Interesting article as to why the GOP establishment is against Ron Paul

Discussion in 'The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr' started by Awtoman, Dec 21, 2011.

  1. Awtoman

    Awtoman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    544
    Location:
    Middle Tennessee
    http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul-hes-conservative

    It makes sense to me.

    Tom


    US Representative Ron Paul, R-Tx., gives a speech after announcing his plans to seek the Republican nomination for president at the town hall, Friday, May 13, 2011 in Exeter, New Hampshire. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

    DUBUQUE: Ron Paul represents the ideology that Republican insiders most fear: conservatism.

    Not the corrupt, inside-the-beltway construct that goes by that name, but actual conservatism.

    And if he wins the Iowa Republican Caucus vote on January 3—a real, though far from certain, prospect—the party bosses will have to do everything in their power to prevent Paul from reasserting the values of the “old-right” Republicans who once stood, steadily and without apology, in opposition to wars of whim and assaults on individual liberty.

    Make no mistake, the party bosses are horrified at the notion that a genuine conservative might grab the Iowa headlines from the false prophets. Already, they are claiming a Paul win won’t mean anything. If Paul prevails, says Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, “People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states.”

    The party’s amen corner in the media is doing its part. Republican-insider radio and television programs have begun to go after Paul, the veteran congressman from Texas who is either leading or near the top in recent polls of likely caucus goers. Rush Limbaugh ridicules Paul on his radio show, while Sean Hannity’s Fox show has become a nightly Paul-bashing fest, with guests like former Education Secretary Bill Bennett trashing the congressman with lines like: “his notion of foreign policy is impossible.”

    Actually, Paul’s notion of foreign policy is in line with that of conservatives used to believe. The congressman is often referred to as a libertarian, and he has certainly toiled some in that ideological vineyard. But the truth is that his politics descend directly from those of former Ohio Senator Robert “Mr. Republican” Taft and former Nebraska Congressman Howard Buffett—old-right opponents of war and empire who served in the Congress in the 1940s and 1950s and who, in Taft’s case, mounted credible bids for the party’s presidential nomination in 1940, 1948 and finally in 1952. In all three campaigns, Taft opposed what he described as the “Eastern establishment” of the party—the Wall Streeters who, he pointedly noted, had little in common with Main Streeters.

    Taft was a steady foe of American interventionism abroad, arguing very much as Paul does today that it threatens domestic liberty. Indeed, just as Paul joined US Senator Russ Feingold in opposing the Patriot Act, spying on Americans and threats to freedom of speech and assembly in the first days of what would become an open-ended “war on terror,” so Taft warned during the cold war that “criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government.”

    “The maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country…more good than it will do the enemy,” explained Taft, who challenged President Truman’s attempts to use war powers as an excuse to seize domestic industries and otherwise expand what Dwight Eisenhower would eventually define as the military-industrial complex.

    Buffett, the father of billionaire Warren, opposed military interventionism during the cold war era, declaring on the floor of the House: “Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics.”

    When the threat of increased US involvement in Vietnam arose in the early 1960s, the elder Buffett wrote in William F. Buckley’s National Review: “When the American government conscripts a boy to go 10,000 miles to the jungles of Asia without a declaration of war by Congress (as required by the Constitution) what freedom is safe at home? Surely, profits of U.S. Steel or your private property are not more sacred than a young man’s right to life.”

    Just as Ron Paul has consistently opposed free-trade deals and schemes to enrich government contractors, the elder Buffett railed against the crony capitalism of his day. “There are businesses that are being enriched by national defense spending and foreign handouts,” Buffett warned in 1948. “These firms, because of the money they can spend on propaganda, may be the most dangerous of all. If the Marshall Plan meant $100 million worth of profitable business for your firm, wouldn’t you Invest a few thousands or so to successfully propagandize for the Marshall Plan? And if you were a foreign government, getting billions, perhaps you could persuade your prospective suppliers here to lend a hand in putting that deal through Congress.”

    Buffett campaigned in 1952 to nominate Taft as the Republican candidate for president. That effort was opposed by the Wall Street speculators and banksters of the day, and it failed—although not without a serious fight that went all the way to the GOP convention.

    After his defeat, Taft griped, “Every Republican candidate for President since 1936 has been nominated by the Chase National Bank.”

    That was the pure voice of old-right conservatism speaking.

    It is echoed now by Ron Paul, who makes no secret of his high regard for Taft, Buffett and the old-right Republicans of the past, and of his disregard for the neocons and crony capitalists of today. Paul is running ads that propose to “drain the swamp,” a reference to the insider-driven politics of a Washington where Republicans such as Gingrich maintain the sort of pay-to-play politics that empties the federal treasury into the accounts of campaign donors and sleazy government contractors.

    Paul’s ideological clarity scares the wits out of the Republican mandarins who peddle the fantasy that the interventionism, the assaults on civil liberties and the partnerships that they have forged with multinational corporations and foreign dictators represent anything akin to true conservatism.

    The problem that Limbaugh, Hannity and other GOP establishment types have with Paul is that the Texan really is a conservative, rather than a neoconservative or a crony capitalist who would use the state to maintain monopolies at home and via corrupt international trade deals.

    Paul’s pure conservatism puts him at odds with a party establishment that has sold out to Wall Street and multinational corporations. But it has mad an increasingly iconic Republican with a good many of the grassroots activists who will attend the caucuss.

    The disconnect between the disdain the establishment expresses with regard to Paul and his appeal to the base is easily explained.

    The GOP establishment chooses partisanship over principle. The base does not necessarily do so.

    In other words, while the party establishment and its media echo chamber reject the Main Street conservatism of the Taft’s and Buffetts, there are many grassroots Republicans in Iowa towns like Independence and Liberty Center (where Paul campaign signs are very much in evidence) who find Paul’s old-right conservatism quite appealing.

    That is what frightens Republican party leaders. The notion that the Grand Old Party might actually base its politics on values, as opposd to pay-to-play deal-making, unsettles the Republican leaders who back only contenders who have been pre-approved by the Wall Street speculators, banksters and corporate CEOs who pay the party’s tab—and kindly pick up some of the bills for the Democrats, as well.

    What do the party insiders fear about genuine conservatism? Above all, they fear that a politics of principle might expose the fact that the Republican Party has for decades been at odds with the conservative values and ideals of Americans who do not want theirs to be a warrior nation that disregards civil liberties and domestic economics in order to promote Wall Street’s globalization agenda.

    Ron Paul is not a progressive. He takes stands on abortion rights and a number of other issues that disqualify him from consideration by social moderates and liberals, and his stances on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and labor rights (like those of the author of the Taft-Hartley Act) are anathema to economic justice advocates. But Paul cannot be dismissed as just another robotic Republican. Indeed, he is more inclined to challenge Republican orthodoxy on a host of foreign and fiscal policy issues than Barack Obama. He does so as something that is rare indeed at the highest levels of American politics: a conservative.

    And if he wins Iowa, he could begin a process of transforming the Republican Party into a conservative party.

    That scares the Republican bosses who currently maintain the party concession on behalf of the Wall Streeters. But it, if the polls are to be believed, it quite intrigues the folks on Main Street who may be waking up to the fact that the “conservatism” of a Newt Gingrich or a Mitt Romney is a sham argument designed to make the rich richer and to make the rest of us pay for wars of whim and crony-capitalist corruption.

    * John Nichols
  2. raven818

    raven818 Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    7,694
    Location:
    Jax, Fl.
    Bottom line. He can't win the nomination. If he goes independent, any chance of taking control of the white house by a republican, is down the tubes. And there's not a living being in the States that doesn't know that. Including his base of supporters.
  3. Awtoman

    Awtoman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    544
    Location:
    Middle Tennessee

    That's a pretty broad statement. I don't know if he can win the nomination or not, but he's leading in Iowa and I don't believe all the Ron Paul supporters live in Iowa. If your saying he can't win, no way no how, before the process even plays out, that would indicate a concerted high level effort to prevent it from happening. I know all the media says he can't win the nom., but that seems to me to be a ridiculous statement unless they know something we know......which they don't.

    Tom
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  4. Awtoman

    Awtoman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    544
    Location:
    Middle Tennessee
    Sorry, DP
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  5. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,446
    I think a lot of people are waking up to Paul's message, that we need to get back to the Constitution.... but unfortunately, Ron Paul is getting long in the tooth, he's not as sharp as he was 10 or 20 years ago.

    I don't know how many people watched the Huckabee show a couple of weekends ago, but I was kinda disappointed in Ron Paul's performance. The preceeding speaker (I think it was Santorum?) had already brought up the issue of the 17th Amendment. The moderators asked Ron Paul which amendment(s) he considered to be most harmful, but he didn't name any.... instead, he launched into his "standard" answer of upholding the Constitution.

    Sorry to say, he seemed a bit confused in my opinion.
  6. raven818

    raven818 Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    7,694
    Location:
    Jax, Fl.
    Listening to Fox today. They said many in the race, obviously, will drop out.
    But, only after they get a front-runner to agree with some of the talking points, that they feel are the most important. Like true transparency in DC, Obamacare, lessen regulation on business', etc..

    If a working relationship like that could be done in the inner circles, we could wind up with a president who could get us off the socialist track, and on our way back to an America we all recognize, and are proud of.
  7. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,446
    Or we could wind up with a pres who "promised" to do all those great things, when his intentions were quite different.

    Words are cheap. Look at their histories.
  8. Gun Geezer

    Gun Geezer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,048
    Location:
    Central Florida
    There hasn't been a president in recent memory who kept any of his promises. A liar's a liar no matter what side of the aisle he sits on and in my opinion not worthy of sitting in the oval office.
  9. raven818

    raven818 Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    7,694
    Location:
    Jax, Fl.
    Folks, we, as a nation, must have hope. Without it, why bother at all. My family, in reality, doesn't have a clue of who I really am inside. Nobody really knows anybody.

    The only thing we can do, is place ourselves in the hands of those who pull the reins. And hope for a better future.

    Giving up on the system, throwing your hands in the air is a defeatist attitude. I will never take part in it. And, I refuse to believe the American people, as a whole, believe we are all doomed.
  10. Prizefighter

    Prizefighter New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    412
    Location:
    North Carolina
    What can I say? I like Ron Paul, I really do. I like his politics, and I like what he stands for. But I have to agree, he's a long, long shot for the nomination. And given that I don't believe he could beat Obama, I don't think I'd want him to win the nomination, anyway. You don't start with your B-squad at the championship game.

    He can't beat Republicans. It was obvious that the Republicans didn't want him long before reading this article. And if he can't win over his own party, what chance would he have at winning over voters on the fence?

    He can't beat Obama. An Obama defeat is going to take a colossal effort - no half-hearts allowed. Regardless of his actual performance, I'm sure Obama is still thought of as the Great Black Hope by a disappointingly large portion of the country. That's in addition to the normal left-right split. I know at least one otherwise unabashed conservative who voted for Obama because he "couldn't tell his grandchildren he didn't vote for the first 'black' president."

    He can't beat himself. His first failed run at the big chair was twenty-three years ago. He's a "radical" conservative. He's 76. The media has everything they need.

    I wish I could vote for him, but the climate just isn't there. But, I do want to see his politics in the future. After he loses this latest run, he needs to start grooming a young gun to take up the mantle.
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2011
  11. redwing carson

    redwing carson Former Guest

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    Messages:
    734
    Location:
    western wyoming
    Paul was on the Lefty Letterman show last night. The Left Wing Wac Jobs sure like him. He is more of a Comic candidate to most conseritives. The RNC has left its Conservitive base out in the cold. They have chosen the weakest slate I have ever seen. The RNC wants Slick Romney the Liberal Eastern Gov. who is an Antigun politico. The RNC seems to be ignoring the 2 Amendment people all together.:rolleyes:
  12. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,053
    Location:
    South Carolina
    I like Paul. With that said, every time I see him in a public appearance I think of a caricature. His presence is not to be taken very seriously based on his body language. I agree that this means little to intellect, however it means a LOT to real leadership ability on the world stage, however unfair that may be. The guy has no stage presence worthy of respect. Do we want that? Really?
  13. Gun Geezer

    Gun Geezer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,048
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Unfortunately, a candidates physical presence is how many voters choose their option. JFK is a prime example. He was young, handsome and had a comely wife. Candidates like Ron Paul and Ross Perot have 3 strikes against them from the get-go. If we had had TV in the 1800's, Abe Lincoln would've never been elected. It's not right, but it is what it is and nothing they say is gonna change it. OK, Jimmy Carter was an anomaly, but we all know how that turned out.
  14. Prizefighter

    Prizefighter New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    412
    Location:
    North Carolina
    It's been said many times before that FDR could never get elected in our time. In the age of cellphone cameras, there's no way he would have been able to hide the fact that he needed a wheelchair, and that would have been too much for the public to swallow.

    It's a prime example of a popularity contest. Watching campaign coverage feels like watching American Idol to me.
  15. carver

    carver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    16,416
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just we
    The American people as a whole don't have a clue!

    Which one of the GOP candidates stands the best chance of beating Obozo at the polls? Think about this one for a moment! 48% of Americans are on welfare, or SSI disability, they aren't going to vote Republican! 50% of the rest of America are either Socialist, or Comunists, and none of them are going to vote Republican! Now where does that leave America as a whole?
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2011
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Interesting article about BHO'mother's passport Apr 8, 2013
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr There's some interesting items in this article Dec 23, 2012
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Interesting article on Court decision Jul 2, 2012
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Interesting article on poverty and Democrats... And from CNN!?!?!? Aug 21, 2008
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Interesting open carry story in Texas Apr 10, 2014

Share This Page