglaf is absolutely correct. Do what is right, not what conserves the status quo. Ron Paul has taken aim at the most grievous public error of our day: idolatry of the state. I can’t support all of his positions, but I am thankful for Ron Paul’s refreshing voice in politics. He will be remembered longer than any of the other presidential candidates, Republican or Democrat, except, perhaps, the one who gains notoriety by winning the Whitehouse.
Here’s an interesting post from an American blogging from Europe. BTW, I’ve observed the same thing that he has …